The movement conservatives as ememplified by Rush Limbaugh and National Review have decided that their own particular orthodoxy is to become dogma for the whole conservative movement.
And they are willing to bring down this president to accomplish this goal.
A sticking point to my view is that Bork (lauded here as 'hero to the conservatives') is not in favor of individual gun ownership, says the reasons that anyone would even want to are questionable (anyone with specific quotes, please share them here about Bork's position on this because I've read it several times but not lately, so have no ready links as I write this)...while Miers actually defends the 2nd Amendment, moreorless in our traditional understanding of the individual's right to (own and) bear arms.
It's a very important distinction here as to who is conservative and in what context.
No, it appears there has been a serious change in the White House these last few weeks. Something's not right.
We knew Bush wasn't a hard core conservative when we elected him, so why do we expect him to turn into one now? We knew he had the best chance of defeating Al Gore, and therefore we chose him as our candidate in the primary (I will admit, however, that I didn't vote for him in that primary). In the general election, he was obviously the better of the two choices, and that hasn't changed. It is time for us to stop whining about Bush's lack of conservative ideals, and start planning to elect a real conservative in the 2008 election.
Less so Rush, who IMHO appears evenhanded on this nomination, but the President really failed to make his case on Ms. Miers.
Bork, the gun control freak? That's why it's the 2ND AMENDMENT, not the 9th. It's that important in our founding.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
I think that the rising Bush-hunta and Miers as hood ornament is being led by a personality fest.
Moreorless, it's a case of popularity and the louder voices trying to tramp out any debate or real discussion.
I am not promoting Miers here, nor Bush (to repeat, I voted for Bush and I've defened the Miers nomination before but within the context of 'name the specifics as to her deficits' rather than rely on an elitist, opinion-driven rejection of Miers based upon disrespect for Bush), BUT, I am losing faith as days pass in both Miers as nominee and Bush as representative of what us conservatives want and need in leadership.
I'm still not to any point where, if push comes to shove, I'd reject Bush in favor of any Democrat (just never going to happen), but the fact that it's been moreorless Libertarian Media heads doing the loudest denigration of Miers AND Bush lately, I'm suspect of the whole negation thing.
Bush's failures on border security seem to be the chief flaring point, in my opinion. That and his spending-a-holic behavior.
What's the latest on the Bush impeachment?
Will K-Lo be called?
Calm down.
In this I am a one-issue voter. The *only* thing that matters to me is effective continuing prosecution of the war on Jihadists. Everything else is window-dressing.
Harriet Miers is some kind of endoftheworld signal? Sorry... I just don't think it's all that bad. My hunch is that some months after she's confirmed, and a few opinions under her belt, we'll all be well into new and different issues and this little flame war will be forgotten.
Actually it's not bringing down the president, it's bring down the house and senate next year because if the public at large things the president needs a check that's the first thing they're going to do and I refer you to the clinton administration where the dems were voted out of office to keep a socialist healthcare system from being imposed on them.
President Bush's pick is nothing more and nothing less than putting someone on the bench who opposes abortion -- one of professed goals of the right for decades. I guess a lot of people are upset that someone actually stopped paying lip service to the values crowd and actually did something to reward their support.
IMHO of course.
Bush is a patriotic, evangelical liberal. It's kind of refreshing to know there are some of those around, but it's a sad day when that is what defines the Republican party:
He is for big government, big spending, interventionalism, no borders, illegal immigration, global domination by international alliances, government-mandated multilingualism, unfunded mandates, affirmative action and nation-building. Not to say I disagree with him on every one of these issues, just almost all. (I think in Iraq, his nation-building is justified by the fact that we destroyed the evil but incumbent power structure.)
Put me down as anti-state.
I agree. Some conservatives have sounded like DU-ers: My version of conservatism or I'll destroy you with all possible ways--even if it means we're going to be 20 yrs under liberal-democrats.
"Republican", "conservative", "the right".. are more and more nebulous terms.. Worse most republicans are clueless to this or in denial..
Big giverment republicans seem to be democrats with family values.. there is a difference between them and that seems to wholly it.. Glad there are none of them folks on free republic.. Else the sound of boot licking would be unbearable..
(shineing fingernails)... (putting on ear muffs)
"George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values."
I'm too young to remember Bork nomination battle. Yet, from what I read, he wasn't really helping himself during the nomination either, which made people easily put a negative image on him.
The thing that has me confused and disappointed with President Bush is he wasn't afraid to take on Bin Laden and Saddam, but then won't fight for the Supreme Court and keeping our borders secure.
And they are willing to bring down this president to accomplish this goal.