Replies

I totally agree. The pro Bush folks keep hammering on us saying that we have no choice and could never win that fight.

Maybe. (Of course if we had a Senate Majority Leader we could be a bit more confident...but that again goes back to Frist being teh White House's man). But...being true is sometimes better than winning. So we put up Luttig and lose. I think that's a fight we could be proud of and we can know that the legacy of losing that fight is further energizing to us down the road...geez...it's been 20 years since Bork and we are still fired up about that!!!

We shouldn't forget that Reagan attempted something great with a minority in the Senate.

Another point has been brewing with me today. There have been several books over the last two or 3 years which talk about "trust" and "credibility" as a character trait a CEO must have. GWB is supposed to be the consummate CEO, Harvard MBA and all that. Maybe he's not that much of a genius after all, b/c he or someone has failed to see that their abandonment of the conservative positions domestically has left him looking very, very untrustworthy, to put it politely. And it appears that he didn't know that that would spill over into this selection.

In that regard, this whole mess demonstrates a huge miscalculation and a big failure of leadership - or, rather, the logical result of an ongoing failure. Of course if the rocket scientists in the White House had understood this, they could have gone for a fight and got back a lot of that value. The timing would have been perfect.

Imagine...nominate JRB only a few weeks after a speech on Katrina that will live in infamy. ("institutional racism" and all that). Now THAT would have been brilliant.

And talk about uniting the conservative movement and leading them into battle.....that would have been fun, and would have helped us in 2006.

I'm with you, for sure. I'm trying to settle in with the idea that perhaps the president just felt he didn't have a majority to get one of the names mentioned confirmed. Further more he didn't feel he had a majority leader with a fire in his belly that would scream and hoot and holler about it.

Not trying to plug anything here, I started a blog on Saturday night (just for myself honestly and to send to a friend, here or there) and I wrote about my desire to see Brown nominated.

http://buckeyeblogsite.blogspot.com/

I wrote about something similar you mentioned regarding Brown only I took the path that it would silence those who were screaming for a woman or a minority (the left) and it would make all or most conservatives happy. Now, when I say it would silence them, only in a 'surface' way, of course they would blow up D.C. if he had done that...

I understand you want a fight no matter what. I dont.

My goal is to get conservative justices who will interpret and not legislate. I don't care if they are the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I don't care if they are articulate. I don't care whether they went to Harvard or the Acme Night School of Legal Knowledge. I want a constructionist court, period.

Now, you may be happy in losing a fight over principles so that your candidate is reduced to being a consultant on cable shows for the next 20 years. That's not exactly a winning position, in my opinion.

I guess it is a difference in goals, when you come right down to it. I'm sorry so many thought the President wanted a fight. He wants dependable contructionist judges. He saves fighting for Islamofascists.