Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?
The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.
In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.
"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."
Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.
Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.
Yes, he was the Head of the College Of Cardinals before being elevated into the Papacy.
Try not to overinflate your importance; it's not 25 percent of Freepers who are doing the carping here.
But it IS the ones who are continually harping about SOMETHING, ANYTHING that doesn't go their way.
And as I said, most of them never supported Bush in the first place.
You don't even pretend to care about insulting 25% of the poll respondents on FR, or the effects that has on debate and discussion here.
I don't suppose you consider it an insult to imply that the other 75 percent of us who don't agree with this mad rush to judgment and condemenation you all are so hell bent on are not "real" or "true" conservatives, and don't care or know about the Constitution or moral values or the United States Supreme Court, blah blah blah, right?
Leaving a potentially deadlocked court? This possibility makes the choice all the worse.
WOOF WOOF THAT CHARLATAN BUSH DONE GOT ME BUT GOOD
Leftist, man, stone cold hard core Leftism. Shoot, don't forget Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse Tsung. "But not ME, I am not lying! They were, not me!!" That is what every last one of those guys said, troop.
Who knows? Who can know, accept Ms. Miers herself?
The recusal issue is significant. What happens when Miers cannot protect us because of her prior work protecting us?
An absolute lie; she didn't know until Sunday night.
In other words, Ratzinger was a known quantity before his elevation to the papacy.
If you don't have the answer to that question, you'll either willfully obtuse or you're sorely ill-informed.
I actually saw somebody post the other night, "And so what if she does vote to overturn Roe v. Wade; how will she vote on other issues?"
Duh.
Well, finally.
It's good to see you're big enough to admit you need to get a clue.
Well, I think your logic is flawed, and here is why:
As a close confidant, and advisor to President Bush in many matters of national security, she will have to RECUSE herself from all of those decisions.
War powers. Treatment of detainees. Torture policies. Role and authority of a wartime president. Etc.
I think her appointment is a smack in the mouth to conservatives who have given their time, sweat, and treasure to change the ever drifting social fabric of American Society.
To a degree. Much like Miers. Most Catholics on FR (I'm not one) had no clue which direction he would take the Church. His Homily at his Papal Installation Mass gave an indication just where he wanted the Church to go, which is in the same direction as JPII set it upon.
I think I remember Fred Barnes talking about some conservative pundit who said that even if she votes the correct way on all the issues she would still be considered unworthy of Supreme Court Justice.
I think the issue was snobbery by the IVY League grads.
Thanks I will, for now.
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.