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.
Mine too!!!
Good morning, xs! Husband thought the nomination was brilliant as soon as he heard about her....lol. He convinced me. We knew he wouldn't nominate another Catholic, so we had eliminated hispanic women.
GOOD to see you. We're off now to a country auction. I LOVE my new home here. I'll write to you later.
i heard you are buying up MS entire supply of antiques and silver ; ) have fun!
LOL!!! It's true...lol.
Give up? Quit? LOL!
I'd rather she withdraw her name, or her nomination be defeated.
Bush, with his Big Government spending, new entitlement enacting, free speech curtailing, ignoring the borders policy, ad nauseum, has really sold out the conservative base of the GOP.
And only the true bots will take whatever he does and try to spin it as something positive. Party over principle.
After Roberts was nominated, I made the same point and Miss Marple challenged me to back it up with the facts. So, I researched it, and was surprised by the result.
President Bush never promised to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. What he did promise, however, and that more than once, was to nominate someone who is a strict constructionist.
The phrase "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" was first made by Al Gore, and he said it in a snarley way. The MSM picked up on that phrase, and within weeks, it was conventional MSM wisdom that Bush had made that promise. But he didn't.
So, if you're going to post a vanity thread, at least get your facts right.
You might ask what's the difference, and I would say there's a lot of difference. It's a difference of what the measuring stick is going to be. Scalia and Thomas have different voting patterns. Thomas is closer to being the total strict constructionist. Scalia is funnier, as well as being a deeper thinker.
But super-deep thinking is not necessarily the prime requisite of a strict constructionist. A strict adherence to the Constitution is. The Constitution is written in plain language, arguably to keep it accessible to the masses, who are not generally super-deep thinkers.
But all that isn't to say we need shallow thinkers on the Court. Far from it.
"Bush has let down a large portion of his base."
A larger portion of his base will argue that, that is mere speculation.
It can be argued that a large portion of his base is letting him down. Too many of the simple minded and easily beguiled have succomned to seeing President Bush as the MSM, democrat spin machine portrays him to be, rather than how he really was, is and will always will be.
Your comments are beginning to make you resemble your tag line.
LOL!
Calling me insane, huh? I thought liberals were the name callers. I posted my opinion, and evidenced by the many threads on this site, numerous articles, what I'm seeing on tv -- I'm not alone in my assessment.
Don't insult me. I'll be on you like pitbull on your pantleg all day. And don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a newbie either. Just got a new username.
True bots?? Name calling is the last resort for those left without a clue.
FY 2003 and 2004 = $1.1 trillion over budget.
And don't blame the Democrats, they aren't in power.
Well put. It seems to be the primary argument being advanced agaisnt Miers. But the anti-Miers hysterics fails to take into consideration one vital point: GHWB never presided as a Conservative, never promised anything as to judicial picks. He may have given a little lip service to strict constructionism, but his main mantra, distancing himself from the Reagan years, was "a kinder gentler nation."
When Souter was nominated, he was a mystery and still is, largely because of his untreated mental illness. But no one ever touted Souter as a conservative.
The analogy from Souter to Miers is a false analogy and those who press it need to explain why they are twisting the truth to advance their opposition to the President.
Yeah, some of his base is letting him down. What a joke! Bush promised his supporters judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. He didn't deliver.
You call those who are skeptical simpled mind (I notice you love to call others names). Many of us just don't have the blind faith that others do.
Your right, and that may be a good reason for destroying the parties position in upcoming elections. We won't have to worry about making the wrong picks in '09 through '13, the Dems will get to do it.
Yes the great leader let down by the masses of little people too stupid to see his grand vision. How sad for the great leader. LOL,
perhaps the great leader could share his vision and blue prints for us little stupid people. We would kinda like to know just there the hell the great leader wants to lead us. We are confused by his out of control spending, his open borders, his new entitlements, his curtailing constitutional rights and his embrace of globalism, we are thinking maybe the great leader ain't so great.
The display of such an embarrassing thought disorder in public, however, IS your fault. Grow up.
"And don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a newbie either. Just got a new username."
Oh? What was your name before you got banned last time?
Only a true fool wants a defeat.
Terry, I wasn't really including you in the group of nattering, naybobs of negativity. I was referring to the group of posters that have been posting ridiculous articles opposing Meirs and any other possible Bush nomination. If you check some of these people's posts, you will see that they have made only negative comments about all the judicial nominations and have not posted on any other subject for the past few months. They have an obvious agenda, though I am not certain what it is, possibly libertarian.
There is plenty of reason to object to the Meirs nomination, but the petty criticisms that have been made in many of the articles make no valid point. The real reason to object is the one Rush has given, that by nominating a woman with no judicial experience, Bush has avoided the fight with the left over the judiciary, a fight that conservatives have been waging ever since the Bork nomination. It is disappointing, but it doesn't give conservatives the right to personalize the attacks on Meirs and Bork her themselves.
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.