The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[Common Tator]

If Bush loses in November, the Democrats will take the House and the Senate.

Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be.

William Jefferson Clinton.

The only way Kerry wins is if Bill and Hillary don't try to defeat him. HIllary wants the nomination in 2008.

The only way for Kerry to stop that is to promise to make Bill Clinton Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Don't think they don't have the FBI files to get it done.

[Zipporah]

It certainly is a dilemma for conservatives. I long for the days of gridlock. At least the Republicans in Congress would stand up and fight, as it is we are basically screwed. The insane spending spree must stop. And what is troubling, the will of the people is being dismissed. It's not by the people nor for the people.

[Ohioan]

The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.

It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.

You are right. But we cannot afford another mistake.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Kevin Curry]

I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings.

Never.

[Moose4]

I see your point, but this is where your argument falls down:

If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair)/.

No they won't. They never have before, there is no reason to think that they will start now. There would have to be a turnover, a revolution, in the Senate far bigger than the 1994 House elections to give the Senate GOP enough cojones to do something like this. A Democratic President would be able to pack the Federal judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court, with so many liberal activist judges that our system of checks and balances would be totally screwed for a generation, maybe longer, maybe forever. And the Senate will not stop him, no matter who runs it.

I'm automatically leery of any stratagery (tm GWB) that requires losing to win. And while I'm not a "Bushbot", and I don't agree with a good bit of GWB's domestic agenda, I just can't see risking the security of the country by letting a Rat run things for four years. Monsieur F'in Kerry, or the Breck Girl, or Howard the Duck, or even Hillary!(tm), would not prosecute the War on Terror in the way it needs to be prosecuted.

I agree that we have got to find a more conservative Presidential candidate in 2008, that's not really debatable. But GWB is our best bet in 2004.

}:-)4

[VRW Conspirator]

Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be. William Jefferson Clinton.

OK, you frightened me enough!

[Kevin Curry]

I long for the days of gridlock.

Gridlock isn't all bad. George Will did a great piece on gridlock about ten years ago. He essentially said that for conservatives gridlock accomplishes in the short term what they desire for the long term. A government unable to get much done is preferable to one that find it too easy to get things done.

[Jim Noble]

No they won't. They never have before, there is no reason to think that they will start now

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 97-3 without dissent in the Judiciary Committee, and without floor debate.

[Dane]

You "true conservatives" got 2nd degree burns when you all helped elect Clinton back in 92.

I guess you all are going for 3rd degree burns in 04.

[Zipporah]

I agree.. gridlock IS a good thing. They're so busy fighting one another they can't spend our money. I know that this election, I will not vote for someone who does not represent me or American interests... I am done with voting for the lesser of two evils and party over principle.

[Dane]

Gridlock isn't all bad. George Will did a great piece on gridlock about ten years ago

Uh Kevin that was 10 years ago. If you want John Kerry to be Commander in Chief(actually it would be Kofi Annan and the UN) that's your opinion and your right to have it.

But it is also my right to have an opinion and that opinion of you wanting John Kerry and Kofi Annan to be Commanders in Chief is nuts.

[ex-snook]

ping for conservatives.

[Mamzelle]

re: Did I mention that Kerry would appoint the next Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. And that would be. William Jefferson Clinton.)))

!!!

Ok. You can stop now. I know that amnesty thing made me mad, but stop, already.

[niteowl77]

��5{��������ers are finally out in force today, and it's about time; when John F-in' Kerry takes the oath next January with their help, THEN they can get this country back on track! No doubt about it- 90% of the 1%ers are right here, madder than Howard Dean and just as delusional. FR looks to be just as entertaining as it was four years ago, with the true believers partying like it's 1999.

Once again, I expect a damn close race with little help from the reactionary utopians. If GWB loses the WH, the GOP can kiss both houses of congress goodbye, and all the hopeful prognosticating will be worth less than Joe Lieberman's momentum.

[LdSentinal]

The last time there was gridlock there was the murder of 3,000 people and the attempted murder of 50,000. I'll take a pass.

[Scenic Sounds]

Any Democrat president will also have to choose between spending cuts or raising taxes. If he chooses the latter, he will see his support plummet as the economic recovery sputters and stalls.

Isn't that what the Republican leadership said in 1993?

Nice piece, Kevin! It looks like you put a lot of thought into this.

[Common Tator]

I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings

Didn't the senate vote 100 to zip not to hear any eveidence against Clinton?

Final votes are for Show to the folks back home. Clinton was a sure winnner when the senate voted 100 to zip not to hear any evidence against him in his trial.

When the jury refuses to hear any evidence against the defendent... you can kind of figure the FIX is in.

Tell me how Clinton got 100 out of 100 Senators to vote NOT TO HEAR ANY EVIDENCE against him in his impeachment trial?

Everyone knew that if the the amercian people heard the evidence against Clinton, he was toast! But they voted 100 to zip NOT to allow the presentation of any evidence against Bill. Then a marjority voted not quilty.

NOW tell me again why he could not get confirmed in the Senate?

If they could not get a single Senator to vote to hear the evidince against Clinton, how many do you thing they could get to vote against him for the Supreme Court. You would need 40 votes and the last time they could not get even one.

Did Bill and Hill destory all those FBI files? I don't think so.

[Arkinsaw]

I don't agree. And even if it were true, Clinton would never get through the Senate hearings. Never.

Oh lord, how many times have I heard the word NEVER and CLINTON in the same paragraph and oh lord, how many times has the speaker been wrong.

How soon we forget how many times we counted on Clinton to lose reelection, be thrown out of office, be abandoned by the Democratic leadership, be indicted (15 times), etc. None of it ever happened. How many times here did someone say that the American people would NEVER choose Al Gore but they almost did.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER.......them's eatin words my friend.

[Common Tator]

Isn't that what the Republican leadership said in 1993?

I think President Dole said it too.