The corrupting influence of the Washington Establishment

My ideas ^ | 10/5/2005 | Keith Curtis

[KeithCu]

This is my first post to FreeRepublic, but I've been reading it for years and met a few at CPAC 2005! ---- I watched Bush's press conference today and he said over and over again that he picked Harriet Miers because she's not going to change.

I think he may be telling us about the corrupting influence of the Washington establishment.

The question is why so many Supreme Court nominees change when they get nominated? Since Nixon, the GOP has nominated Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and they all became libs. Why did this happen?

Also, why are so many of the long-time Republicans RI! NOs? McCain, Specter, Powell, Collins, Snowe, Hagel, Voinovich Shayes, Wittman, etc. And the Democrats in DC are more liberal than the Democrats in the rest of the country. National Review is based in DC and New York and many of those guys don't support Bush on most of his domestic agenda and neither does CATO.

I can imagine that Supreme Court nominees and other conservatives in Washington are surrounded by liberals as part of their daily life, and those ideas tend to rub off on them.

If that is true, then he picked someone he knew he could trust on this 20 year assignment.

I also don't know how many of the other candidates weren't Christian?

[KeithCu]

What do you all think?

[Ninian Dryhope]

You make some good points.

I think this is a vanity and should be posted in chat.

[agere_contra]

I think Washington is a corrosive environment: picking people who have deeply-held principles certainly makes sense. IF Harriet is such a person then this pick is a jewel. If not, well...

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting. A big WELCOME ABOARD!

[normy]

This is a good point. Bush knows how corrupting Washington can be, I believe thats a top reason he chose Meirs and Roberts. Roberts had been around DC for a good while but had not forgotten who he was and Bush liked that.

[rpellegrini]

The same is true of the Weekly Standard which is also based in Washington. I used to subscribe to it but lately it has started to sound way too elitist in its tone. The last straw was when Bill Kristol came out against the "nuclear option."

[sure_fine]

I think once in, they forget what it is to be human
they forget what it is like to have to earn an income
they are set for life and earning and performing on a daily bases is just nothing to be concerned with anymore

[Coldwater Creek]

Power corrupts!!!!

[Liberty Wins]

Stinking, left-wing Ivy League law clerks.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"O’Sullivan’s First Law" states that

"All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."

Which is just another way of stating the fact that people with the courage and principle to resist the bullying of "objective" journalism will be labeled "right-wing."

Nobody is objective - least of all people who actually think that they are objective. Journalists are negative, superficial, arrogant and timid. IOW, journalists are left-wing bullies.

"Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate