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

Skip to comments.

Thomas Sowell: Dangerous Moderation
Creator's Syndicate ^ | October 30, 2005 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

Posted on 10/30/2005 2:21:21 AM PST by RWR8189

The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.

She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.

Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.

Liberal Senators have already gained from the time lost with the Miers nomination and they have every incentive to stall on the next nominee, to make sure that nominee is not confirmed before Congress adjourns at Thanksgiving. The longer they stall, the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court -- and she is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.

Obstructionist Democrats in the Senate have had their hand strengthened by this episode. Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.

What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?

If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.

The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democratic administration under Clinton.

While Senate Democrats have not hesitated to obstruct the Senate from even voting on some of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts, Republicans gave an overwhelming vote of approval to even such a far left Clinton nominee as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves. If they thought that such cooperation would be reciprocated when their party controlled the White House and the Senate, events have shown that they were sadly mistaken.

Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so.

Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes -- even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed.

That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.

Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.

But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?

Or is looking "statesmanlike" in the liberal media more important to some Republican Senators, either for its ego boost or for its practical political value in running for re-election or for the Presidency in 2008?

Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gop; harrietmiers; miers; moderate; moderates; moderation; rinos; scotus; senate; sowell; thomassowell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Miss Marple
And some Senators might be defeated in 2006, losing us the majority.

What?

What good is a "majority" if the "majority" are RINOs?

Better a minority with spine than a majority without spine.

I hope many of you learned after the Miers episode that it is time for activists to fight for conservative causes, not for "majorities", since "majorities" today means RINOs.

Conservative voters elected a left leaning president in George Bush, and leftists like McCain, Dewine, Collins, Hagel, SnoweJob, Chafee, et al. The voters in this nation are far more conservative than the RINOs we elect. As such, we need to fight for our causes and STOP believing that the people we elect will do the fighting for us. It has been shown so many times that they will not fight for us, so we need to carry the fight ourselves.

True conservatives on Free Republic, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, George Will, Peggy Noonan and a multitude of other conservative commentators put the Miers nomination by Bush in the dumpster, thank God. It was the "Consenus Bush" who selected her, and it would have been the RINO Republican Senators who would have confirmed her had we not saved the day.

Had it not been for true conservatives like some of us here on Free Republic and these national figures, we would have gotten another Souter-style justice likely.

Any conservative who puts faith into George Bush or the Republican Senate needs a reality check. The fight needs to be taken at the grassroots level until these RINOs start understanding that the voters are conservative and, hopefully, they then start acting like a conservative president and a conservative Senate.

We true conservatives need to take pride that we caused a major change in the USA with the quashing of Miers, but we need to do the same on other critical issues. Bush and the Republican'ts will not do it for us.

41 posted on 10/30/2005 5:59:45 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes...

On any given day, I'm not sure who I despise more.

42 posted on 10/30/2005 6:03:58 AM PST by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
prima donnas and opportunists

Read that, "the RINO contingent of the 'republican' party", with McRino one of the lead traitors.

43 posted on 10/30/2005 6:09:07 AM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
You missed the point of my post. Losing the majority in the Senate guarantees that none of the things you wish to see passed will happen. No permanent tax cuts. No Social Security reform. No ANWR drilling. Nothing you wantp>In addition, NO decent apppointments to the SC or to any other positions. Everything would have to be recess appointments.

And most importantly, the democrats would own the committee chairmanships and would schedule investigations (aka kangaroo courts) on every subject imaginable, from the war on terror to environmental policies to the UN funding. By the time they got done running those "investigations" on national television, conservatives would be viewed by the public as a combination of Simon Legree/Snidely Whiplash. This would almost certainly translate to a non-conservative getting the nomination in 2008, and possible the resultant loss of the White House.

Then we would have 4 years of retreat from AL Quaeda, kowtowing to the UN, selling off our secrets to China, etc. etc.

THAT is why it is important to have the majority.

44 posted on 10/30/2005 6:13:07 AM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
All we need to do is convince 2 of the 7 RINOs

I don't know, but it seems to me that Graham, being from conservative S.C., MUST have received a good number of "nasty-grams" from his constituents after the last go-round, which means he should be running scared enough to vote the right way this time.

Anyone from S.C. got the scoop on this guy?

45 posted on 10/30/2005 6:19:34 AM PST by DocH (Gun-grabbers, you can HAVE my guns... lead first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Your assumption that similar personalities would be elected by state legislatures is questionable. Many, if not most, of those seeking senate seats today have narcissitic peronalities and would not fare well with state legislatures looking for team players.


46 posted on 10/30/2005 6:21:47 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

Roger that


47 posted on 10/30/2005 6:24:57 AM PST by ComputerGuy (An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: monocle
Most of the people who seek U.S. Senate seats-or at least, those that succeed in the endeavor-have at one point or another served in their state legislature.

The idea that the two legislative bodies attract entirely distinct strata of aspiring officeholders is an inaccurate assumption.

48 posted on 10/30/2005 6:24:58 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

goldstategop wrote:
Simple - if Republican Senators refuse to vote for the President's nominee, punish the party next year by stripping it of its Senate majority. If these Senators do not want to please their President and the voters who elected them, perhaps being in the minority will help to concentrate their minds.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Simple.....lets cut off our nose to spite our face. Who are we punishing by allowing the other party to be elected?


49 posted on 10/30/2005 6:29:01 AM PST by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: photodawg
We would be punishing GOP Senators for failure to support our President and to deliver on the agenda. Our Senators have a choice: they can either get to work and earn their keep or find themselves out of a job. The base is fed up with the excuses and inaction.

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

50 posted on 10/30/2005 6:33:45 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
muir_redwoods wrote:
Moderation is not always a good thing
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Moderation for your appetites. Extremes in your virtues. Its either right or wrong no half way. Moderate your desires and wants.
51 posted on 10/30/2005 6:35:43 AM PST by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Currently, we have a president who is not a conservative and a RINO filled Senate.

The issues you mentioned have not gotten done now, even though we increased our majorities in Congress and won the White House with a convincing vote.

The voters of this nation are indeed more conservative than the Republicans we send to Washington. The only way to get conservative victories is to keep doing what we did with Miers--show outrage at non-conservative moves by Bush and the RINOs.

The RATs fight, the Republicans avoid fights. That is how the RATs control the agenda today,, and that is how the RATs controlled the agenda when they were in power.

RATs have spine, Republicans lack spine.

Perhaps the grassroots rebellion against Bush and the Republicans in the Miers case will cause the RINOs to start looking more closely at their constituents and realize the people who elected them are more conservative than what they have been acting.

What you point out about Senate control is obvious, but the reality is the Republican have not made use of their majority. There is very little we accomplished with the sweeping 2004 win. There should be no more IRS but a national sales tax as a replacement. There should be a restoration of our national sovereignty but Spanish is the major language in many schools and they fly the Mexican flag in schools. There should be nuclear power construction but there is not the case. There should be fiscal sanity but instead we have Bush elbowing aside FDR and LBJ. We should have Luttig and JRP on SCOTUS but instead we have unknown-Roberts and the craziest pick in the history of this nation in Miers by Bush. Who knows what politically correct woman he will appoint next.

Having a "majority" is not any good when the Republican majority has no spine. I would prefer a minority of Senators with a strong backbone who stifles RAT agenda. The RATs have shown that they wield more power in the minority than the Republicans wield in the majority.

Before we talk about "having the majority", we need to get these RINOs to leave the Republican Party or to come back to the conservative cause. I have no desire to fight for Republicans who are liberals.

It is not the "party" that dictates agenda and nominee selection, it is the "ideology"--radical left or conservative. The ideology today of the Republicans is liberal and that is the fight that we activists have to fight first before we have the desire to elect more Republicans to elected office.
52 posted on 10/30/2005 6:37:54 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.

Listen up people...

53 posted on 10/30/2005 6:40:32 AM PST by GOPJ (NYT: How many times do you ask for an error to be corrected before the "error" becomes a "lie"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

goldstategop wrote:
We would be punishing GOP Senators for failure to support our President
////////////////////////////////////////////////

Wrong. We would be punishing ourselves by giving in to the Democrat pressure, and giving up on our party. The answer is to hold each republican senator responsible for his poor performance. Then during his election year actively work to replace him with a better qualified republican. If this happens even a few times it would send a powerful message to those who think they can get away with abandoning the people who elected them.


54 posted on 10/30/2005 6:44:25 AM PST by photodawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Have your ever heard the logical fallacy of the whole equals the sum of the parts?


55 posted on 10/30/2005 6:54:54 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.

The "mainstream" is not the problem. The Left has more effectively used language to sell their positions to voters. They have become astute languagemiesters out of a necessity to obfuscate their unpopular policy positions.

Conservatives have fallen for the bait and often refer to the Leftist, partisan press as the "Mainstream" press when they are not "mainstream". Leftists are often referred to by conservates as "Elites" when they definitely are not "elite" in any sense of the word.

Alito, Williams, or Luttig would make fine justices and are consistent with the mainstream of American opinion.
56 posted on 10/30/2005 7:09:07 AM PST by etradervic (Able Danger, Peter Paul Campaign Fraud, Travelgate, Whitewater, Sandy Berger...demand answers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Schiller.PDF


57 posted on 10/30/2005 7:14:40 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: monocle; Do not dub me shapka broham
Have your ever heard the logical fallacy of the whole equals the sum of the parts?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govt/docs/Schiller.PDF

Obviously not. /grin

Gotta run, I'm late for church. I'll revisit this when I return.

58 posted on 10/30/2005 7:52:49 AM PST by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

Heh, it would be sumptuously ironic if we gave the Senate back to the Dems only to have the GOP filibuster anything and everything they try to do.


59 posted on 10/30/2005 7:57:28 AM PST by thoughtomator (Ninety-nine Republican Arlen Specters aren’t worth one Democratic Zell Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tarheelswamprat; monocle
Yes I have, your snarky, uninformed comment notwithstanding.

I suggest that you at least take the time to look at the document I've offered for your perusal.

It is edifying, especially for those of you who hew to this ridiculous-not to mention, unverifiable-conviction that repealing the 17th Amendment is some sort of panacea that will return the United States to its Constitutional roots.

If you actually want to roll back the insidious socialism that's gripped this country from 1932 onward, then I suggest that you find a more effective vehicle for accomplishing that goal, e.g. lobbying for the modification or eradication of the income tax, clamoring for the repeal of the disastrous congressional expansions to Medicare-and every other "entitlement" program under the Sun-and campaigning for the imposition of firm, low numerical quotas on the thousands of tax-eaters that are given carte blanche to enter this country on an annual basis.

60 posted on 10/30/2005 8:04:49 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 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