[William McKinley]

This article is about the silliest I have read in the Washington Times. Most of it is not even worthy of a response. But picking a line to pick on:

Who now will stand up to propose that a future Supreme Court reverse itself and declare that diversity is not a compelling interest of government?

It certainly would not be anyone like Barry Goldwater. As I pointed out here, his nomination acceptance speech included no fewer than six references to the benefits of diversity and how intertwined it is with Republicanism and America.

But assuming Lindberg was sloppily adopting the language of the left and confusing the desirable 'diversity' with the undesirable 'affirmative action and state sanctioned racism', who will stand up and propose that a future Supreme Court reverse this?

That would be anyone calling for 'strict constructionists' who 'narrowly interpret' the Constitution for 'what it says', Justices like 'Scalia and Thomas'. As it so happens, this is exactly what President Bush has been saying. It has not just been empty rhetoric, though. His Judicial nominees have been exemplary, from Estrada to Kuhl to Pryor to Owen to Pickering to McConnell to Shedd to Sutton to Tymkovich to Roberts to Boyle.

The Republican party, as frustrating as it can be at times, has backed these nominees. The Democrats have prevented many of them from taking their seats.

So who will stand up? Bush has. He has most of the party backing him. Fools like Lindberg seem to want to say "but he is not standing the way I would."

I offer to Lindberg and people like him two more passages from Goldwater. The first is also from his acceptance speech; the second from another famous speech- his 1960 address of Nixon's convention. Both aim directly at those who demand a lock-step purist approach in exchange for their support:

Balance, diversity, creative difference-these are the elements of Republican equation. Republicans agree, Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications. But we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans.

This is a party-- this Republican party is a party for free men. Not for blind followers and not for conformists.

And the second is more concise:

Grow up, conservatives

[sauropod]

Words do not mean what they used to mean, hence rendering your argument moot.

[jammer]

William, my take on the article is different than yours. Your statement, "Grow up, conservatives," is a case in point (I have several hard things to say about it, but let's forget those for now). I believe that's exactly what Lindberg is saying. Although his is a jeremiad, it is, nonetheless a statement similar to what you make. He is just pointing out how things are.