No, not Gonzales!

Bush has already established his legacy as one of the best presidents of the last hundred years.

What are babbling about? Part of Bush's legacy is going to that pathetic Medicare prescription drug plan and expanding government in his first three years at the fastest rate of any President since LBJ. Compassionate conservatism is another name for big government.

Let's not forgot our porous, open borders that Bush would rather ignore than do anything about. Or that fact that he talked about but failed to accomplish social security reform.

Ronald Reagan got FAR more accomplished with a Democratic congress. He was a great President, the best in the past 100 years and Bush doesn't come close to comparing.

If he fails to fix the judiciary, his Presidency will go down as a failure.

Bush has already established his legacy as one of the best presidents of the last hundred years.

What are you babbling about? Part of Bush's legacy is going to that pathetic Medicare prescription drug plan and expanding government in his first three years at the fastest rate of any President since LBJ. Compassionate conservatism is another name for big government.

Let's not forgot our porous, open borders that Bush would rather ignore than do anything about. Or that fact that he talked about but failed to accomplish social security reform.

Ronald Reagan got FAR more accomplished with a Democratic congress. He was a great President, the best in the past 100 years and Bush doesn't come close to comparing.

If he fails to fix the judiciary, his Presidency will go down as a failure.

It would be little hard to get enthusiastic about a Republican party that allowed far left-wing policies to be implemented by judicial dictators for decades to come.

I agree. It's hard to get enthusiastic about a Republican party that implements left-wing policies in the legislative and executive branches now.

Those most worried about this are not Bush supporters for the most part. Bush supporters understand the man will appoint the best person available and he is not worried about a fight with the RATS.

It is simply not true that the Liberal agenda is in power only because of the courts. Bush's recent victory was a Landslide of a little over TWO points. Hence these ideas are so strongly inculcated in the people that the ABSOLUTE WORST example of liberalism barely lost, a traitor as you said. We have the almost entire media, almost the entire educational system, almost all of the foundations rabidly anti-Conservative.

But this does not stop the Bushwhackers (who couldn't win ANY race) acting as though we have a 65-35 advantage with the voters and Nation.

It isn't as though we will even know how his picks will pan out anytime soon anyway.

Reagan never had to face ANYTHING like Bush has had to face.
Reagan cut and ran when the Islamic nutcases killed almost three hundred of our Marines. A despicable decision.
Reagan offered amnesty to the same people Bush has and saw no more reason to worry excessively about the border than Bush has.

I love RR but anyone who cannot see that Bush is cut from the same model has fallen in love with his own rhetoric.

How much bitching has gone on about the problems on the Court while ignoring that FACT that some of the worst were put there by RR. Sandy is routinely excoriated here for example.

Given that the JUstices become total free agents once on the court one can never predict how they are going to act once appointed. Thomas Jefferson, to his great fury, found this out.

As far as your petty criticism of Bush go they indicate you are not familiar with the political landscape within which a WINNER must operate. Anyone can adopt an ULTRA policy and go down in flames to the applause of a tiny group of purists.

Reagan never had to face ANYTHING like Bush has had to face

What hogwash. Reagan had to deal with EVIL EMPIRE. The old Soviet Union and the Cold War wasn't at least the equivalent of dealing with Al Qaeda?

Bush has to deal with the pressure of being a winner? Good grief. Reagan had to get his agenda passed through a Democratic congress and, unlike Bush, who can't even get his social security plan passed with his own party in charge, DID get a massive tax cut passed that lead to 96 months of consecutive economic growth. Unlike Bush, Reagan reduced discretionary spending rather than increasing at the fastest rate since LBJ.

Mike McConnell is pro-life.

He called Roe v. Wade an abomination that could not be justified under any sound principle of constitutional law but said it was "settled law" and that he would not disturb it. Unless he meant to confine his comments to his role as an appeals court justice, I see this as a major show-stopper. It is a solid anti-10th Amendment, pro-abortion conviction for all meaningful intents and purposes.

You know, I REALLY wish I could agree with you. After all, like many other FReepers, I personally got involved in the last election, making calls, going to rallies, knocking on doors on election day morning and passing around one of the marriage amendment petitions at work, college, to relatives and friends, till i had the list full, (and I DO believe THAT was the clincher, for Ohio's victory, the marriage amendment brought out more morally-concerned voters, that might had stayed home otherwise).

HOWEVER... I am NOT that pleased with things ,so far. For example.. We have the illegal alien problem, which Bush seems to be turning a deaf ear to. AND-- we have the "school reform" deal, which was a Liberal boondoggle. On top of that.. Liberals are pushing the fag agenda to new heights, and little action has come from our side, or Bush. And, I do N OT forget about the "death with dignity" crowd( just a new name for the old "hemlock society", which I remember as a teen), pushing to make "mercy killing" , a routine thing.

NOW-- a chance to make a difference has arrived. IF Bush would appoint someone to the SCOTUS who was a REAL conservative, then, maybe, some of this shit could be changed for the better. BUT-- if he just does the old, easy thing of "not rocking the boat", and appoints a" moderate" like Gonzalez, then, how much difference will he have made, on the moral front(and THAT, is what I really care about, along with the WOT. Because ,someone who is a "social liberal, anti-war, but "fiscally conservative" is USELESS, IMHO. ALL politicians spend as much of our money as they can, so where is the "fiscal conservatism" of these so-called"moderates"? They are LIBERALS, through and through!!!!!

SO-- yes, I ,, and obviously others here, DO care about the moral issues-- I do NOT want this country, to become like Canada, where my mother could had been arrested the other day, for a serious crime(in Canada) :: READING HER BIBLE IN PUBLIC(the shame!!/sarcasm)

And NO-- I do NOT think I would vote for a "fiscal" conservative", , who was liberal on "social issues", If the only difference between two opponents was- one says" I believe in smaller government, and the other one did not--but both are pro gay, pro-abortion, anti- Chrisitan anti WOT , I would most likely just sit it out.

AND-- about this "well, we have to be "considerate of the minority position" -- BS!!!!!!! NO MATTER WHAT Bush does, the Demoncrats and Femilezi types will oppose him, SO, he might as well go full-barrel, foot-to-the-floor-- and go for broke, and GET SOME THINGS DONE, FOR HIS BASE-- Like a couple of TRUE conservatives to the SCOTUS!!!!!

The Evil Empire was nothing but a shell. A Potemkin Village if their ever was one. Reagan helped push it down no doubt but this was NOT the USSR of Stalin or even Kruschev. It was so weak and disorganized that Al Queda equivalents DID defeat it in Afganistan.

Bush has not had a Congress in which the opposition is reasonable like Reagan but one lead by insane traitors. Nor was his legislative record less impressive than Reagan's by any means. Under Reagan the size of the federal government also increased dramatically as the deficit explosion clearly shows.

Those who propose to praise past presidents should leave out the mythology.

Bush was not elected to be a Dictator so many of the concerns you have need to be focused at others. He is leader of the country on the basis of a 2% margin and where 90% of the media is desperate to destroy him. That fact ALONE should remind you of where your TRUE interests lie.

As for the border- in reality it is a minor problem and one which can only be solved by the economic advancement of Mexico so don't hold your breath. School reform has pissed the liberals off more than anyone. The NEA hates No Child Left Behind. So that is a bit murky.

Bush is not going to lead an Anti-Fag Jihad so forget that.
And if you swallowed the bilge put out by the Schindleristas then you have a serious problem with reality.
The reality is there is NO Nation on earth which spends more on healthcare than the US and there is no nation which can spend millions keeping the nearly alive vegetating indefinitely. Only because of the socialization of the costs of such is this course EVER taken. TS would have been dead over a decade ago but for the costs being spread to society at large rather than the family.

Bush's base is not the 10% of the far right which has never elected anyone to a major office and which spends almost all of its time condemning his actions in advance or proposing things few people would support. Bush's base is those who still want to protect this country and the 10% seem determined to undermine his leadership as often as possible. Thus politics comes into play and extremist positions lead to defeats. Look at Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War for an example of how a Statesman leads.

Gonzalez is not a moderate but a conservative though I doubt Bush will nominate him. If he does it will not be for expediency but because he is a longtime friend whose worth Bush well knows far more so than the claque of Bushwhackers who troll these parts looking for the gullible. Don't buy it.

You mean......
Alberto "we dont need no steenkin badges" Gonzalez.?. i.e. "High Sierra" Gonzalez...

HOWEVER... I am NOT that pleased with things ,so far. For example.. We have the illegal alien problem, which Bush seems to be turning a deaf ear to. AND-- we have the "school reform" deal, which was a Liberal boondoggle. On top of that.. Liberals are pushing the fag agenda to new heights, and little action has come from our side, or Bush. And, I do N OT forget about the "death with dignity" crowd( just a new name for the old "hemlock society", which I remember as a teen), pushing to make "mercy killing" , a routine thing.

I know myself, Michael Savage sums up my feelings over the election when he said this on his show one night, "I feel like a gorilla in a zoo with low blood sugar on Monday morning after eating all the candy tossed over the fence during the weekend." I dunno if the President could have done more with Terri Schindler, except sending the Army in which I would have done if need be, although I think the ball was more in Jeb Bush's court on that one. I'm also upset at his and the Republicans supporting such turkeys like "bankruptcy reform" and CAFTA which will weaken our economy, well especially the latter would. So, I would have to say that I am not satisfied either. Oh yeah, the border issue is big with me too, we need to stop the flood coming in.

NOW-- a chance to make a difference has arrived. IF Bush would appoint someone to the SCOTUS who was a REAL conservative, then, maybe, some of this shit could be changed for the better. BUT-- if he just does the old, easy thing of "not rocking the boat", and appoints a" moderate" like Gonzalez, then, how much difference will he have made, on the moral front(and THAT, is what I really care about, along with the WOT. Because ,someone who is a "social liberal, anti-war, but "fiscally conservative" is USELESS, IMHO. ALL politicians spend as much of our money as they can, so where is the "fiscal conservatism" of these so-called"moderates"? They are LIBERALS, through and through!!!!!

I'm much the same here, when it comes to conservatism, I'm more of a moral, social and military conservative, while being more of fiscal/economic centrist/moderate. I just think that both parties are the same, well at least similar enough to know they each have their special monied interests they have to kow-tow to. Sometimes I think it would really be no difference if the Red or Blue Team would win for the average American just trying to make it in this life. It really hurts me to say that but we had a lot of hope and we seem to be blowing it.

And NO-- I do NOT think I would vote for a "fiscal" conservative", , who was liberal on "social issues", If the only difference between two opponents was- one says" I believe in smaller government, and the other one did not--but both are pro gay, pro-abortion, anti- Chrisitan anti WOT , I would most likely just sit it out.

I'm getting that way too. I know my grade school buddy I still hang with, he just turned 40 yesterday, never voted in his life, says that there is no difference really, and he went on with a similar take as to what you've been saying.

AND-- about this "well, we have to be "considerate of the minority position" -- BS!!!!!!! NO MATTER WHAT Bush does, the Demoncrats and Femilezi types will oppose him, SO, he might as well go full-barrel, foot-to-the-floor-- and go for broke, and GET SOME THINGS DONE, FOR HIS BASE-- Like a couple of TRUE conservatives to the SCOTUS!!!!!

Trouble is that between the two sides, no one wants to be the bride in the marriage. For YEARS, the Republicans were the bride in Congress and the Democrats the groom, now it is the other way around, yet the Democrats are not willing to be the bride while the Republicans are still acting that way. I know we can just run roughshod over the Democrats, plus they still have enough power even if the Republicans shoose to wield their muscle, well I guess I'm thinking of a time where the Democrats usually did hold the countrys best interest at heart despite the differences. Things go in cycle and we need to use our power while it is our turn.

We need to dump the filibuster in everything, have a period of debate where all Congressmen have their say, perhaps a rebuttel and then vote. If we win, we win, if we lose, we lose. If we lose, go back to the drawing board but the filibuster is a useless and even destructive POS (Piece Of 'Stuff') that Congress needs to get rid of.

I think the Democrats and Republicans are fiddling while the country burns.

Novak is usually wrong

He seems to have hit this one fairly close to the mark.