Posted on 10/10/2005 8:36:42 AM PDT by Reagan Man
This past week, grassroots conservative leaders, not simply the clique of pundits who have been decrying the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, were able to vent their frustration, disappointment, and anger at officials from President Bush’s administration and the Republican National Committee.
Under a barrage of comments ranging from a why would the president nominate someone with no judicial experience to why isn’t the president willing to fight, the Bush representatives, and I feel the entire administration, have shown a complete lack of understanding of what grassroots conservatism is all about.
There are many core principles that embody the Republican Party and are principles upon which most conservatives and moderates can agree. The Republican Party is the party of smaller government and decreased federal spending. The Republican Party is the party of strong national security and an aversion to nation building. The Republican Party is the party of rewarding by merit and not affirmative action, and it is the party opposed to judicial activism.
Many of us have worked countless hours at the grassroots level in order to further these principles by getting quality Republicans elected to office. The victories were not meant to simply allow those with an “R” next to their names to hold office, but rather these election gains were a means to the incorporation of the Republican agenda.
Now, it seems that many have lost track of that agenda. Too often, those like me who are identified as both social and fiscal conservatives are not seeing our Republican ideals put into practice. Conservative principles have given way to pragmatism and politics.
There has been an undercurrent of misgivings building for sometime, but the nomination of Harriet Miers has allowed it to break the surface. Republicans are supposed to be the party of reduced spending, yet, non-defense discretional spending has jumped more in this administration than during the Clinton years. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government, yet a massive expansion of the federal government in the form of the prescription drug bill was forced through Congress under the direction of the administration and congressional leaders. Republicans are supposed to be tough on national security, yet when it comes to protecting our borders, lawmakers are turning a blind eye to enforcement of immigration laws, all for the sake of cheap labor.
On issue after issue, conservatives have been asked to take it, and been given the question, “Would you rather have the Democrats in control?” The answer, of course, is no. However, that doesn’t mean the conservative base should be taken for granted, and that’s exactly the message that was sent to the grassroots conservative community with the Miers nomination. Conservatives were ready for a fight — a fight all of us think we can win. Over the last several decades, an incredible team of lower court judges has distinguished themselves as sound and capable judges, as well as possessing a conservative approach to constitutional issues. Yet, the president picked a nominee outside of that farm team, ducked the fight, and asked us to “trust him on this one.”
The political miscalculation could not have been greater, and it amazes me that those advising the president didn’t see it coming. Either they grossly underestimated the passion of the conservatives to move the court to the right, or they, once again, took the conservative base for granted and decided to go with a Bush loyalist who upon initial review does not measure up to other potential nominees.
Conservatives were ready to rally around the nomination. This was the nominee who could help swing the balance of the court, and we could send a strong measure that the days of liberal activism on the bench would not go unchecked. The administration would put up a true conservative, and we would all fight for the nominee.
Because that didn’t happen, there will no doubt be fallout from the conservative base regarding a number of issues. No longer will conservatives roll over when policies are pushed which do not fall in line with traditional Republican values. Case in point is Operation Offset in the House — a proposal to help pay for President Bush’s massive pledge for federal Hurricane Katrina aid relief by cutting pork barrel spending and unnecessary programs. This measure led several of the conservative House members to be taken to the “woodshed” rather than be praised for sticking up to true Republican principles.
The Republican Party needs the conservative base, and the conservative base needs the Republican Party. The best thing the administration could have done was put forward a nominee around whom we could rally. That just isn’t the case with Harriet Miers. She may turn out to be a stellar justice, but the nomination, in and of itself, was one more indication of an administration out of touch with its base. With 2006 and 2008 just around the corner, I only hope they see the error of their ways. The administration has lost the right to expect us to just go with the flow. If they want us on their side, then it is up to the administration to show that they are truly on our side. We deserve nothing less.
Another Republican who wants it both ways.
There was another article on FR that I read 1 hour ago that said the rank and file are NOT against this nominee.
Doesn't mean they want it both ways. Just that since nobody knows a damn thing about Miers...she could just as easily be a nother Scalia as she could a Breyer or Souter.
Not any more its not...the only thing that has saved the Republican Party since the abandonment of the Contract with America is that the Democrat party has degenrated into a collection of American-hating Communists.
I don't believe that the people in fly-over Red State America are all that concerned in other than results. Prove to them that Miers will be another Souter and you will even win me over.
"The Republican Party is the party of smaller government and decreased federal spending. The Republican Party is the party of strong national security and an aversion to nation building. The Republican Party is the party of rewarding by merit and not affirmative action, and it is the party opposed to judicial activism."
More comedy writing.
Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 4 questions about the Harriet Miers nomination. Representatives from the following 79 blogs responded...[list snipped]Here are the questions the bloggers were asked and their responses. The percentage & number of bloggers that chose each option follow the question.
1) Do you think George Bush made:
A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:
A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)3) Would you prefer that George Bush:
A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:
A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)
Since it was the President's father that got us Souter and he advises the President, I'm not betting my ranch on her being another Scalia.
But that's just what the President is asking us to do. 20-30 years with another Souter.
not for me!
That's what it's supposed to be. That's what Ronald Reagan wanted it to be. As recently as 1994...it was. We can bring it back.
Term limits is one thing we didn't get that would have done wonders for conservatism. While there are a few good conservatives that have been there a long time, most of the old guys in Congress are establishment RINO's...
The best ones haven't been there more than a few terms...
Coburn
Pence
DeMint
Kasich (didn't stay too long-now not in office)
Pretty pathetic defense, isn't it?
Most posters I have read here only wanted it one way - - a known, scandal-free, no-question-about-it conservative with a paper trail a mile long. That's not what we got by any means. Still, like the author, I hope that Harriet Souter turns out to be stellar, or at least no worse than O'Connor. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
Miers may have no history as a judge, no paper trail to speak of, but she is qualified to sit on the SC. Whether I wanted another Scalia, Thomas or Luttig on the high court the final decision rests with the President. It's Bush`s perogitive to name who he believes is the best candidate available. Conservatives voted for Bush twice. They said we trust you Mr.President. Bush has made his pick. No good reason(s) why conservatives shouldn't trust Bush`s judgement on this one. Unless something comes out in the Senate inquisition or shortly thereafter, Miers will be approved and will become a solid conservative addition to the SC. Bottomline. Miers will be more conservative then SD O'Conner. Hopefully, Roberts will be as conservative as CJ Rehnquist was. Only time will tell.
Totally childish and not forward thinking enough for me. Power over principle doesn't mean crap.
"Doesn't mean they want it both ways. Just that since nobody knows a damn thing about Miers...she could just as easily be a nother Scalia as she could a Breyer or Souter."
I agree. She could be great, or not. I am of the opinion that the man who knows her best professionally is the one who nominated her. I am willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt on this one because he knows her far better than do her detractors or this "base" I hear so much about.
Just my opinion.
Why should anyone have to prove that she will be another souter? It's the Presidents nominee, let him prove that she WON'T be another souter!
With PLENTY of other, WELL known and DOCUMENTED conservatives, there was no need for this kind of "proof".
Their proofs were beyond reproach and the base would have fought tooth and nail for them. All the President has done is to split the party for little or no reason at all.
Hope I didn't misunderstand your post.
I don't agree. I think there are any number of reasons not to trust his judgement. The southern border and his "guest program" spring to mind. So does his Prescription drug plan. So does $250 billion for Katrina. so does his "Homeland security" bureaucracy.
I used to be a bush-bot, but since the election, he seems to lack any kind of conservative credibility imho.
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.