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.
I'm with you on this (for what it matters).
After all the hand wringing started, the first thing that crossed my mind was 'no, she's probably NOT the BEST, per se, but she's probably the BEST, in all practicality.'
As to some other points that have been raised...
I've been listening to Rush, and what another poster said earlier is, I believe, correct. People heard him on the first couple days and heard what they wanted to hear. I heard him laying out the reasons the 'base' would feel betrayed, but I also heard him asking people, if they were headed into a fight, did they want their army to be the Republican Senators...
I've been listening to Laura Ingraham for several weeks now that I've found KSKY streaming audio (also get Bill Bennett, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager; conservatism at work! Woo hoo!). Normally love her. She dealt me a devastating blow, though, in the first day or so of this nomination. It was in regards to the 'democrat donations' of the late 80's. She pointed out that HM had given $$ to Dems in 88, and I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, since that info had been posted here, that HM had followed that up with Republican donations, esp. Phil Gramm (whom I like).
Never happened.
That bothered me a bit.
It also bothered me that most of the arguments from the right appear to be something along the lines of "but we wanted, no, we DESERVED, a fight!" Not victory, but the battle. That's been refined a bit to 'we deserved a known constructionist', but still...
I don't know.
I guess I have a bit of faith in GW on this particular issue. We'll see who's right as things unfold.
Although, in her testimony in the voting rights case, she said she had become familiar with the issues by reading up on prior cases. She also acknowledged having given a speech about a pivotal 1973 Supreme Court ruling about legislative redistricting in Texas.She also said during her sworn testimony that she would not join an organization like the Federalist Society, a group of conservative intellectuals that is a leading proponent of a strict - and some say narrow - interpretation of the Constitution.
"I just feel like it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you," she said.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12836996.htm
An ex-White House lawyer told me [Jim Pinkerton] that Miers was shocked to discover the lawyers in the White House counsel's office were Federalist Society types, all of them scornful of the ABA - her ABA.
Thank you for the links. I had seen them before, but apparently did not extrapolate as much from them as others have.
The burden is on the party to woo voters.
Just like I asked; you're being willfully obtuse.
It's a simple question; that you won't answer it is very telling.
Parsing? I'm surprised at you.
Actually most conservatives love to whine and attack their own. Bush does have a record of nominating conservative judges. That is something we do know.
And as far as souter is concerned, Bush the elder did not know souter, he relied on the recommendation of his chief of staff. W did study the mistakes of his father's administration. I seriously doubt that he will make the same mistakes. Especially since he's know this person for over 10 years.
Actually most conservatives love to whine and attack their own. Bush does have a record of nominating conservative judges. That is something we do know.
And as far as souter is concerned, Bush the elder did not know souter, he relied on the recommendation of his chief of staff. W did study the mistakes of his father's administration. I seriously doubt that he will make the same mistakes. Especially since he's know this person for over 10 years.
If the party needs THEIR votes to WIN, the party should act accordingly.
OTOH, if the party doesn't need them to win, by all means, piss on 'em.
Funny, I don't see any general correlation. Names?
You speak for yourself and no one else.
Actually, it's a pretty sterile observation. See all of the "let down" articles. One might argue whether those article represent "the base" (whatever the heck that is) or "a large portion" of it, but there is evidence that this nomination was in fact a let down to a large potion of his base. It is a HUGE let down to me.
And clearly, by your posts and of others, many are not let down by this nomination.
You wouldn't be cribbing slogans and nouns out of the handbooks of those who authored the "We had to destroy the village in order to save it" liberal handbook, would you?
Mediocre, in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.
And I agree, the Senate is a big part of the cause for having to go "stealth." I object to going stealth when it comes to constitutional principle, and neither the GOP or GWB is bitching about the anit-constitutional 60 vote hurdle erected by DEM liberals.
Heck, why not bring Myers (9th Circuit) and Boyle up for vote? They've been out of committee for months.
Sorry, I don't have a Ouija board and my magic 8 ball only says "Ask Again Later."
We knew he wouldn't nominate another Catholic. That would make five (oh the horrors). So what does he do? He nominates a SOUTHERN Christian woman who he knows personally and professionally. JP, she's Karen Hughes sans the political voice. The doc is thrilled. I hope you'll see the brilliance in this nomination.
Unfortunately, Ellen Ratner and others are catching on... calling her his stealth nomination to send the court to the Right.
Because the power of the Courts have been so badly abused, some of us would like to have substantial evidence that a candidate is not going to compound that problem by engaging in judicial activism.
The Founding Fathers didn't envision penumbras and emanations and foreign precedent and so forth.
good morning, onyx. it is going to be unbearable to have this going on for another week or two, don't you agree? xshub was disappointed, but prosaic about the whole thing. there is so much yet that remains to be seen. i can understand concern, i can understand disappointment, i felt both, but the nuttiness has been hard to take this week.
I don't like her or dislike her. I just don't have enough information. A nudge-nudge-wink-wink doesn't do it for me. I hope she turns out as great as all that. Right now, it's a gamble.
Fella, you're gonna get a lot of party before principle types pushing the abuse button, out of fear that this thread will stay up on Free Republic.
I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.
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.