Posted on 10/05/2005 12:57:14 PM PDT by jmaroneps37
Amen to that!
I saw Conan the Barbiarian the other night. It was eerie how similar the Cult of Bush and the Cult in that movie are. GWB has made some incredibly foolish mistakes, yet dare anyone say or you are a troll or DU'er. Its ridiculous, we should demand greatness, not excuse mediocrity.
Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home...
Show the RINO's that we are all talk and no action. That's a good plan.
And then there are people who believe that when the get a "win", it is merely evidence of a subtle plot against them.
Five or so people on this post asked you to please tell us what the evidence is that makes Miers an "originalist." We're still waiting...
It is working. We are having a say.
Folks, just remember this -- Dick Morris is NOT ABOUT PRINCIPLES. He is about WINNING at ANY COST, even if you have to sell what you believe in in the process.
He was the one who advised Clinton ( someone who has little principles ) how to triangulate and win.
Also know this --- Dick Morris looks at issues from the prism of POLLS ! or how the public views it.
All he wants to see is what someone has to do to win elections ( even when he has to do something ultimately harmful to the country to do it ).
This man is all about style, not substance.
You don't need to. It is a principled position to be against a blank slate who never would have been considered if not for being a suck-up to the President. I have already called my Senators and told them to vote no.
Sure, but we aren't taking the field, there is a good chance that we will be giving it up. We took the field without a fight on Roberts.
There are right ways and wrong ways to do things and certain conservatives are approarching this the wrong way. At the very least we should temper the hysteria until a bit more is known about this nominee. Most of the indications so far have been good. Most of the potential problems with her have been debunked. Bush's nominess so far have been stellar, Considering his past record on judicial nominess I am willing to give W the benefit of the doubt untill evidence exists to the contrary. Should that happen I'll jump on the bash Bush bandwagon but not sooner.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that before. What did he lie about?
For starter's I will not be volunteering in 2006. Why? Give me one good reason? 58 GOP senators? They will still have an excuse why they do nothing.
For GWB? I am of the opinion now that he is Clinton-lite without the cigar and blue dress on most issues. He earned our bad feelings on immigration, spending, CFR, drug bill, education bill, and all the other "conservative" bills he has signed into law.
It just seems the more hollaring indignation by the conservative base, the more Dingy Harry et al, like the pick.
his philosophy I guess - Levin mentions it on his radio show. says it quite bluntly.
Huh?
I would tend to agree with you, but, I still want her defeated. Jonah Goldberg said it today better than I can, so I will quote from him:
The more I think about it, the more I think there's something inherently corrupt about the "she's a reliable vote" argument. I'm not singling any reader, blogger or activist out because this argument tends to reside amidst a lot of other arguments and other rhetoric. At its core, the "reliable vote" argument suggests that that's all that matters -- a conservative vote. Without casting aspersions on others, that's not good enough for me (and it may be grotesquely unfair to Miers). If all that's required is a reliable vote, National Review and the Heritage Foundation have plenty of interns who will do just fine. As George Will writes this morning, Bush's pick of Miers smacks of identity politics (a point several of us have made around here) and how it suggests that Bush sees the Court as a representative body. The reliable vote argument is imbedded in this view of the court. It says that arguments and due dilligence don't matter. What matters is that "our side" gets its voice on the Court, period.
This sounds to me a bit like the "results-oriented conservatism" some on the web are touting in Miers' defense. Who needs all that pointy-headed intellectual stuff if at the end of the day she votes the same way? (I assume some of these people defended Clarence Thomas against the charge that he's Scalia's sidekick. But why bother if the vote is all that matters?) Conservatives, I thought, were supposed to believe ideas have consequences, that American institutions -- chief among them the Supreme Court and the Constitution -- have specific and organic roles to play in the culture which depend on intellectual honesty, opposition to cant, and a dispassionate rejection of the politicization of the law. The reliable vote argument -- absent other rationales -- runs counter to all of these. This becomes obvious when you imagine a Democratic President appointing a confidante with few obvious credentials for the Supreme Court. A president Kerry could hardly convince any of us that his pick should be confirmed because she's a reliable vote.
This is not to say I am against reliable votes on the court, but the reason why they are reliable is to me vitally important. Scalia and Thomas are fairly reliable votes because they have a grounding in philosophy and an intellectual consistency that even their greatest critics respect (at least in the case of Scalia; Thomas still gets unfair treatment). Miers may have these qualities too. There's simply little to no evidence that she does at this point. I for one hope she reveals herself as a grander intellect than her detracters claim she is. I hope she reveals herself to be more than a reliable vote.
You know what I mean. Do I have to be explicit?
I agree.
Levin looks at things from the perspective of a constitutional lawyer.
Morris just looks at things from the perspective of a James Caarville. He'd sell his own mother for votes if he were managing a political campaign. Savy guy, but no principles.
Morris is an EXTREMELY wierd, toe-sucking, ass-kissing (he'll kiss demonRAT OR Republican ass), KNOW-IT-ALL, "MODERATE" political hack that doesn't know when to shut the hell up (like when an intelligent, informed, conservative like Levin is trying to make some important points).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.