Posted on 10/09/2005 11:10:37 AM PDT by quidnunc
They're always "home."
LOL!
I have found out something I did not know this week: unless you were BORN a "true consevative," you don't count.
This will come as big news to a lot of people who saw the wrongness of liberalism and joined the GOP.
I'm not taking any gamble. I didn't role the dice. Personally, I think all this is basically a quibble over nothing much; history will probably regard it as such. This nation didn't get the point where this type of debate became necessary overnight. It won't return to where it should be overnight, either. Politics is the art of the possible, usually a very small bite at a time. Long term strategists know it. Short term absolutists always fail to see it.
Interesting.
What I think may shape up is not so much bitter-enders staying home, but a knock-down brawl within the Republican party for control of the party apparatus once Bush leaves.
I doubt that a lot of conversatives will leave the party completely. Some may stay home. Defeat, dejection and paralysis are one possibility.
The other possibility is that, with all of the important pundits and a large number of conservatives disappointed in this pick for a lot of reasons, and seeing cronyism, that the fight for control of the post-Bush Republican power apparatus may have already begun. That won't be pretty, but it won't necessarily harm the overall conservative prospects at the ballot-box.
The Democrats remain as hopeless as ever.
And, in the end, the Republic will be much better for it.
Let's hope that it works out that way.
Just out of curiousity, what do you think 'our Constitution deserves'? Bush, nor any other party hack, is going to nominate Janice Rogers Brown or a true constitutionalist to the Court. The more I hear and see, I believe Justice Thomas got through on a fluke. No President is going to purposefully nominate someone who could very well find one of his wasteful programs (such as NCLB, healthcare, etc.) an unconstitutional expanse of the federal government.
I beginning to think the naysayers like Chuck and Bill are upset because she may be conservative than they want her to be. I just hope she's more conservative than Bush thinks she is.
And did you know that unless you write about the constitution and have a history of speaking up for it, you don't count either.
So if you are not an activist by not writing and speaking about it, then you get smeared by the conservatives. But if you are an activist, then you get smeared by the conservatives.
As does any other thinking observer. The opportunity was to appoint folks with a solid judicial record or constitutional record -- we did neither. So, yes, the opportunity was missed.
You are trying to say the "gamble" might yet pay it. It might, it might not. But that wasn't the argument. You've responded to apples with oranges.
No, the goal was to appoint a convervative-thinking justice.
That's apples.
You have made it oranges by saying she hasn't paid the dues of a conservative long enough.
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.