Posted on 10/17/2005 2:40:50 PM PDT by Cautor
QUESTION: Many conservatives feel profound disappointment at a missed opportunity to steer the Court back to constitutional sanity, even if Miers does turn out to be a conservative vote. They also, as the president asks them to trust him, have lost a lot of faith in Mr. Bush, who pledged to nominate people in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas. What damage do you think this flap could have on the political fortunes of the Republican Party?
BAUER: The fallout could be tremendous.
There are millions of “values voters” who have donated blood, sweat and tears to elect conservative Republicans to public office in order get the courts back on track. Our values prevail at the ballot box, but we consistently lose in the courts—whether it’s life issues like partial-birth abortion or parental notification, the meaning of marriage, “under God” in our Pledge or the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn. Millions of Americans care deeply about these issues and now, for the first time in years, we have a conservative president and a relatively conservative Senate with 55 [Republican] seats.
But we can’t win this fight if we don’t have it. And, with all due respect to our president, Harriet Miers isn’t exactly the standard bearer we were expecting. We needed another Robert Bork, another Antonin Scalia. Even if Miers turns out to be a pleasant surprise, her nomination has validated the stealth strategy and gives us no assurances that there won’t be another David Souter next time. To borrow one of John Roberts’ baseball analogies, this was the time to hit a home run, and it looks like we bunted.
(Excerpt) Read more at stanguthrie.com ...
They are doing a great job fighting those who would increase the size and intrusiveness of the federal government. They are also doing a great job fighting illegal immigration. /sarcasm
Rodney King: ”They are driving us over the cliff 5 mph slower than the democrats are.
I can afford the gas - - - it’s the aggravation and lack of kisses that get me.
Funny, I thought you "won the fight" with the votes on the court---something we WILL NOT HAVE if we don't get a nominee who can get put ON the court. Amazing blindness among some people.
Aweomse. I will print one and send it the next time I get a fundraising letter.
Tell me why all the grassroots Republicans and Christian conservatives I know, who worked the polls and pounded signs, are for her? I'd say that the fallout will be tremendous if WE feel like we are betrayed by the "intellectual conservatives" who care more about "getting a fight" than about winning a vote.
So because you don't like a nomination that President Bush made in 2005, you're not going to support conservative Republicans in the 2006 Congressional elections, nor the Republican nominee in 2008? Why would you hold what Bush did against, say, George Allen in 2008? Or John Kyl or Conrad Burns in 2006? What purpose does that serve?
You're right.
Someone here used the usual squishy republican line of reasoning that we can't forget we're fighting a war....so we can't do anything that might make us lose the next battle.
Guess what - we were fighting the war for this very thing! Supreme court seats that could roll back the destruction of the constitution and the advance of liberalism through our courts.
But now that we have the power to do that, it's just not that important? That's crazy talk.
I'm getting sick and tired of the excuses why we can't win or can't fight while we're in power. If we can't do this now, why in the hell were you telling everybody to get you in power? Are you that incompetent and ineffective as political party leaders, RNC heads?
You don't fight the war just to get into office- you fight the war to get into office so you can enact your agenda!
That argument has been made by me, since October 3rd. But I'm no pundit.
Even if Miers turns out to be a pleasant surprise, her nomination has validated the stealth strategy and gives us no assurances that there won’t be another David Souter next time.
Tell me why we keep voting for Republicans? I keep forgetting.....
Let me know on how many of these topics you would have prefered John Kerry.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103
---"So because you don't like a nomination that President Bush made in 2005, you're not going to support conservative Republicans in the 2006 Congressional elections, nor the Republican nominee in 2008? Why would you hold what Bush did against, say, George Allen in 2008? Or John Kyl or Conrad Burns in 2006? What purpose does that serve?"--
Yes. I would hold it against them if they VOTED HER IN!!! If they took a principled and courageous stand against her, then I would have all the admiration in the world for them.
But if they vote her in, then they too are culpable. But you are missing the point. There's no point to a GOP Senate majority anyway. Bush proved that beyond even a reasonable doubt.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504068/posts?page=128#128
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504068/posts?page=159#159
Check follow ups - replies-to. I think the pieces stand on their own, regardless of rebuttal ;-)
What?
Oh. Never mind.
It's better than a Senate minority. But the problem right now is we've got maybe 47 "good" Senators, and a bunch of weasels. Gotta get that good number up to 50, and then we can not only fight but win.
Let me know on how many of these topics you would have prefered John Kerry. “
One of the major distinctions between true conservative philosophy and that of John Kerry (and the Left), is in the area of moral relativism.
The better strategy for social conservatives is to look at the candidates from the various parties and find the one who is pro-life, and vote for him or her.
If nobody is pro-life, don't vote for that office at all.
Vote on the local ballot issues, but if nobody has the right stance on abortion (for example), don't cast a "Caucus Vote". Just plain don't vote on that particular office.
The message THAT will send will be clear and convincing.
Here is why.
What will happen, is that voter turnout will be what it always is, and ballot initiatives (for example) will show how many people came to the polls.
But socially liberal Republicans will lose in every district, and some liberal Democrat will win. Third party candidates may even win in some cases where the vote splits three ways. The MESSAGE that will be learnt nationwide from a nationwide strategy of going to VOTE, but REFUSING TO VOTE for any (say) pro-choice candidate will be that there's a great big hole in the votes. The Republicans will lose all of their "caucus voters", and a lot of seats, for an election cycle.
And that will demonstrate the power of the conservatives, and Republicans everywhere will realize the need to pander to them a whole lot more, and to take pro-life stances (for instance).
Example: Rudolph Giuliani is the nominee? Don't vote for him. Vote for a pro-life third party candidate, nationwide. Will this give the election to Hillary? Yes.
And the Republican Party will never, ever betray the social conservatives again. Liberal Republicans will be replaced by Liberal Democrats, for one election cycle, but the malodorous stench of the Hillary Democrats will cause people to ITCH for change. And the Republican Party will be much more socially conservative, and will run socially conservative candidates everafter.
That's the only way to do it.
The only way to be able to give orders to politicians is by politically killing some of them off, to "encourage the others". Anything short of that, and social conservatives will remain the Black Bloc of the Republican Party, which is to say: roped dopes.
The number one thing that drives me to distraction about the Christian conservatives is, they keep believing that a conservative court will make abortions rare or non-existent. It will never happen in our lifetimes. A bill making abortion legal would pass in nearly every state in the union if Roe were overturned. Perhaps Utah and Wyoming would be the only place it would be illegal.
The number one issue, is returning this country to the rule of law. A return of strict constructionism, which Scalia doesn't even subscribe to. Read the differences between he and Thomas in past rulings.
We don't need a maybe hardliner, we need a for sure, down the line, slam dunk strict constructionist, with credentials enough to persuade others, not just be a vote.
Bush isn't interested in the fight. He wants his friends and family on the Court.
Giving him 60 Senators would just make it impossible for Conservative Senators to vote down Alberto Gonzales next time. Brownback and the boys could all vote "no," saving face with the base, and Bush's buddy gets confirmed anyway. The non-Bush GOP gets to save face with the base, the President gets what he wants, and the base gets nothing.
What a deal!!!
There seems to be a bit of a problem with that to me. The Republicans can't win without the social conservatives, true. But they also cannot win if that's all they've got.
So maybe we take your strategy at some point, and let the GOP get clobbered to demonstrate the power of the social conservatives. We lose the election, and probably get a couple of liberal activists on the Court as a bonus. But according to your plan, we swing the party to be aligned more strongly with social conservatives.
What's to prevent the middle from doing the exact same thing? Because they have electoral power too. They may swing to the Dems, who will pander to them. Sure, we get our pure candidate. But we lose the general election and toss another one to the Dems.
Example: Rudolph Giuliani is the nominee? Don't vote for him. Vote for a pro-life third party candidate, nationwide. Will this give the election to Hillary? Yes. And the Republican Party will never, ever betray the social conservatives again.
Maybe they don't win any more elections either. Is no loaf really better than half a loaf?
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.