Skip to comments.What if Miers is a conservative AND Bush is an idiot? (Nice Kitty, Niiiiice kitty)
Posted on 10/08/2005 11:15:04 AM PDT by dangus
Let's avoid kidding ourselves, shall we? Democrats aren't going to defeat Miers. They know the only liberal under consideration was Alberto Gonzales, the guy they used to argue that maybe Hussein wasn't so bad, as if a few humiliating photographs compared to the physical torture, starvation or execution of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dissidents. (Man, those Democrats must've been scarred earlier in their lives. Memo to self: Don't join a fraternity that allows hazing but is "tolerant" of deviant sexual practices.)
No, Harriet Miers was the best they could hope for. Sure they're afraid she MIGHT be conservative -- and I'm happy to say I believe those fears are well-founded -- but she ain't no Janice Rogers Brown. They were so grateful for Miers, they probably melted down their golden phalluses to offer as praise honorings to their high priestesses! (Is that too much inflammatory rhetoric? I know that cigars would suffice.)
A problem with the conservative movement is this: Conservatives are used to most everything being run by liberals, so they fall in around a perceived champion who represents the best hope for challenging liberals. Elections often become about defending "their guy."
A problem with this is that it permits liberals to prevent any political discourse to the right of the Republican champion. If the champion is a true conservative, that's not so bad; a fantastic amout of conservative philosophy was developed under Reagan. If the champion is a moderate, it's fatal.
Another problem is quite basic: Bush isn't running for re-election. And yet, criticism of conservative leadership is habitually forbidden, because it hurts "the movement."
A unique time in American history when conservatives were willing to criticize their leader was in 1993. The country was [perceived to be still] in a recession, which was blamed on President George H. W. Bush's tax hikes. Souter was already obviously a liberal, and we still had a problem with Hussein in Iraq, even though we beat him in a war. Bush had governed like a liberal, and even liberals blamed his liberalism for the apparent poor shape the country was in.
The failure of conservatives to defend Bush may actually have cost the Republicans the presidential election, but they did win back control of Congress in the next election for the first time in three generations, and haven't lost it since. Not only that, but the new Republicans were light years better than the old breed (who unfortunatelt won a counter-revolution in 1996) of worthless moderates who ran the Republican party, like Senators Specter, Dole, Hatfield, Chafee, Warner, Roth, Simpson, and Stevens.
The other time conservatives expressed frustration at Republicans was in the late '70's, after America has "lost" the Viet Nam "war," the economy was in shambles, and a Republican president was forced to resign from the White House after having spent years trying to placate Democrats by caving in to their every demand. Reagan ran in 1976 against the man who pardoned Nixon, and very nearly defeated an incumbent Republican.
Reagan didn't run against Washington liberals; he ran against Washington. And Republicans in Washington in 1976 and 1980 weren't at all shy to reveal their hatred for him, fretting as Reagan ran against Jimmy frickin' Carter that he couldn't win because he was too radically right-wing. Even after Reagan won 49 states in 1984, Washington Republicans refused to see the wisdom of standing up for principle. They routinely helped Democrats override Reagan's vetoes, meanwhile carping about deficits while their veto overrides stripped Reagan of the power to do more about the deficit.
In both cases, conservatism was boldly advanced. But in both cases this only happened after a chastising defeat of a Republican leader.
My question is: Why wait? Why wait until the campaign-finance overlords hand us another mushy moderate who gets hammered in the next election by a Democrat who fakes to the right? Why let immigration reform be what welfare reform was in 1992? Why wait for charges of "coddling terrorists"?
I'm not saying pound on Republicans in Washington for no reason. I'm not saying we should call Bush an idiot. I'm proposing defending conservativism instead of a lame-duck president. Their not totally separate; a president with a 12 percent approval rating can do little to promote conservativism. But on the other hand, it could even teach a president with a forty-something percent approval rating that he could do better by winning the support of conservatives rather than try and sneak by as a liberal.
So, let's suppose a fairly apolitical American is uncomfortable about Miers because she appears to be a crony. Do we avoid the issue (and fail at an opportunity to promote conservativism) because we agree that she was a bad pick? Do we make lame excuses for the selection of a crony? Do we promote the perception that conservatives are unreasonable by saying we simply trust Bush. Or do we say how our favorite pick would have been better, teach why that person's position on a given issue is so beneficial, and then, after having established ourselves as reasonable and thinking people, teach how much worse it could have been if a liberal had gotten to select a Supreme Court pick?
Or, consider the Iraq war. Do we simply insist Bush has been perfect, and inadverdantly teach that defending ourselves inevitably causes everything that concerns the other person to happen? (And, yes, it is good to teach that we should be willing to make sacrifices, but its not good to teach that we can't help causing problems for others.)
Or do we recognize the difficulties we have had, assert that they HAVE been worth it, but then examine ways thinks could have been done better from a conservative perspective.
Did Hussein get rid of his WMDs while we were wasting time trying to get Frace's approval? Did going to the UN set a bad precedent which hinders our ability to deal with Iran? Did terrorists get the opportunity to organize themselves in the northern part of the country because of our misplaced reliance on Turkey in formulating our military strategy?
Seriesly folks, you want to have fun? Next time a liberal wonders why we are in Iraq while "a more dangerous threat exists in North Korea," say try this answer:
"Damn straight. If George Bush weren't so concerned about the United Nations, we could turned Kim Jong Il's palace into glass by now, but he keeps trying to appease liberals by establishing that these crackpots dictatorships have broken international law before invading them. To hell with the U.N.! To hell with Colin Powell! The hell with the French! It's bad enough we waited ten years allowing Hussein to starve a million people by cuttig off their water supply while he built golden toilet paper dispesers with the food aid. Why don't the Koreans deserve to be liberated?"
Notice how I even got to correction a notion that sanctions caused the starvation, as opposed to Hussein's deliberate genocide? You should've seen the look on my pastor's face. :^D
Thanks... I'll be happy if I don't get zotted! :^D
You'll be lucky too.
I have more confidence in the Kitties' ability to read past a head line to the rest of an article before zotting everyone.
(By the way, If only I could think of someone who might be able to use all this nice warm milk I just happen to have...)
I prefer the Army acronym: MOOSEMUSS! I begin to wonder if there are bitter little McCains running about on this forum.
However, as much as I like the points made here, I *do* like seeing all the kitty pictures before the ZOTs! ; )
Establishment (primarily East coast) Republicans are a far more dangerous enemy than liberal Democrats. At least the latter doesn't dress up in costumes.
DANG GOOD DANGUS!!!
What if Miers is a conservative AND [President]Bush is consistant in the fact that he has always picked good Judicial nominees (the one that survive the RINO's in the Senate).
Thanks. What's Moosemuss?
"Proudly" posting without reading the article since 1998.
I totally disagree with this because to the average apolitical American...the SCOTUS is way below the radar.
Just listen to one of those man on the street interviews that Hannity does, many, many Americans have no idea who the VP is, much less understand or even know that the President has made two recent nominations to the SC.
If they're apolitical, I don't think they're following this story.
Well the latter do dress up in costumes on high holy days marked by sodomy celebrations and parades.
But I know what you mean. ;)
In short, Army terminology for defeating the enemy in war without (in the case of Miers) firing a shot.
It's a vanity; it BELONGS in Bloggers & Personal.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
OK, that one crossed my eyes while wading through it.
For the record, I pretty much agree with you. I guess one of my underlying notions is that there is a time for solidarity with our leader, and there is a time at which it is safe to evaluate where we are heading. Which is why your war analogy is a little bit off: it is not the responsibility of soldiers to decide which war to engage in; victory is paramount. On the other hand, in politics, victory is only as valuable as the correctness of the cause.
I agree 100%. Terrific post! ^5
quidnunc explains it well in a post here MOOSEMUSS go down to post #1 on the thread.You covered some of these principles in your piece.
As someone who moved to DC but hasn't gone native yet, I have a slightly different perspective of apolitical, I guess.
By apolitical, I don't mean necessarily someone who doesn't pay any attention to current affairs. I merely mean someone for whom politics isn't a major part of their lives. I would include someone who has heard Rush Limbaugh, or Al Franken, but doesn't regularly post to Free Republic. Or someone who knows that Harriet Miers has been nominated, but doesn't know who Anthony Kennedy is, and won't remember who Harriet Miers is ten years from now.
"News" includes anything dealing with timely events, including "Vanities" IF they are relevant. "Bloggers and Personal" is for articles which are not timely, meaning people can take their time finding their articles. Because news stories require timeliness, people look for them under "Most Recent Articles," allowing a post to get hundreds of hits in a fairly short time; evetually, an article which is not timely would have a chance to catch up if it is in Bloggers, and it remained relevant. But since this article is timely, it belongs under "News," even though it is a vanity.
The fact that hundreds of people have read it in a short time, and that the news categorically specifically includes a subcategory for Vanities should confirm this to you.
I am beginning to think the GOP may need some more years in the political wilderness. They keep forgetting why we elected them: smaller government, protect our borders, conservative federal judges. The Republican party just can't stand electoral success, maybe eight years of Hillary will remind them about who they outta be.
Very good point!
We already HAD 8 years of Hillary, and nothing has changed : )
I support GW, even though sometimes I disagree with him.
This is a pretty good analysis of the situation.
The unfortunate reality is there are too many so called conservatives that think they have to appease the liberals.
I'd really like to see us use our power to overturn some of their most outrageous advances.
Specifically, allowing the US to be dictated to by the joke U.N., the restrictive environmental regulations, immigration laws that aren't enforced, socialism run amok, etc, etc.
I just don't think it will ever happen. The MSM and the civil services are too deeply infiltrated by the leftists.
Your memory must not be good. Tip O Fat Neil ran washington untill Reagan came to town. Reagan went directly to the people and got whatever he wanted. Remarkably so, because both the house and Senate were heavy democratic controlled. He stomped O'Neil Chrissy Mathews hero.
Wrong, a lot changed.
The American people sent a Republican revolution to Washington in 94, Sent Bush to the Presidency and thanks to the Great Folks in South Dakota and a few other southern states gave us a solid majority in the senate.
So, the Clinton years did have an impact.
Reagan was no establishment Republican. ....thank God.
Ok, who stole it you or Laz?
Right on the money.
If Bush didn't fight the War on Terror, I would find him indifferentiable from a big spending liberal democrat.
Thank God is right!!
Sorry to deflate your ego, but the repetition of an ill-conceived, unconvincing argument does not make it any more valid.
I remember when I learned how to work CTRL+C too! :)
Ok, you seem to have the facts.
however, considering the house and senate were heavily democratic, 9 out out of 39 still does not seem to bad.