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.
You're dodging.
First of all, speaking of lies, I never said that they didn't turn out; I said that they did NOT turn out in ANY GREATER numbers than they did in 2000 and that the malcontents sat home again.
Now looking at what you linked, you ignored and chose to leave out very pertinent information:
Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP
But the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists...
And of course, this:
Whether evangelical turnout rose nationally this year, and by how much, is unclear.
Nobody else is SAYING that; it's not quite the same thing when you say it about yourself; they can SAY anything to keep THEIR base happy.
The numbers just do NOT back up any claim that Evangelicals turned out in bigger numbers in 2004.
The numbers show they voted in the same numbers. Don't like that report? Take it up with Michael Barone.
No primary source further back than Jim Pinkerton on an unnamed source (linked in your link)?
I sure hate to say it, but it's becoming more and more obvious that the GOP in its current condition simply cannot effectively play the role of majority. When the Democrats had the White House and senate, they put in radical liberals without a glitch. We have the White House and both houses of congress, and have to appease the liberals with nominees? Something's very very wrong with this picture: a collective lack of spine.
MM
I suggest you scan opinionjournal.com.
I agree with Robert Bork.
This nomination is a "disaster on every conceivable level."
Sophomoric, perhaps even puerile.
I am not the most eloquent person, and I regret sounding puerile or sophomoric about something which means so much to me, and that is the fact that I was so immensely fortunate to have been born in the United States of America, when I born here. I am not an historian, but to me, it seems that being an American means you are one of a very small group of people ever born, free people.
The Constitution makes my freedom possible. It is a necessary but not sufficient reason for our freedom. We also need men and women of good faith who understand the significance of the Constitution to our freedom.
The principal criticism of leftists and liberals is their disdain for freedom. "Our own," to my mind, are those who understand and are grateful for the blessings of liberty we have.
If John Fund is just citing Jim Pinkerton, who has an unnamed source, that's no closer to a primary source.
1.The story is apocryphal, and I tend to doubt that Fund would repeat a story that he knew beforehand to be false.
2. The story is a verifiable fact.
To be honest, I'm not even certain that the people who were a party to that conversation-if it is in fact genuine-would be willing to disclose their identities, seeing as how eager the Bush administration has been in the past to exact revenge upon conservatives who are courageous enough to part company with it as a matter of principle.
Either all of these anecdotes are incorrect or wild embellishments, e.g. the disdain for her counterparts in the administration with Fed. Soc. affiliations, her refusal to join that organization, her attempt to dodge important policy debates during her professional career, or they are true.
In terms of conservative credentials, John Fund-whatever his liabilities as a human being-has earned my trust, whereas President Bush has done everything within his capacity to erode it.
You haven't even begun on the possibilities. I haven't attributed bad faith to anyone (I haven't even rejected the story as necessarily false), but without a primary source, there's lots of room for misunderstanding, exaggeration, mishearing, misinterpretation, extrapolation, even innocently meant and only half-conscious embellishment to fill in the blanks. The more people a story goes through, the more possibilities for distortion.
There's a huge difference between repeating a story you know to be false and repeating a story you just don't see any reason not to accept.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
Howlin, if you re-read the thread, all the name calling against other posters goes one way.
No one that I know is disparaging those who support W in this choice; it is understandable what their position is, and why they have it. Hewitt as usual is the exemplary spokeman for not overeacting, and that man is too good to disparage.
W was not the best choice when he ran for president, imo, true, and the reasons for my thinking so have not been allayed, and in fact the Miers choice is a good example of why. I did not think he was a conservative then, and I think he has pretty much proven he is not a conservative by the way he has conducted his administration.
I refuse to believe that loyalty to a government official should be very high on anyone's list of principles. But I understand why you and others do, and there are good reasons for that position. It is just not my position, because I dont think the reasons are good enough.
I do not doubt for a moment that the ardent supporters of W are true conservatives. But this situation reminds me exactly of the Nixon years. Nixon was not a conservative either, and like W he did not operate from principle. He was so unfairly trashed and falsely maligned by the left, tho, conservatives defended him despite his antipathy to their cause.
The unfair criticism from the left rendered some conservatives unwilling to accept any criticism at all. IMO, that is the same dynamic here.
As somebody said way up the thread, you're out of touch with reality.
That is a reasonable belief, and perhaps the most powerful argument in support of the nomination. But again, it is speculation, and contradictory. W is saying (in effect) that Miers will be a Thomas or Scalia. As such, why are we to believe she is more acceptable to squishy senators, when she will be a Thomas or Scalia without any evidence of her ability, unlike Luttig or Brown?
I am glad you asked, because this seems to be a source of confusion. When W promised to appoint judges like Scalia or Thomas, Thomas had been on the Supreme Court for many years.
Remember? The elder Bush put him on the court? Then there were 8 Clinton years? Then W ran for president? Then W promised judges like Thomas?
It happened in sequence.
They'll be able to justify it on the grounds that they've finally become vertebrates.
The fact that a horrendous person was elevated to the Supreme Court over a decade ago does not justify-let alone compel-an incumbent Senator to vote for a substandard nominee today.
If the radical leftists-who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution-want to exult in their association with Ruthie, then so be it.
That's their collective decision.
However, I see no intellectual coherence in burdening your own party with unnecessary baggage-and discrediting the conservative cause-simply in order to hew to a public perception-or misconception-of "consistency."
Sorry, I misunderstood your emphasis.
How many of his nominees got trashed, vilified, spat upon and insulted without W lifting a finger? To my mind, it struck me for years that the nominations were just that: nominations, intended to throw a sop.
How many of these nominees got on the bench because of the reprehensible actions of 7 of the Gang of 14, those who gave up the ill-named nuclear option? And why did W do nothing regarding the nuclear option?
From a man who has given very little evidence of being a conservative (and I wish someone would try to make the case), it appears that the lack of effort arose from a lack of belief, as long as the political effect had been achieved.
Suggest you grow some thicker skin my friend. You won't survive long on FR if you don't.
No one-least of all from our side-is attempting to discredit her character, or implying that she is some satanic figure that will do irreversible damage to the Constitution.
In fact, I haven't seen one major conservative commentator who hasn't complimented her service, or hasn't acknowledged her intelligence.
However, I don't see why we should be preemptively silenced into accepting what appears to most people to be a very poor choice.
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.