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.
Which is why the Dems don't either. It would be nice if we could all have secret decoder rings, so we could be told without telling the Dems. But since McCain managed to put the kibosh on our one good chance to eliminate the judicial filibuster, this is reality.
Integrity means blaming the son for the mistakes of the father? Well, OK, I guess . . .
Please refer me to Thomas's brilliant decisions pre-confirmation, when NR was calling him "souteresque." Thank you.
It appears the same folks in here that were incensed about Schiavo are the same ones going apoplectic about Miers.
He is not a man who can wave a wand or twitch his nose and make 40+ years of Dem supremacy (aided and abetted by the MSM) disappear.
It would have been thoughtful to provide a link.
. . . unless of course an actual confirmation was the goal.
I think it genius.
President Bush is a quick study. Nobody ever thought he'd have the cajones to do what he did in Afghanistan and Iraq and the United Nations.
He saw the outcome of his father's approach regarding Souter...letting Sununu or a 3rd party have too much influence.
He also studied Reagan's "mistake" on O'Connor.
I believe he covets his media-driven persona of being a Texas backwoods hick (if there is such a thing)
Truth is, his presidency makes Bubba's palid by comparison and his legacy will put him up there alongside Reagan as a Man of his time.
Unfortunately, the Dems' promise to defeat anyone whom they can prove is in that mold.
I didn't realize you were that well acquainted with her.
LOL! Do you think sinkspur asked prosective brides to submit a resume, instead of choosing someone he knew personally?
Quote:"Our own" what?
You're certainly not speaking for the vast majority of people on this forum."
No..indeed not.
You must admit the complexion of Freepers has changed drastically as we've grown since the Impeachment.
No, I think the 25% you're referring to need to get their butts kicked...or else we'll have another bloody Schiavo-type war.
Fool me once...you know the rest.
I didn't particularly care being sent to the smoky backroom. ;^)
I am not going to use DU style attacks in any posting, but would like this kicked around. Let's say Bush made a great choice in the nomination of Miers. Why would he pick someone who was in the White House as Mr. Bush's lawyer, who will have to sit out (recuse) any area she came into contact while Mr. Bush's counsel?
Not an ideal situation, in my opinion.
In airplane talk: Rodger that. I am amazed at the folks here who opine about Meirs with no knowledge about the women. That in contrast to the President who obviously knows her very well.
The President has made a living on having folks (primarily NE snobish Yankees)under estimate him. Fellow Texans don't see that smirk, rather that's another "gotcha".
When you read this thread I have to agree with another poster...we have our share of loony's on the far right who rather than think for themselves play follow the leader..
You got me, fair and square. I gotta except it. ;OP
/wow, the invective on this thread is more personal attacks on anybody who dare hold the President to what he said he would do...nominate justices who would be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.
Read my lips conservatives.
Sorely ill-informed? No. Sorely uninformed. As of yet those of us who rely on the public record know NOTHING of her judicial temperament. There's nothing on the public record to know.
Willfully obtuse? Meaning I'm missing what? Aside from her church affiliation and friendship with the President, I have no information on her at all.
If you have special information, please, share it. The public record is bereft, because she has no public record of relevance.
At this special moment in history, conservatives are expected to accept an enigma and a promise.
no, that isn't accurate. this nomination has reshuffled the ideological decks of freepers. Howlin and i were on opposite sides of Schiavo and Elian, but we are of like mind here. Yet there are people who i agreed with on Schiavo, on both sides of this nomination. there isn't any easy way to dissect this on the basis of ideology/philosophy, i am afraid.
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.