Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
Don't you remember the utter let-down when elder Bush broke the fundamental promise he made, "No new taxes"?
The promise was not merely a bow to the Laffer curve, it was an emotional and pyschological statement to the many people in this country who still believe in constitutional goverment, and who knew that taxation was the means to undermine constitutional government, liberty and freedom, to put it another way.
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now.
In both cases, there was an even deeper issue, the issue of integrity. Integrity is the first principle of conservatism. Integrity means an unflinching openness to the facts and faithful adherence to principle.
"No new taxes," "Thomas and Scalia."
Unlike the Left, conservatives usually have the integrity to call out their own, regardless of political cost. The subtle political benefit of integrity is that there are so many people (conservatives) who vote for the politician who is actually honest.
Now, it is not a matter of calling out one of our own. It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own.
If he says "shrub," call the kitties. :-)
I have three priorities.
Patriotism, conservatism, and the Republican Party, in that order!
And my allegiance to the last is only as binding insofar as it adheres to the first two principles enumerated.
I understand why you ask that and it is a good point.
By "our own," I might mean something different from some folks in the forum.
By "our own," I mean a person who favors a jurist who believes in the original intent of the Founders.
By "our own," I mean someone who believes that government operates the best, when it does the few things it is supposed to do, in a way which is respectful of the people.
By "our own," I mean a person who is fundamentally influenced by the joy of being a free person instead of someone who is fundamentally loyal to the person who holds a government post.
You're on my turf now. Joseph Ratzinger was deemed, by the media and most Catholic commentators and by me, frankly, as too old, at 78, to be elected to the papacy. He was written off prior to the conclave.
Ratzinger was also typed as a stuffy old fuddy-duddy, doctrinally conservative, and ready to roll back Vatican II.
He has proven to be totally opposite of the dire forecasts. He is open, he listens, he is a focused, polished speaker, and has, as his first priority, Jesus' mandate that "they all may be one," that is, the reunion of Christian Churches.
Ratzinger was an inspired choice for pope, and, I believe, Miers is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.
I think Bush has let a large portion of his base down. With the pool of proven conservative originalists to choose from, his Mier's pick has me just shaking my head.
LOL!
Conservatives are against those; why are you here?
No politician who wishes election to national office can avoid telling powerful groups what they want to hear. Look up Thomas Jefferson's campaign speeches, Andrew Jackson's, Lincoln's. Compare what they said while on the stump with what they did in office.
Just the way democracy works. The Demos has a very short memory.
Perhaps the last President that I see as honest was John Adams. Eugene McCarthy was the most honest candidate in my lifetime. Just how it is.
By the way, I was mad as a hornet over the "no new taxes" business. "No new taxes" was the elder Bush's whole election campaign. He got Clinton elected. A bit much.
No one was questioning his credentials to be the vicar of Christ.
No one was scratching their heads, wondering what fundamental beliefs he valued above others, even if there were debates over what specific policies he might implement during his pontificate.
Harriet Miers is a blank slate.
A question mark.
This is not how you go about reshaping the Supreme Court.
And they've been like that for five straight days, 24/7.
One might even consider the fact that that one has an agenda and/or is being paid.
If I were getting paid for each cogent reply that I've made to a poorly-conceived argument in favor of the Miers nomination, then I would be rolling in it.
The President of the United States disagrees with you, so therefore HE must be betraying you.
Me, too.
They WANT the GOP to fail.
The truth is the best. Liberty and freedom are the fundamental truth of human existence.
Rest assured, you're not alone in your consternation.
Once we find out it will have been too late to do anything about it anyways, except damn the President.
Well, you're already doing that, so you're way ahead of your game plan, aren't you?
Precisely! The old "Just try to win without us" mantra is false; it is THEY who cannot win without us, simply because we actually HAVE a party and ELECT people to office.
They are here for two reasons: because they 1) don't have a party of their own, and 2) want this one.
Most of the people on this "demand" threads never supported Bush in the first place way back in 1999.
Again I ask, who are the *real* Republicans In Name Only.
CFR
Amnesties for illegals
Norm Mineta
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.