Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
I get personally annoyed (I must be growing older which, I suppose, generally beats the alternative) by suggestions that, as a social conservative, I am somehow inclined to leave the GOP unless I get everything I want the instant that I want it. Roe vs. Wade was handed down more than thirty years ago. Lately, there have been a spate of pro-homosexual decisions. I don't think I vary one iota in my beliefs and positions on such matters from your Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe and former Senator Nickles (sp.?) on any social issue. Or from J. C. Watts for that matter or from Steve Largent. What am I, as a social conservative, doing to deserve disrespect?
Though my every ancestor was a Democrat (and most were labor union members), I have been a Republican since I was a teenager and I will die one. Most of my relatives (still working class have adhered to the GOP for socially conservative Catholic religious reasons. I have supported Dubya since he was nominated and supported him on just about every issue including the tax cuts which benefit me not at all. Those tax cuts were good policy regardless of who they benefit. Likewise Dubya's policies in most areas.
If you want to find folks who constantly threaten to bolt, you would do better to look at the Tancredo crowd.
Your suggestion of Janice Rogers Brown for the vacancy is something in which I thoroughly concur. She is the single best nominee that I can imagine. That is particularly true in light of the Kelo vs. New London decision. The GOP is changing as a socio-political institution but the party is still defined by its ideology.
The Demonrats are frantic because they cannot take Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales (whatever his issue drawbacks) for granted simply because of their respective ancestries. The Demonrats would like the right to convert the Republican young in college classrooms on environmentalism, sexual license, bleeding heartism, pseudo-intellectual mock superiority, repulsion for war and (gasp!) guns, etc. Meanwhile, the Demonrats view the votes of blacks, Hispanics, union members, poor people, blue collars, dead people, people who never were, etc. as a sort of political entitlement for Demonrats. I'll bet you disagree with this as much as I do.
For what it is worth, I also agree with you on Dubya's judicial nominations which are generally far better than those of his father or even of Ronaldus Maximus.
The Constitution Party types or other eccentrics have seldom effected an election outcome. The phenomenon of social conservatives is far, far broader than the Constitution Party types. The fact missing in the notion that social conservatives will leave the GOP is any sizeable number of actual social conservatives who WILL leave the GOP in any foreseeable circumstance.
That does not mean that social conservatives expect to be or wish to be taken for granted. It is for such circumstances that God invented primaries. How much did Tom Coburn spend running for his three terms in Congress in an otherwise Democrat district? How much did he spend compared to his primary opponent(s) in the Senate race?
Oh, and few things put social conservatives in more of a punishing mood than the Gerald Fordian/Nelson Rockefellerian suggestion that they "have no place else to go." If they go elsewhere in this election or that they will do so by quiet nonviolent political assassination by voting booth rather than public proclamation and press release except when we got Weicker's hide in Connecticut. Lieberman is still more of a Republican than Weicker ever was.
the Dems would be able to use the point that they were "just confirmed" to the lower court to say they were "not qualified". Brown is the perfect person to replace Ginsburg someday, if we can hold the white house in 2008.
go for the Hispanic now (not Gonzales).
LOL!! That's Dr. Tom -- I just have a hunch that the nomination is going to come from one of those that were confirmed as part of that deal. Beginning to think more and more the RATs and McCain and Co. got snookered into making that agreement knowing full well a SCOTUS was retiring. I do not believe this resignation caught the President by surprise.
I am beginning to think that Rove laid a trap for the Senate through Lott knowing this was going to happen. I may have to take back what I said about Lott if it turns out the President nominates one of the justices that were confirmed from that deal.
*******************
He deserves to be a Supreme............. a very good friend and a very strong citizen!!!!!!!!!!!!
God Bless his wife.
Thanks for the encouragement, and I pray you are right!!
Olson is too old.
We might keep Gonzales out but Fox is clearly not only in the proverbial hen house, he's eaten all the chickens and still gnawing on the bones.
With Republicans you have a crap shoot with SCOTUS nominees, with Democrats you know you'll get a socialist, living-document globalist. It's a pathetic affair. I swear, Bush better not stick another Souter on the court like Daddy did or the grassroots will take their pitchforks out of mothballs!
There are NONE in THIS government.
.......... real foolish!
BlackElk! One of my FR heroes. Long time no ping hahaha... I've been working two full time jobs so I have little time for FR.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
what's foolish about it. Olson is in his 60s.
But you are more than a social conservative -- you are a conservative both social and fiscal from what I have read of your posts. That is what I was trying to get across. I am both as well.
I fought with the "purist" as they call themselves starting in 1999 when I first came on here so we go way back and they were threatening back them to pick up their ball and leave -- told them to go then as well. Nothing is ever good enough for them -- we actually have some of those types in my County and State -- they belong to the Republican Assemblies -- bunch of malcontents always threatening not to vote Republican because they are the "social" conscience of Republicans. They are not my social conscience -- I do just fine on my own supporting candidates like Dr. Tom, Sen Inhofe, and others. I work in campaigns from the grassroots to elect more conservatives and the only people I ever meet threatening to stay home and not vote call themselves "social" conservatives. I am just a plain old Conservative Republican that is pro-life and supports pro-life candidates -- easy for me -- I live in Oklahoma. Now you know why I said what I did about "social" conservatives -- have to be a fiscal as well IMHO to call yourself a conservative.
I didn't come up with the title "social" conservative and never even heard it until I came on here. I thought conservative meant you were pro-life and pro-tax cuts which meant you would be Republican.
Oh yeh child ................ in the 60's is ancient
Get a life!
clueless............
He not TOO old, but POTUS has others who are younger.
If you read the books on the President, you will see that he opposed Souter when he Dad nominated him. He also did not see eye to eye with Sununu and Rudman. Pres Bush is not like his Dad -- he is not afraid to do battle and people underestimate him because he genuinely a nice guy but this nice guy has one Karl Rove right next to him who is a rock ribbed conservative. Anyone with Karl Rove in an office next to him is one person I wouldn't want to play Texas Hold Em with.
That was Coburn's point on Pryor.
One thing I think we have in common is that we decry naysayers. Another is that we value the GOP as an institution and as a vehicle for the translation of ideas into reality through politics.
60 is too old.
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.