Skip to comments.Mr Bush: It's not your integrity we don't trust, it's your JUDGMENT
Posted on 10/14/2005 10:21:47 PM PDT by dangus
Did you ever have to tell a friend "Thats not funny. No, I mean it; thats seriously not funny"? Then theres that awkward moment when youre both just sort of embarrassed? When its kind of painful to be friends, but you have to do something because you *are* friends. Now imagine your friend is the most powerful man in the world.
Bush may have thought that the liberals who so much hate Alberto Gonzalez were the butt of his jokes when he purposely made coy suggestions that he would nominate Gonzalez to the Supreme Court. His problem is that serious Christians and conservatives were witnessing him, too, and were horrified at the prospect of Justice Gonzalez; people who are more about the lives of tens of millions of unborn babies that tweaking the liberal press corps.
Now, Bush says, trust me. How can we? We still dont know that he was joking about Alberto Gonzalez.
Gonzalez is worse than your typical, garden-variety professor-type liberal. Hes a political liberal whos willing to slander other people to feign moderateness. Hes a God-damned liar.
You know that case in Texas where he claimed he didnt really vote pro-abortion; he just refused to be an activist judge and read into the law what he wished it said? He lied. And he slandered his conservative colleagues, ruining their hopes of going to the Supreme Court.
Gonzalez claims the parental consent law was flawed, and so he had to strike it down, being the strict constructionist that he was. I sharply disagree; Gonzalez had to define the parental-consent law in the narrowest possible terms, and other laws in the widest possible terms to come to that conclusion. That makes him a liberal, but it doesnt make him a liar.
What makes him a liar is that the dissent wasnt even over whether the law should be interpreted widely or narrowly; it was that his court had no basis to hear the case. Appeals courts decide matters of law, not matters of fact. Gonzalez majority had to throw out a finding of a matter of fact by the trial judge to make the matter of law an issue in the case, a bizarre motion of extremist activism which the dissent noted overturned a century of jurisprudence in Texas. They were too kind; it threw out a millennium of jurisprudence in the Anglosphere. (Oh, Im sorry... We follow the laws of the Hispanosphere now, dont we?)
And to keep the case from becoming moot, Gonzalez majority had to authorize an unprecedented middle-of-the-night ruling to ensure that woman had the opportunity to murder her baby immediately. How can he say he believes abortion is legal murder when he twisted the law to let a woman get an abortion?
No, Mr. President, we're not calling YOU a liar; we do not trust your JUDGMENT if you could trust a man such as Gonzalez.
He looked deep into the soul of Vladimir Putin, and found a soulmate.
He thought he could win over the French, The French ! The French, who sponsored the genocide in Rwanda, announced their kinship with the Chicoms, and plotted to divide the world in two, the Francophiles (including Iran, Al-Qaeda, China and Russia) against the Anglophiles. Those French. He thought he could win them over by appealing to their higher nature.
He thought he could trust Turkey. He thought he could trust the United Nations. He seems to still think so.
But its funny that while he trusts these people, he doesnt trust his own.
He doesnt trust the free markets, but instead embraced big government and spending that would Bill Clinton rejoice at being able to get away with.
He doesnt trust American society to integrate immigrants, but instead has enforced Bill Lann Lees policy of mandating that any organization which receives a dime in federal funds must provide free interpretation and translation services into whatever language the illegal alien at his desk demands. (Im referring to Executive Order 13166, issued in August 2000 by Bill Clinton. The underlying court case, Sandoval v. Alexander, was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, before Clinton could implement it, but Bushs Justice Department brought it back from the grave. Get ready, America, for highway signs in 29 languages!)
He doesnt trust those of us who are concerned about terrorism and illegal immigration. Instead, he presumes the Minutemen to be vigilantes. Mr. President, thats an accusation of criminality; its LEGAL SLANDER. You should be ashamed of permitting your staff to commit such a misdemeanor of your office.
And he doesnt trust that conservatives are concerned about Ms. Miers for legitimate reasons. Instead, he has his wife call us all a bunch of sexists.
We fought for you, Mr. Bush. We worked the polls; we debated liberals; we exposed their lies; we waited in line for hours to vote. We have stood by our man.
There was an article in the Washington Post about whether mixed marriages (conservatives and liberals) can work. The conclusion was that individual policy disagreements dont break up marriages; but fundamentally different world views do. Well, conservatives have always trusted George W. Bushs integrity, but now maybe we are starting to realize its the world view that makes this marriage simply not work.
He promised to be a conservative, and he has overseen the most massive increase in federal spending in history. Im not talking funding for the war. His first instinct is always to spend money. When New Orleans destroys itself with corruption and graft, he wants to give the millionaires responsible TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of our money. He throws trillions of dollars of extra health care spending like its nothing.
I used to call myself a bleeding-heart conservative. By that, I meant that I cared about all the issues that liberals exploit to get bleeding hearts to vote for them, but I simply did not believe that liberalism did anything but make the problems worse. Benefits to single parents, for instance, wind up simply being paying people to shack up outside of marriage.
When thenGovernor Bush announced he was a compassionate conservative, I thought he meant what I meant. Im starting to believe that hes just simply soooo liberal in his world views, he thinks that compassionate is an adjective that moderates how conservative he is. Bernie Goldberg was right: real liberals never understand that they are liberals. A real conservative understands that conservativism IS compassionate; only someone who buys whole-heartedly the ad-hominem lies of the left could think otherwise.
Yes, George Bush is a liberal. A patriotic liberal. Maybe even an honest liberal. And in a way, Im glad to know that there can exist honest, patriotic liberals. But hey, in 2008, what say we let the DEMOCRATS nominate one?
Visit my FReeper profile for more commentary and analysis on topics from religion to politics to politics to war.
Alberto Gonzalez gave Burger the pass.
You are breaking news? Congratulations!
Well he is breaking something but I wouldn't call it news.
I did not put this in "breaking news." I did put it in "News/Activism," but I did not check the "breaking news" box. I did check the vanities box.
See the post entitled 'Voting Has Begun in Iraq'; I trust President Bush's judgement just fine.
Fevered brain is right.
Another of the "trust me" misrepresentations.
LOL. Yeah, the term compassionate conservative gave the soccer moms a warm fuzzy about pulling for the GOP.
Hehe...you don't really believe that do you? It is a strange type of liberal that thinks reducing taxes will help the economy recover and increase tax revenues.
I wonder why some folks think that every brain fart they have should be posted as breaking news?
Forgive me, but I'm gonna pass on that. George W. Bush is no liberal.
Bush has nominated known conservatives, so I can't say that he hasn't been conservative just because he's nominated another stealth candidate. Roberts was a relatively stealthy pick as well, and conservatives seem as pleased with him as they've been with other nominations at the lower level courts.
But Miers doesn't make me say he's been consistently conservative by nominating her after Roberts.
I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives, as opposed to stealthy conservatives.
That's exactly why conservatives need to lead out front on the filibuster issue, to establish the necessary credibility to demand that ALL nominees be known conservatives.
Until conservatives establish that credibility, the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer.
Gee, do you think maybe I could disagree with a guy on some important issues (UN, Budget, Miers) and still think he's a HELL of a lot better than a commie-loving, anti-American, degenerate beatnick from Massachusetts?
What, I thought this would have to be breaking news, this isn't breaking news, really?
"Mr Bush: It's not your integrity we don't trust, it's your JUDGMENT" also titled....."Babble babble babble, ramble ramble ramble"
LOL! I have not read one original thought yet. Just same old, same old.
Heck, I just scan the crap now, if at all.
"I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives"
Which is why the liberals hold on to the Congress/Senate and White House, oh my mistake.
What we have is a party that wants to ride the middle. As long as people admit that then there is no argument. A piddly tax cut here, a big spending program there, kill some fanatic muslims here, throw money at bureacracies there...
yeah you could, but thats not what you said.AWB
Sigh. When will our black sheep Children of the Corn Conservatives realize that their pathologically gargantuan egos and large amounts of hubris are getting them exactly nowhere?
Get it through you heads, O unhinged ones. The constitution doesn't allow you a say in this matter.
Yet you seem attracted to them.
Yes there is an outbreak of verbal diarrhea lately. That means only one thing, the Keysters and Patsies have slithered back.
Now, now don't get snippy.
>> I'm not sure conservatives have established the street credibility necessary to demand that ALL of Bush's nominees be known conservatives, as opposed to stealthy conservatives. <<
How about anyone who is not at best stealthy? I didn't complain about Roberts because even though he was a stealth candidate at best, he had established himself as a fantiastic pick on non-ideological grounds.
But by scraping so deeply the bottom of the barrel with Miers, he has made very plain that he would never CONSIDER an outspoken conservative.
>> That's exactly why conservatives need to lead out front on the filibuster issue, <<
I agreee whole-heartedly that the use of the filibuster in this instance would be unpardoable. So much so, I can't believe you'd even bring it up. There's no need "to lead out front" on the issue, because it's inconceivable that a conservative would filibuster.
>> Until conservatives establish that credibility, <<
That's my point! He trusts Putin and Chirac and the U.N., but lets his minions call conservatives "vigilantes," and "sexist" and "discriminators."
>> the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer <<
WTF? Are you suggesting that the GOP is punishing us? I've said some people around here have battered wife syndrome, but that's the most directly I've ever seen it expressed, if that's what you're suggesting!
"Don't make Daddy angry, or he's gonna get drunk and start beating us again!"
"Oh, I know it's really my fault... I provoke him to such anger!"
I mean this literally (and, sad as it is, I must even state that I mean the word "literally" literally): Pathetic.
Oh yes, they're here. I spotted some from three thresads away...lol.
What we have is a Gang of 7 that grabbed power from the President to serve their own aspirations for the oval office, led by McCain, a moderate. Now their efforts have resulted in the President nominating stealth nominees instead of known conservatives.
Conservatives cannot demand all nominees be known conservatives, instead of stealth conservatives, until they take down the filibuster.
He put some conservatives on the appellate courts. He also put some liberals. And, sorry, but the appellate courts don't mean anything at all.
I thought I had smelled a brain fart around here....
You have serious reading comprehension problems.
Conservatives haven't filibustered. I never said they did. They cannot demand that all candidates be known conservatives until they establish that filibusters are no longer a threat to nominating a known conservative.
You are the weakest link.
>> Conservatives cannot demand all nominees be known conservatives, instead of stealth conservatives, until they take down the filibuster. <<
But conservatives can never criticize a Republican on your planet, can they? Face it, Specter beat Toomey because Bush campaigned for him. And then Bush put forth the word that Specter had better not be denied the chairmanship of the Judiciary committee.
Go back and take Civics 101. I bet you will change your stance on this and some of your other beliefs about government.AWB
No, Mr. Weakest Link, it's a logical inference. It only takes 50 votes to get rid of the filibuster. The moderates are positively gleeful about Miers. There are only 45 (44+1) Democrats. And we're talking about dissent from the right. So, you are either stupid, or you expect a conservative to filibuster. You'll pardon me that I didn't expect that you were stupid.
Buh bye. Have fun in your little world, trapped inside your self-proclaimed "fevered mind."
Speaking of farts on a Friday night, I last week was at a George Lopez performance. For the first ten minutes all Lopez talked about was how bad his/Mexican farts smell.
Ten minutes of fart jokes.
Next he was talking about how fun it would be to allow child abuse.
Shortly after that, I left. His act stunk worse than his farts IMO. Should this start it's own thread in breaking news?
Personally I think a fart it self should be considered breaking news
"See the post entitled 'Voting Has Begun in Iraq'; I trust President Bush's judgement just fine."
Oh THAT little thing?
btw, is anyone else tired of these endless whining vanities?
Good vanity. Some may flame you but I fail to see how they could refute you.
Ah, such rhetorical skills:
"Well he is breaking something but I wouldn't call it news." -- Texasforever
"Fevered brain is right." -- unsycophant
(I take it your name is meant ironically?)
"You don't trust his judgment but you vote for him? Never understood that logic." -- Americanwolfsbrother
"brain fart" -- texasforever
"Until conservatives establish that credibility, the GOP isn't going to take very kindly to their recent tirades, and all of us will continue to suffer." -- Kryptonite
"also titled....."Babble babble babble, ramble ramble ramble"" -- Rokke
"LOL! I have not read one original thought yet. Just same old, same old. Heck, I just scan the crap now, if at all." -- onyx (also missing the irony of his comments
"You are the weakest link." -- Kryptonite
"black sheep Children of the Corn Conservatives ... pathologically gargantuan egos and large amounts of hubris ... O unhinged ones." -- Neville72
Non-sequitor award goes to:
"'He thought he could win over the French...He thought he could trust Turkey. He thought he could trust the United Nations. He seems to still think so.' Hehe...you don't really believe that do you? It is a strange type of liberal that thinks reducing taxes will help the economy recover and increase tax revenues."
Hell I was being kind. Your "skills" as a writer make you qualified for any burger flipping gig in the country.
Does there need to be a discussion of the Constitutionality of a fart in breaking news and whether that is a living fart or a strictly constructed fart?
You're taking this much too personal.
This whole HANG HARRIET is bombastic hyperbole.
I trust President Bush.
If I were you I wouldn't be calling anyone stupid. How many filibusters do you need to witness before you understand that the Republicans couldn't break them and then the gang of 14 hijacked the entire process?
>> yeah you could, but thats not what you said. <<
Um, actually I did. If I say a criticism among people who know what is laudatory about a man, do I have to specifically name each laudatory thing? Can I not just name the biggest? Or do you not think honesty and patriotism are all that important?
Say what you want, I've tired of your drivel. Yours must be a sorry lonely life.AWB
brain farts... regular farts... lets not go the diversity route on this.. a fart, is a fart, is a fart... a fart by any other name smells the same.
Does there need to be a discussion of the Constitutionality of a fart in breaking news and whether that is a living fart or a strictly constructed fart?
I think we approach the fart like our founding farters did. it is a living fart and each age should interpret that fart as it applies to their epoch in time as to whether it is a breaking news fart or not.
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.