Great arguments you've made the last several days KKC. Really, very helpful to open debate.
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.
Great arguments you've made the last several days KKC. Really, very helpful to open debate.
Ahhh, so if you don't join the little club you get smeared when someone nominates you for USSC, is that it? Perhaps she didn't have time for club activities because she was too busy working.
Moonbat alert!
It's possible, but not plausible.
Then again, Gary Hart "may" win the 2008 presidential election.
I don't think either scenario-though theoretically possible-has more than an extremely remote chance of ever occurring.
As in smirking chimp?
Sniff sniff
I may very well be a dolt. I have been humbled by reading Hugh Hewitt, disagreeing with him (in my mind) and then eventually realizing he was right all along.
That may happen here, in some respect. But in another respect, it will not. W is not my personal leader. He is not a man who believes in constitutional government. I am not bound to believe him.
The Miers decision was one some folks anticipated for 30 years. It came down to a moment. With an opportunity to completely and perfectly respond to the moment, W instead decided to nominate a retainer who was a cypher.
After that moment, I do not care. It was a smirk moment. Apart from how it all turns out, it was a moment of selfishness and betrayal.
I have always appreciated and respected your remarks Sink, but in this instance I disagree with you.
She didn't refuse to join the Federalist Society because she was "busy working," but because she didn't believe in its goals.
It's that simple.
You are right, we do not know how she will turn out.
But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.
Thomas was a judge in the DC appeals court for only a short time, and he didn't write ant law review articles either.
At the time he was as much of a cipher as Ms Miers.
.
Thomas but not Scalia. Again: Thomas was derided as a cynical choice because of the thinness of his resume.
Anybody doing that would be eaten alive during their next election campaign
You have a GAL like Thomas. But let her speeak for herself. That's the purpose of the hearings.
The fact that you insist upon repeating this timeworn canard-ad nauseum-should indicate how manifestly weak your argument is.
That's right. OR.... she may turn out in the mold of Souter.
See, this is why everybody is so disgusted with Bush. There was no need for the slightest uncertainty.
You sound trollish..
And what was Thomas resume when he was nominated? Thiner than that of a hundred other possibilities.
How many times does the National Review article, from 1991, which states that Clarence Thomas was "an unknown, more in the mold of David Souter" have to be posted?
Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action pick, and, like Miers, was characterized by GHWBush as "the most qualified candidate available." That description was derided by liberal and conservative media.
Clarence Thomas was as much a cipher as Harriett Miers.
And again: Souter did not work with Bush senior; Bush hardly knew the man. He took the word of Sununu and Rudman. His resume proved to be NO indicator of his future decisions.
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.