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.
You insult me out of the blue (telling me I'm starting to act insane...simply over my opinion) then accuse me of being nuts. Alrightttyyyy.
Well said.
Anybody doing that would be eaten alive during their next election campaign "
Would you not vote for a Republican or stay home in the next election if someone who voted for Ginsburg and Breyer voted against Meirs?
Would you feel like they betrayed you or at least maybe did not tell you the complete truth?
I am sorry I stirred you up, if you have a heart attack or stroke, I will never be able to forgive myself.
Just kidding of course. Here's a quarter, call someone who cares.
A+Bert, that you?
Clearly...
However FR's usual resident social-moderates and mesmerized Bush-Bots will remain mired in a vortex of denial...even as the life-rafts are dropped into the icy waters.
It is always a good idea to shove these kind of lies back down the throats of those who spew them.
It is interesting how some self described conservatives, read CINO's, have no problem drinking the Republican party kool aid and bashing Conservatives who will not.
Any qualifued conservative nominee with no scandals would have been confirmed. No offense meant to you, because you are by no means alone, but this notion that Bush turned yellow and ran scared from some RINO Senators is offensive. I've looked at it and done the math - - there is no way that six (6) RINOs would ALL vote against a qualified nominee simply because the Democrats whine that the nominee is roo conservative.
It is disappointing to see that so many around here are willing, without ever actually doing the math, to use that same, lazy knee-jerk apology for Bush ("only a stealth nominee can get confirmed"). Well, I've done the math, and the excuse doesn't hold water.
Regards,
LH
A+Bert had a sense of humor, to the best of my recollection. So far none seems detectable in dsfg.
But a filibuster would mean we'd need all 55 Republicans and 5 Democrats to break it. Unless we went nuclear, and -- while I think Frist probably (not perhaps definitely) had just enough votes for the rules change -- I don't think we have the votes now. I think Frist had probably been able to dragoon a couple back before the gang of 15, but there were numerous Republicans who were not enthusiastic about the prospect.
And the longer this drags on (Dems have been known to filibuster for years), the longer O'Connor remains on the court. And while they might get pressure to fill a truly vacant seat, there wouldn't be any to fill a seat that's already filled with someone they like better.
Agreed and well said.
Seven Democrats promised very publicly that they would not filibuster except under "extraordinary circumstances". Being a qualified, scandal-free conservative judge does not count as "extraordinary circumstances".
So no, the Democrats could not sustain a filibuster.
That was part of the genius of the "Gang of Fourteen" deal.
I can't answer your question intelligently, because I don't know enough about Harriet Miers. I can't even guess.
As I understand it, the Dems get to define what qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances," not you, not I, not FR --not even John McCain. Don't recall whether they've said it explicity, but I'll bet an anti-Roe record counts as "extraordinary."
Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me."
1) He didn't keep his word on stem cells and created a market in embryos.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand fell on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
Some argue that it is the president's choice to pick whomever he will nominate. I disagree. He is there to represent the people who put him there and to uphold the constitution. Republicans never should've voted for Ginsberg based on her unconstitutional views, rather than voting for her in spite of her wacky leftist views.
Bush has created a disturbing precedent in choosing Roberts and Miers. He has sent the unmistakable message that known conservatives need not apply. Some will say, "but look at his appellate appointments." Sure, he made excellent appellate appointments, but he left them to twist in the wind in his first term. I'm sure the stealthy nature of his SC nominations are not lost on his appellate appointments, either.
Conservatives need to press Miers during the confirmation hearings instead of giving her a pass. She may or may not do well, but Bush, the Nixon Republican, has slighted conservatives for the last time.
No, the entire "Gang of Fourteen" defines "extraordinary circumstances", though ultimately the decision to filibuster based on "extraordinary circumstances" would be sold one way or the other by the Democrats' allies in the dying, socialist "mainstream" newsrooms, which now have considerably less inflience than they once had.
But WE conservatives would have Bush's back, and WE are formidable, to say the least. I maintain that there would be no filibuster but that even IF five of the seven Democrat members of the "GoF" were pressured to bail on "the deal", the Republicans would ultimately prevail in the attempt to "go nuclear" in response.
And if they're not of one mind, who wins? Or does the gang fall apart like the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact? I'm afraid you're more of an optimist than I am. I would like to think you're right . . . but I don't.
But he also didn't reject membership in that organization outright.
Harriet Miers has spoken to them in the past, but that proves absolutely nothing.
The same can be said of ACLU nimrod Nadine Strossen, but I doubt many of the Miers supporters would have been elated at her nomination to the Supreme Court.
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.