Posted on 10/06/2005 2:24:09 AM PDT by AntiGuv
That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.
The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.
The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
That comment was meant to be facetious! I probably should've tagged it, but I figured it was obvious sarcasm, but I guess it's hard to tell these days.....
There were freepers on other threads describing those who question the nomination as "barking moondbats" so I was poking fun at them.
"Yes, it's too bad that conservatives are the opposition."
- Conservatives aren't the real opposition. The real opposition is coming from the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party who look on politics as some sort of gladiatorial combat to the death instead of being, "the art of the possible".
After all, political decisions should benefit all citizens, not just the ones who voted for the Party in power and to hell with the others who didn't.
Sorry but this is not a true statement. I came to TX in 1961 and found myself the only Republican in the state. However, these Democrats were not liberals and many were really Reps in action. Needless to say, over time these Dems changed parties, as did HM and today TX is very Rep.
That is the entire question, not just the part, isn't it?.
Do I?
Honestly, I don't know.
Bush sems to think so and that's all anyone knows at this point in time. Those closest to her speak the highest of her and her abilities.
So, "Chicken Little" speculation that she is a dim bulb and conservatives have been derailed is quite premature at this point. Her nomination is a leap of faith, when others would not have been so, that I'll concede. Her abilities to become one of the finest are yet to be determined. But cynicism isn't warranted at this time.
On these threads, anyone who disagrees with this nominee is either a moonbat, a whiner, a troll, an elitist snob or something less than a conservative. After this confirmation, regardless of how it goes, the GOP will need the support of those moonbats and elitists that you and others so easily dismiss. You will continue to march in lockstep, but you will find that your numbers have dwindled considerably.
bttt
When it comes to seating a SCOTUS Justice, I'd rather have a discussion, debate and fight over constitutional principle than over whatever issues "stealth" and charges of cronyism bring to the table. So count me among those not getting the fight I wanted - I wanted a different fight, if a fight there must be.
But there shouldn't even be a fight, if judicial restraint and/or Presidential prerogative were respected by the DEMs and RINOs. Heck, even the GOP-lead Senate acts lilly-livered, tolerating the abuse of cloture to stiff the President.
Does seem to be the wrong way to fight a battle, doesn't it?
Destroy your army, so you can't fight the war.
Maybe nobody cares that 2006 is an election year and Bush ain't runnin' for nuthin'.
The problem's not the criticism it's the claims that conservatives should abandon the Republican party. That's just completely stupid. The Republican party is the vehicle for conservatism in America and conservatives should work at the primary level in it. Any other party that could be created would not be competitive and would throw elections to the Democrats. If it ever became a national party it would simply be the same old thing again because most Americans simply are not interested enough to demand strict conservative policies thus another party could not stay pure and remain important. The American people are too easily bought and demagogued. It's always a struggle to win their minds because the Democrats can so easily win their hearts and appeal to their fears in my opinion.
It probably sucks to see that this nominee is getting no support. So you brand anyone who dissents an elitist, a moonbat, or whatever. The fact is that free thinking conservatives wanted to get behind the POTUS on this selection and he let them down. This is a republic not an oligarchy. These guys are supposed to represent us. When they don't we let them know and they are supposed to respond. That's the process.
Nope, wrong. She was a Democrat. Heck, Zell Miller still is and I'd vote for him for SCOTUS. In the 80's in some parts of the south there were 2 parties. Conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats. Carter drove some out of the party, Reagan captured a bunch of the Conservative Democrats, we Southern Republicans have been making progress on the rest for a while. Not all 1980's Democrats were liberals so be careful with that assumption or you risk alienating a significant portion of the Red State base to say nothing of misrepresenting the case on Miers.
"it is becoming clear who the conservatives are"
This is about useful as claiming who the real Christians are or who the real Muslims are. Kirk refuted that conservatives are dogmatic or could be easily pinned down. I think what you mean is "it is becoming clear what the right-wing is" or something like that.
Many of those opposing this nominee are deeply religious people. We do not march in lock step just because Dobson gives his blessing. He is not the pope of evangelicals.
"Barking moonbat"? The quote you provided from Ms. Noonan is truthful and straightforward: nobody knows how Ms. Meirs will be on the bench. Instead of pointing out why you think that is wrong, you resort to name-calling. Apparently that that is all you have to offer.
It was sarcasm! I didn't think it needed a tag.. Actually, it's kind of telling that some people are taking it seriously. Shows what FR has come to these days..
If Janice Rogers Brown were the nominee the acclaim would be virtually unanimous around here. Just something to ponder..
-bump-
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.