Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Bush We Trust? (Don Feder Says Time For Conservatives To Declare Independence From "W" Alert)
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/29/05 | Don Feder

Posted on 10/29/2005 12:00:11 AM PDT by goldstategop

That the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers has been mercifully euthanized is good news. What this bizarre episode says about the "conservatism" of George W. Bush is the bad news.

Whenever someone tries to tell me about the supposed commitment to the cause of our 43rd President, my off-handed response is: "Colin Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, Alberto Gonzales, Arlen Specter (Bush supported RINO Arlen over a real Republican in last year's GOP primary), mega-deficits, Nobody's-gonna-outspend-me-on-Katrina-aid, signing the campaign-finance fraud, Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace, Ramadan fetes in the White House, an amnesty for illegal immigrants thinly disguised as a guest-worker program, didn't support a Federal Marriage Amendment until it was politically convenient, supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and a Palestinian state."

If Bush is a conservative, Al Franken is a deep thinker, Michael Moore is a patriot, Osama bin Laden is a Zionist, and Bill Clinton is chaste.

Look, I voted for Bush twice and wrote countless columns supporting him over Al Gore and John Kerry. Given the alternatives in the last two presidential elections, I'd vote for him again.

And, yes, I gladly acknowledge that the president has gotten some things right – the war on terrorism (with certain exceptions, most notably the Saudis, the Pakistanis and the Palestinians), some excellent nominations for the appellate courts and occasional pro-life gestures.

I'll go further and say that I believe the president is a decent man who's sincere in his faith. But a conservative he's not.

Supreme Court nominations are now a matter of life or death – life or death for unborn children, life or death for the family, and life or death for Judeo-Christian morality. Here, the president has failed us miserably. John Roberts was a mistake. Harriet Meirs was a catastrophe of abrupt-climate-change magnitude.

Mr. Bush lied to us repeatedly – through two presidential campaigns – when he promised to appoint justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to the nation's highest court.

By this, it's reasonable to assume that the president did not mean justices who are either black or Italian, or justices who he thinks are strict constructionists, or candidates who we had to hope were committed to the doctrine of original intent.

The obvious implication of the President's pledge was that he'd choose Supreme Court justices who (like Scalia and Thomas when they were nominated) were an open book – nominees with a paper trail wide as a four-lane highway and long as an interstate whose record demonstrated their judicial philosophy beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Instead, we got stealth and super-stealth.

The more we learned of Meirs, the more she looked like David Souter in drag. Her lack of qualifications aside (she never served on the bench, litigated before the Supreme Court or even dealt with constitutional questions) Meirs – or her law firm – contributed to the campaigns of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. Should we check Norman Thomas' donor list?

Bush assured us that HM "will not legislate from the bench." How did he know that? Did she have an "I-won't-legislate-from-the-bench" bumper sticker on her car? Did she come to work at the White House wearing an "I-heart-original-intent" T-shirt?

Seriously, how did he know that, once she got on the Supreme Court, Miers won't "grow" into another Anthony Kennedy – because the lady who works for him told him what she knew he wanted to hear?

The President maintained he never asked Miers' opinion on Roe v Wade. Now, that I believe. I don't think the president cares enough about overturning Blackmun's monstrosity to pose such a question. In 2000, the president told us the nation wasn't ready to scrap Roe – as if the nation/people had anything to do with giving us the horror of 33 million abortions since 1973.

Forget Roe. Did the President ask Miers if she thinks there's a right to sodomy in the First Amendment, if the Establishment Clause makes "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, if the Fifth Amendment's public-taking clause can be used to evict an 87-year-old woman from her home for a private development, if the 14th Amendment actually means what it says (that a state shall not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" based on race), if foreign law can be used as a basis for "interpreting" the Constitution? The answer to all of the above is: Your guess is as good as the president's.

If Bush had nominated Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones or any of a dozen other exceptional originalists on the appellate bench, we'd know exactly what we were getting. It wouldn't be a grab bag – where we could pluck out a William Rehnquist or a Sandra Day O'Connor or a David Souter (Republican nominees all), depending entirely on luck.

But the President doesn't have the stomach for a fight with Senate Democrats, left-wing interests and a biased media. Such a battle royal would inform the American people, energize his base and set the stage for an election over real issues next year. Instead, the President's base was on suicide watch for the past month, and the Beltway-based conservative movement finally revolted.

For most conservative pundits, grass-roots groups and court-watchers on the right, Meirs was a bridge too far.

The last straw was revelations of some speeches the President's counsel gave in the early 1990s, wherein Miers declared that "self-determination" (for the woman, not the unborn child) should be the deciding factor in the abortion debate. Said she, "Legislating religion or morality we gave up on that a long time ago." Really? Who's we? This brilliant constitutional scholar doesn't understand that all legislation is morality legislation.

In a speech called "Women and Courage," Miers cited judicial Jacobin Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Hollywood airhead Barbra Streisand as examples of feminine fortitude. Someone in the White House should have checked to see if she has Emma Goldman's name inside a heart tattooed on her arm.

If the right hadn't robotically fallen in line behind John Roberts' nomination (we were told that Roberts only did a few hours of pro-bono work paving the way for Romer v. Evans, which established men who schtup other men as a protected class for civil-rights purposes), the president might have thought twice about trying to stuff Miers down our gullets.

Over the past five and a half years, the movement has swallowed so much from this administration that the public could be forgiven for thinking conservatives have turned into an auxiliary of the Republican National Committee.

I've spent many sleepless nights pondering this phenomenon. Here are the factors that have contributed to co-opting what once was an independent and vibrant movement:

1. The war on terrorism – Many conservatives consider it unpatriotic to break ranks with the president in time of war. And while Mr. Bush has made some bold moves here, he's also undercut his success by his inability to identify the Islamist roots of the conflict (terrorism is a technique, not an ideology), his choice of allies (if the Pakistanis and Saudis are our friends, we could use more enemies) and his ceaseless agitation for a Palestinian state (Genocide-istan).

2. Bamboozled by Bush rhetoric – The President is great at role-playing. The lesson Karl Rove learned from 1992 (when conservative disaffection resulted in the defeat of Bush Sr.) was: Promise them anything but give them Arpege. Thus, every now and then, Mr. Bush will talk conservative and toss a tidbit to his lapdogs on the right (pushing domestic energy development and Social Security reform or appointments like John Bolton as U.N. ambassador), but he has no real commitment to conservative principles, or even understands them, for that matter.

3. My-enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend – The left's hatred for Bush borders on the pathological. It's assumed that anyone despised by the New York Times editorial pages must be an OK guy. But the left loathed Richard Nixon – no one's idea of a conservative – ditto Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Has it now reached the point where liberals are allowed to define "conservative"?

4. What-choice-do-we-have? – Bush is the only game in town – the only way to get any part of our agenda through – so best we put up with his nonsense. This ignores the fact that the President needs us more than we need him. Without grass-roots conservative support, he will lose Congress next year, as he would have lost his bid for re-election last year. Bush carried Ohio with 51.25 percent of the vote. The Ohio defense of marriage amendment (which brought out hundreds of thousands of evangelical voters) passed by over 64 percent. If Bush hadn't carried the Buckeye state, Kerry would be filling Supreme Court vacancies. The conservative movement needs to declare its independence from George Bush. "W" will reside in the White House for another three years. Conservatives need to plan for a future well beyond that (which is why lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are crucial).

I am not suggesting that conservatives become a bunch of knee-jerk Bush-bashers – rather, that we cease being blonde cheerleaders for whatever dumb move the President makes. Here are a few guidelines:

1. Never assume the President has our interests at heart.

2. Remind Bush who elected him to the Presidency twice. (Hint: It wasn't Charles Schumer or any of the other lefties currently urging Bush not to cave in to his right-wing base. At this point, a massive cave-in is advisable.)

3. Present the President with copies of the 2000 and 2004 Republican National Platforms. Suggest he study them closely.

4. With the next Supreme Court nomination, take nothing for granted.

5. Insist the President finally keep his campaign pledge to nominate a Thomas or a Scalia – not someone he thinks is a Thomas or a Scalia, not someone he tells us is a Thomas or a Scalia, but someone we immediately recognize as an intellectual clone of those distinguished jurists. (Hello, Janice Rogers Brown!)

Bush 41 had a problem with "the vision thing." It's about time "W" got "the conservative thing."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: donfeder; future; independence; miers; presidentbush; principle; trueconservatism; worldnetdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-240 next last
We conservatives musn't become Bush-bashers. But we mustn't be dumb blonde cheerleaders for whatever dumb move the President makes. Let's make him remember who elected him twice to the Presidency twice and that we insist, after the wretched experience with Harriet Miers, he finally keep his promise to put an Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas clone on the Supreme Court. With that in mind, its also time for conservatives to declare their independence from "W." Bush will not be President forever and we have to plan for the years ahead. Bush has a problem with conservative principles. Its up to us to demand his fidelity to his pledges, not our putting up with whatever he wants. Loyalty and support is a two way street. For his sake and ours, let's hope the President finally gets it.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

1 posted on 10/29/2005 12:00:14 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"I am not suggesting that conservatives become a bunch of knee-jerk Bush-bashers – rather, that we cease being blonde cheerleaders for whatever dumb move the President makes. Here are a few guidelines"

I'll still trust the President's moves over whatever dumb move Don Feder suggests we make.

2 posted on 10/29/2005 12:05:48 AM PDT by TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
No more Harriet Miers! One is good enough for me and I'm stick and tired of stealth candidates. We have every right to insist the President keep his world. After all, its the reason we voted for him over the alternatives. I love this President but I won't automatically sign onto whatever he comes up with.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

3 posted on 10/29/2005 12:12:37 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It is obvious that the Right is now split. This means no Scalia, no Thomas.

The Senate Republicans simply can not now muster a fifty one vote majority for a non-Leftist Supreme Court justice. Mier was the best possible candidate because with unified support from the Right she could have been confirmed by the Senate (just barely). That is until the Right shot itself in the foot intentionally.
4 posted on 10/29/2005 12:19:43 AM PDT by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A nominee with a history you would find pleasing cannot be confirmed.

By insisting on getting all you will get nothing. We were so close to winning.

Study the Senate voting records. Threats of the "nuclear option" have no teeth because there aren't the votes.


5 posted on 10/29/2005 12:27:02 AM PDT by Iris7 ("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Meirs is gone.

I'd prefer to see where W goes from here.

He is going to have to rise above all this stuff and get tough at home the same way he has overseas.

I hope he does. Act like DeLay...fight like hell and stay on messages that resonate

no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater

he has three years to do a lot of good


6 posted on 10/29/2005 12:29:49 AM PDT by wardaddy (It's Manana Again in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Its not like we attempted to fight for our views. We should at least try to get them out in front of the country and the Senate. Most Americans would back our views if we explained them. Let the RINOs and the Democrats show why common-sense jurists don't deserve confirmation. I don't mean their filibuster. I want them to try to make a principled intellectual case against a conservative judge. Let's have an up or down vote after the debate's over and then see who wins.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

7 posted on 10/29/2005 12:34:46 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Cut taxes, evicted the Taliban, killed or captured most of the top Al Qaeda leadership, cancelled the ABM treaty, cut taxes again, appointed dozens of very good federal judges, evicted Saddam, cancelled Kyoto treaty, building SDI, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Condi Rice, signed firearms manufactuer protection bill, and at least tried to reform Social Secutity.

Half full/half empty. You decide.


8 posted on 10/29/2005 12:34:59 AM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
If its really Alito or Lutting, I'll be happy. But after Roberts and Miers I'm not taking Supreme Court nominations for granted.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

9 posted on 10/29/2005 12:36:49 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Whiners bore me.

Barbarians are at the gate.


10 posted on 10/29/2005 12:37:03 AM PDT by Ramius (Buy blades for war fighters: freeper.the-hobbit-hole.net --> 900 knives and counting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

That's the way I see it. I'm tired of pablum.


11 posted on 10/29/2005 12:38:10 AM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Study the Senate voting records. Threats of the "nuclear option" have no teeth because there aren't the votes.

I want President Bush to nominate a strong conservative for two reasons:

First and foremost to get confirmed but secondly to expose the Republican weenies in the Senate for what they are. There were too many of President Bush's judicial nominees that were lost in a wasteland of filibusters for me to think that anything different will happen with a strong conservative nominee. Shoot, John Bolton only went to the UN because of a recess appointment after months of withering on the vine. Believe me I hope I am wrong but sometimes one has to be careful what one wishes for because we just might get it. Hariett is gone and chances are we are going to get, thankfully, a strong conservative nominee but whether or not he or she gets confirmed is entirely another matter.

12 posted on 10/29/2005 12:39:48 AM PDT by sydbas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheClintons-STILLAnti-American
I'll still trust the President's moves over whatever dumb move Don Feder suggests we make.

Trust is a 2-way street. Bush needs to trust the conservative voters who elected him in order to be trusted himself. The nominating of stealth candidates to the highest court in the land is a slap in the face of people who believed Bush's Scalia/Thomas campaign rhetoric.

The Roberts nomination might have made sense if Democrats controlled the Senate by a lopsided margin. But that's not the case. Republicans control the Senate. If Clinton could get Ruthie on the court without hardly a whimper from Republicans, certainly Bush could've given us the clear ideological opposite. If he doesn't do so with his next and possibly final SCOTUS nominee, get ready for a disappointing 2006 Election Night and a Hillary presidency in 2009.

13 posted on 10/29/2005 12:40:58 AM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
IMHO The Miers nomination was made on what Dubya believed, he made the decision without considering what his BASE would think of it. He simply figured we would believe him. The Nomination has been pulled and I think all of us on this forum had better get behind this president when he nominates a strict constructionist to the Bench, and I believe he will, because he heard his Base loud and clear.

I myself was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over his choice, simply because of his record of choosing top notch candidates for consideration

14 posted on 10/29/2005 12:41:02 AM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

thanks carolyn


15 posted on 10/29/2005 12:45:41 AM PDT by wardaddy (It's Manana Again in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
Study the Senate voting records. Threats of the "nuclear option" have no teeth because there aren't the votes.

If Democrats attempt to filibuster an outstanding nominee like Luttig, Olson, Alito or Edith Jones by claiming it's somehow an extraordinary circumstance, I believe Republicans can muster enough RINO votes for the nuclear option.

16 posted on 10/29/2005 12:45:46 AM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

tell me about Don Feder


17 posted on 10/29/2005 12:49:14 AM PDT by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
What happens if Bush is unable to get any nomination past the Senate? Do the Supremes take the field with only eleven justices?
18 posted on 10/29/2005 12:51:28 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iris7
The Senate Republicans simply can not now muster a fifty one vote majority for a non-Leftist Supreme Court justice.

Even if Arlen and Chafee jump ship, that leaves us with 53, right? And if Collins and Snowe do their little RINO dance, that gives us 51, right? And even if another Republican goes AWOL, we still have Cheney's vote, right? Plus, there are still a few Democrats in red states who are open to confirming conservative judges. It can be done, I tell you! It can be done!

STOP THE APPEASEMENT, DUBYA, and put forward a nominee we can get behind!

19 posted on 10/29/2005 12:53:34 AM PDT by billclintonwillrotinhell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Two things to say about this:

1. Only rats and cowards leave the ship while the crew fights valiantly to save it.

2. This is typical of conservatives in the second term of a Republican presidency: you publicly beat the hell out of the guy you worked like sled dogs for to get elected.

This abandoning of this particular President has been a conservative theme for a few months now, and it all comes down to one thing --- Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned yet, and dammit, that's all you wanted BUsh to do, really.

Sure, you'll take tax cuts, you'll take a stable economy after a $1 trillion hit caused by foreign terrorists, you'll take a stronger foreign policy (especially if there's bullets flying somewhere), and Bush has provided these things. But what really sticks in your craw is that Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land and abortion doctors haven't been frog-marched into the concentration camps yet. It makes you sick to know that millions of people cross our borders, and you rightly want something done about it, but not if Pedro, who cuts the grass at your local golf course, has to be arrested and deported.

This latest round of discord in the party more or less coincides with the Robert's nomination and got much worse when Harriet Miers showed up.

More and more "conservatives" are beginning to sound like democrats, in that they have only one issue (abortion) and one frequency (shrill).

Those of you who abandon this presiden-- you're hypocrites.

Those of you who threaten to leave the party, remember what you did to the Republican party in the 1990's, and if you're still thinking about leaving after that, then don't let the door hit you in the backside.


20 posted on 10/29/2005 12:55:25 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Sh*t since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-240 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson