Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA
Me | 10-7-02 | Me

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.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: elitism; harrietmiers; lookatme; runyourself; seminarposter; snob; supremecourt; supremevanity; vanitypost; worthlessvanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-392 next last
To: F.J. Mitchell

You insult me out of the blue (telling me I'm starting to act insane...simply over my opinion) then accuse me of being nuts. Alrightttyyyy.


341 posted on 10/08/2005 7:53:49 AM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Bush haters are insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Well said.


342 posted on 10/08/2005 7:55:31 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Show me a liberal or RINO and I'll show you a head & heart, fit for nothing but cracking walnuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"How could Republican senators vote against Miers when the voted almost unanimously to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer?

Anybody doing that would be eaten alive during their next election campaign "


Please help me out on this one.

Would you not vote for a Republican or stay home in the next election if someone who voted for Ginsburg and Breyer voted against Meirs?

Would you feel like they betrayed you or at least maybe did not tell you the complete truth?

343 posted on 10/08/2005 8:00:14 AM PDT by Souled_Out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly

I am sorry I stirred you up, if you have a heart attack or stroke, I will never be able to forgive myself.

Just kidding of course. Here's a quarter, call someone who cares.


344 posted on 10/08/2005 8:02:36 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Show me a liberal or RINO and I'll show you a head & heart, fit for nothing but cracking walnuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: doesnt suffer fools gladly

A+Bert, that you?


345 posted on 10/08/2005 8:07:18 AM PDT by KingKongCobra (Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Your lies about how the religious conservatives (from another thread) and the "angry ones" stayed at home is getting old. How many votes did Bush recieve again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html

"The rallying cry for many social conservatives was opposition to same-sex marriage. But concern about the Supreme Court, abortion, school prayer and pornography also motivated these "values voters." Same-sex marriage, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, was "the hood ornament on the family values wagon that carried the president to a second term."

How Conservative Turnout Soared

Whether evangelical turnout rose nationally this year, and by how much, is unclear. Without question, however, Bush's conservative Christian base was essential to his victory.

According to surveys of voters leaving the polls, Bush won 79 percent of the 26.5 million evangelical votes and 52 percent of the 31 million Catholic votes. Turnout soared in conservative areas such as Ohio's Warren County, where Bush picked up 18,000 more votes than in 2000, and local activists said churches were the reason."
346 posted on 10/08/2005 8:13:49 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
"Without question, however, Bush's conservative Christian base was essential to his victory."

Clearly...

However FR's usual resident social-moderates and mesmerized Bush-Bots will remain mired in a vortex of denial...even as the life-rafts are dropped into the icy waters.

347 posted on 10/08/2005 8:25:05 AM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Your lies about how the religious conservatives (from another thread) and the "angry ones" stayed at home is getting old."
Good post.

It is always a good idea to shove these kind of lies back down the throats of those who spew them.

It is interesting how some self described conservatives, read CINO's, have no problem drinking the Republican party kool aid and bashing Conservatives who will not.

348 posted on 10/08/2005 8:25:29 AM PDT by Souled_Out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: maryz
. . unless of course an actual confirmation was the goal.

Any qualifued conservative nominee with no scandals would have been confirmed. No offense meant to you, because you are by no means alone, but this notion that Bush turned yellow and ran scared from some RINO Senators is offensive. I've looked at it and done the math - - there is no way that six (6) RINOs would ALL vote against a qualified nominee simply because the Democrats whine that the nominee is roo conservative.

It is disappointing to see that so many around here are willing, without ever actually doing the math, to use that same, lazy knee-jerk apology for Bush ("only a stealth nominee can get confirmed"). Well, I've done the math, and the excuse doesn't hold water.

Regards,
LH

349 posted on 10/08/2005 8:28:21 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: KingKongCobra; doesnt suffer fools gladly

A+Bert had a sense of humor, to the best of my recollection. So far none seems detectable in dsfg.


350 posted on 10/08/2005 8:42:00 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Show me a liberal or RINO and I'll show you a head & heart, fit for nothing but cracking walnuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
You don't think the Dems would filibuster? OK. Neither of us knows for sure, and I think both sides are arguable.

But a filibuster would mean we'd need all 55 Republicans and 5 Democrats to break it. Unless we went nuclear, and -- while I think Frist probably (not perhaps definitely) had just enough votes for the rules change -- I don't think we have the votes now. I think Frist had probably been able to dragoon a couple back before the gang of 15, but there were numerous Republicans who were not enthusiastic about the prospect.

And the longer this drags on (Dems have been known to filibuster for years), the longer O'Connor remains on the court. And while they might get pressure to fill a truly vacant seat, there wouldn't be any to fill a seat that's already filled with someone they like better.

351 posted on 10/08/2005 9:08:11 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Agreed and well said.


352 posted on 10/08/2005 9:15:20 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (A Reagan Conservative and mighty proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: maryz
You don't think the Dems would filibuster?

Seven Democrats promised very publicly that they would not filibuster except under "extraordinary circumstances". Being a qualified, scandal-free conservative judge does not count as "extraordinary circumstances".

So no, the Democrats could not sustain a filibuster.
That was part of the genius of the "Gang of Fourteen" deal.

353 posted on 10/08/2005 9:25:41 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I can't answer your question intelligently, because I don't know enough about Harriet Miers. I can't even guess.


354 posted on 10/08/2005 9:34:15 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

As I understand it, the Dems get to define what qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances," not you, not I, not FR --not even John McCain. Don't recall whether they've said it explicity, but I'll bet an anti-Roe record counts as "extraordinary."


355 posted on 10/08/2005 9:39:24 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Howlin & hinckley buzzard don't have the brains to recognize or debate the issues. Look at Howlin's posts on this thread. Do you see a single meaningful point in any of the dozens he has posted?

Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me."

1) He didn't keep his word on stem cells and created a market in embryos.

2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand fell on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to - kill it.

3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.

4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.

5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.

Some argue that it is the president's choice to pick whomever he will nominate. I disagree. He is there to represent the people who put him there and to uphold the constitution. Republicans never should've voted for Ginsberg based on her unconstitutional views, rather than voting for her in spite of her wacky leftist views.

Bush has created a disturbing precedent in choosing Roberts and Miers. He has sent the unmistakable message that known conservatives need not apply. Some will say, "but look at his appellate appointments." Sure, he made excellent appellate appointments, but he left them to twist in the wind in his first term. I'm sure the stealthy nature of his SC nominations are not lost on his appellate appointments, either.

Conservatives need to press Miers during the confirmation hearings instead of giving her a pass. She may or may not do well, but Bush, the Nixon Republican, has slighted conservatives for the last time.

356 posted on 10/08/2005 9:43:12 AM PDT by Nephi (The Bush Legacy: Known conservatives are ineligible for the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: maryz
As I understand it, the Dems get to define what qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances,"

No, the entire "Gang of Fourteen" defines "extraordinary circumstances", though ultimately the decision to filibuster based on "extraordinary circumstances" would be sold one way or the other by the Democrats' allies in the dying, socialist "mainstream" newsrooms, which now have considerably less inflience than they once had.

But WE conservatives would have Bush's back, and WE are formidable, to say the least. I maintain that there would be no filibuster but that even IF five of the seven Democrat members of the "GoF" were pressured to bail on "the deal", the Republicans would ultimately prevail in the attempt to "go nuclear" in response.

357 posted on 10/08/2005 9:57:36 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
No, the entire "Gang of Fourteen" defines "extraordinary circumstances",

And if they're not of one mind, who wins? Or does the gang fall apart like the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact? I'm afraid you're more of an optimist than I am. I would like to think you're right . . . but I don't.

358 posted on 10/08/2005 10:04:37 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: maryz

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitts_still_w.html


359 posted on 10/08/2005 10:13:07 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
No, he wasn't.

But he also didn't reject membership in that organization outright.

Harriet Miers has spoken to them in the past, but that proves absolutely nothing.

The same can be said of ACLU nimrod Nadine Strossen, but I doubt many of the Miers supporters would have been elated at her nomination to the Supreme Court.

360 posted on 10/08/2005 10:25:21 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380381-392 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson