[dawn53]

Although they were not "stealth" candidates such as Miss Miers has been painted, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor never hung as millstones around the neck of Ronald Reagan in conservative lore. No one knows or ever can know for certain how a justice will act once on the bench, but maybe we should be taking Miers her at her word when she said in her acceptance speech

And a hearty AMEN to this paragraph!

Ever hear a Reagan conservative say Reagan betrayed us because Kennedy and O'Connor have turned out to be more liberal than thought. You'll hear plenty about Souter and GHWB, but not about Reagan's appointments. Why is that????

[Rodney King]

Ever hear a Reagan conservative say Reagan betrayed us because Kennedy and O'Connor have turned out to be more liberal than thought. You'll hear plenty about Souter and GHWB, but not about Reagan's appointments. Why is that????

There is a very, very easy answer to that. When Reagan first nominated O'Connor, we are all not as well-tuned to tendency of judges to move left. In addition, it was not as clear to all of us that the left was fighting its culture war through the courts.

It is for this reason that Reagan didn't campaign on judges in 1980, or 1984. It wasn't considered as big of an issue then.

Since then, we have had Souter, and we have had the liberals attack every single institution that we cherish through the courts.

As a result, judicial nominations are front and center for us, and they were a major rallying cry for why we should all support Bush.

So, do you understand now?

[adorno]

You'll hear plenty about Souter and GHWB, but not about Reagan's appointments. Why is that????

I think that if republicans knew back then what they know now about Kennedy and O'Connor and even Souter, then the complaints would have been unending and the same charges against the president about the him turning his back on the people who elected him would have been made.

The answer to the "Why is that!!!" is that the reublican voters learned some very valuable lessons and they are warning the president and presidents in the future that they won't take that kind of 'treason' against the republican voters in the future.

If Roberts and Miers turn out to be another Souter or just close to Souter, then only very conservative presidents need apply to the presidency in the future.

[Pessimist]

"Why is that????"

Because we all trust that Reagan was a true, unabahsed conservative, and we don't have the same trust for either Bush.

[Ditto]

You'll hear plenty about Souter and GHWB...

By the same token, GHWB is never given credit by the raw meat brigades for standing by Thomas when it would have been far easier to dump him. It's a one-way street with these 'me, me, me' fair weather conservatives.

[pollyannaish]

People who are using Ronald Reagan as the stick with which to measure George Bush are ignorant or forgetful.

President Reagan was in no way considered a giant during his second term, and conservatives kvetched about him incessantly about going soft, out of control of his administration, making terrible decisions, an amiable dunce and not being conservative enough.

He is only a giant through the eyes of history and the gentle mellowing of time. We will not know how The President measures up for many years to come—until we see the full consequences of his decisions, both good and bad.

[daviscupper]

Because he won the Cold War and freed 700 million people. You get cut a lot of slack for doing something like that.