Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: Courting a Crisis of Legitimacy
Washington Post ^ | 07/04/03 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 07/03/2003 9:48:22 PM PDT by Pokey78

I once worked in government. On my first day, I raised my right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution. I thought I knew what that meant.

Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism. A foreigner might then ask: What exactly is your Constitution? Now we know the answer. The Constitution is whatever Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says it is. On any given Monday.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; constitutionlist; krauthammer; lawrence; lawrencevtexas; sandradayoconnor; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
Another snip:

Conservatives are distressed and liberals ecstatic about the outcome of recent decisions of this allegedly conservative court. In a few short years, it has enshrined in stone (1) abortion on demand, (2) racial preferences and (3) gay rights -- the liberal trifecta, just about their entire social agenda, save shutting down the Fox News Channel.

1 posted on 07/03/2003 9:48:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Draco; Sabertooth; Howlin; Miss Marple; mombonn; JohnHuang2; MeeknMing; xm177e2; ...
Kraut ping.
2 posted on 07/03/2003 9:49:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
After all isn't that exactly why liberals seek to make sure the courts remain in their hands? I thought so.
3 posted on 07/03/2003 9:57:58 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
Ping.
4 posted on 07/03/2003 9:58:41 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Pokey78
"On a recent edition of "Inside Washington," for example, my friend and fellow panelist Colby King of The Post characterized my opposition to the sodomy decision as "right out of the Southern Manifesto."

It was a bit of a stretch (delivered with a bit of a smile)."

Krauthammer is being entirely too gentlemanly. The communists are only smiling so that they might get up tight on you before delivering the dagger's thrust.
Not too long ago (it had to do with the Iraqi war) I witnessed Krauthammer SAVAGED by everyone on the 'This Week in Washington' panel. Nina Tottenberg couldn't even let Krauthammer speak. I was expecting her to throw an aneurysm.
8 posted on 07/03/2003 10:23:42 PM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Recently we have gone to war in Afghanistan, Iraq and a few other places, at least in part to advance democracy and promote our kind of constitutionalism.

I sincerely hope not.

9 posted on 07/03/2003 10:25:58 PM PDT by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
INTSUM
10 posted on 07/03/2003 10:53:33 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The RATS know how crucial the Supreme Court is. That's why they are blocking lower court appointments too. All designed to get GWBush used to the idea that he must appoint judges the RATS approve of. They can be a bit conservative but no solid conservatives allowed per order of the RATS in the Senate.

2004 election can change the numbers in the Senate and that's what we need.
11 posted on 07/04/2003 1:55:02 AM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
2004 election can change the numbers in the Senate and that's what we need.

Yup. Hopefully someday in the near future, the rats will be pining for the good old days when Sandy O'Connor ruled the world.
12 posted on 07/04/2003 2:23:18 AM PDT by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
A real brief:

"The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent."
13 posted on 07/04/2003 3:11:13 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
"Krauthammer is being entirely too gentlemanly."

And that it the entire problem in a nutshell. You cannot wage war against the likes of socialism as a refined gentleman. They only respect brute force and it's a key component of the left. There is a time and place for a gentleman to use force, as much as one can muster and that time is now against those true enemies who have infiltrated so many of the institutions of this nation.
14 posted on 07/04/2003 5:45:05 AM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78; *Constitution List
Excellent ! Thanks, Pokey !


15 posted on 07/04/2003 6:10:31 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: seamole
I have never read a Scalia dissent that was less than brilliant.
16 posted on 07/04/2003 6:14:01 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: thegreatbeast
Despite his physical state, Krauthammer stands head and shoulders above the Liliputinas who make up This Week's panel.
17 posted on 07/04/2003 6:25:52 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses
While I find myself in disagreement with O'Connor much of the time and while I find her opinions(even when I agree with the result)not written nearly as well as Scalia or Thomas, I heard an anecdote about her that convinced me she does have a sense of humor:

During a court conference, Jusice Scalia was railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint. When he finished his rather lengthy monologue, O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"

18 posted on 07/04/2003 6:30:42 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Their self-empowering contrived "living" constitution's doctrines, as if they were self-evident, puts these dictators outside OUR LAW OF OUR LAND, so declared within our ratified Constitution.

Our ratified Constitution is treated as if it were but a poorly worded, partial listing of broad agendas empowering centralized government to reward politically favored groups. This is true only because outlaw activists in and out of blackrobes can get away with it.

No court ruling at odds with what our Constitution actually says can be lawful. How could it be? Why bow to up to nine fellow citizens when they act above The Law? Why vote for their accomplices?

For 200 years to date, we have shrunk meekly acting as if unlawful statutes, regulations, and court and SCOTUS rulings may lawfully order and threaten us with the full force of the police powers of the State. Such officious outlaws, wrapping themselves in their convenient creation of "sovereign immunity", coerce We the People "under penalty of law" and death by full auto assault, sniping, or fire - as they create inferior bench law in direct violation of our ratified Constitution, THE "controlling legal authrority".

The very document which they freely usurp is the same document from which they derive ALL of their LAWFUL authority, created and granted, with stated reservations, only by the consent of We the People. SCOTUS and many elected officials are in clear breech of our precious social contract.

Are We the People the only ones to obey our Law of OUR Land?

Our Constitution proclaims that federal blackrobes have as their term of office, the period of "GOOD BEHAVIOR" which most certainly is NOT as a serial violator our Constitution with their rogue rulings, relying on cleverly invented, politically expedient "compelling State interests".

Our Bill of Rights' 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to We the People and the several states rights and powers not GRANTED (NOT WISHFULLY IMPLIED only for the convenience of elite activists and toadies) to our federal government ("...OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE...). Our 1st assures us that we may talk about what we're going to do about government; our 2nd affirms God-given rights that we can back up such talk.

What makes us think that SCOTUS, Congress, and presidents will honor our Bill of Rights and the 14th's "equal protection" of our rights when they so freely violate our, the RATIFIED Constitution? Because they have the temporary power?

If we are unwilling to dedicate our own lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, why then should we expect honor, much less sacred honor from our professional politicians, in or out of blackrobes?

Because failing to do so is condemning our children's children to living under some fascist rule...

These blackrobe outlaws must be replaced with law abiding men and women willing to obey our Constitution.
19 posted on 07/04/2003 7:28:01 AM PDT by SevenDaysInMay (Federal judges and justices serve for periods of good behavior, not life. Article III sec. 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Thanks for the ping.

This is an excellent article. I certainly hope, btw, that the rumors that O'Connor is going to be the next Chief Justice are wrong, wrong, wrong.
20 posted on 07/04/2003 7:40:17 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
...Krauthammer stands head and shoulders above the Liliputinas...

Sorry, I know it was a typo, but this had me laughing. Sounds like an Italian restaurant or something. "Bon giorno! Welcome to Liliputinas! You'll have the ravioli today?"

21 posted on 07/04/2003 9:23:30 AM PDT by arasina (America: STILL the BEST! Offering Freedom, Justice and The Pursuit of Happiness Since 1776)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: arasina
Glad you got a laugh out it! My fingers always betray me on the keyboard.
22 posted on 07/04/2003 11:52:24 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

bump
23 posted on 07/04/2003 12:00:02 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Robert Bork has said that the single greatest handicap Conservatives face when important cases reach the Court is that Conservative judges such as Scalia, Rehnquist and Kennedy are almost always unwilling to throw out bad precedent, no matter how badly ruled, meritless in substance and capricious the precedent might be. Liberal judges have no such hesitation or respect for legacy. So, the good precedents get overturned and the bad precedents are accepted as an accomodation. We continue to lose ground case by case.
24 posted on 07/04/2003 12:41:10 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
When I stated a while back that the Constitution is exactly what a majority (5 people) of the Supreme Court interpret it to be regardless of what Congress or the President or the Founding Fathers thought, many posters couldn't deal with that notion.
25 posted on 07/04/2003 12:51:27 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
That's why this attitude of "I cannot divulge how I would rule on any case that might be brought before me" during confirmation hearings is no longer acceptable. That's how David Souter the cowbird cruised through the process. He didn't know nuthin' bout nuthin'. The Democrats knew. The GOP Senators and H.W. Bush just accepted that ole John Sunnunu wouldn't skin them alive. Sununu is on my "s" list forever, he was the worst thing to EVER happen to the GOP.

Bush's daddy was an honorable man, but he had no clue how to staff, and enforce discipline among, his Cabinet and advisory staff. That's how guys like Souter happen, that's how tax increases happen and that's how he's thrown into a grocery line where he has to prove he knows how much a quart of milk costs. That's how lies about the economy become accepted. That's how a clinically insane meglomaniac like Ross Perot gains credibility. The David Souter nomination will injure us for 20 years hence. That guy was 47 and lived with his mother in her house when he was deemed the rising superstar of jurisprudence. What a gaffe. Sununu was being threatened by the Dixie Mafia, or on Perot's payroll I swear.

Mary Matalin was inner circle. James Carville was Clinton's inner circle. They married soon after the election. That's all you need to know.

26 posted on 07/04/2003 1:07:54 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: arasina
It could have been worse; you could've written Liliputana.
27 posted on 07/04/2003 1:15:23 PM PDT by TradicalRC (Fides quaerens intellectum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the ping Pokey.
28 posted on 07/04/2003 1:57:50 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
It's been said many times here, but the GOP needs to find a Lee Atwater acolyte. A ruthless, clever bastard. Not for the Bush team, but for the national Parties. Bush wouldn't tolerate a guy like Atwater on his White House team. Bush doesn't go for prima donnas, and Atwater was a self starter.

The GOP needs a guy to give the disaffected Conservative bloc stuff to say "Damn right" "It's about time" and "**** Yeh it is" with gusto. Craft a message that is unapologetic for 2nd Amendment protection, abortion opposition, gay right and environazi fascism abuse, and intolerable illegal immigration. It can be done through advocacy ads, talk show appearances, House legislation, commentaries, State by state grassroots coordination etc. The message of American christian values and individual rights isn't being relentlessly presented right now. Atwater could put that together, he organized the Christian Coalition and Reagan Democrat outreach programs and they produced. He wasn't afraid to be a social and fiscal conservative telling Bill Moyers to kiss his ass. He liked his mean spirit, he was a perfect foil for Reagan and Bush. He was a lousy guitar player, though.

Anyone who thinks we have it bad today need only harken back to 1990-91. Our Congressional leadership was Bob Dole and Bob Michel. John Sununu, David Gergen, Mary Matalin, Bill Kristol, Mike Murphy, Rich Lowery and Frank Luntz were skin tight and in the know. David Souter was the Supreme Court nominee. The House was run by Jim Wright and Dick Gephardt and the Committe chairmen included Henry Gonzales, John Dingell, Dan Rostenkowski, Ron Dellums, John Conyers, Marty Sabo and an Appropriations guy who I'm sure was a disaster as well. George Mitchell, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Joe Biden and Don Reigle ran the Senate.

John McLaughlin, George Will and Robert Novak were the charismatic voices of the right on TV. William Safire was the print token, until he started obsessing on etymology. Rush Limbaugh heckled Patsy Shroeder. We all did.

Marvin Fitzwater, out there setting it straight until he muddied the water in a drone.

God, that sucked. We're rockin' these days.

29 posted on 07/04/2003 2:06:59 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC
LOL! So we'll make sure the restaurant has putanesca sauce.

Did I spell that correctly?

30 posted on 07/04/2003 2:30:01 PM PDT by arasina (America: STILL the BEST! Offering Freedom, Justice and The Pursuit of Happiness Since 1776)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SevenDaysInMay
One of the notable factors is that the Bush Administration is non-commital in these high profile cases. I don't know who is influencing the President in his strategy on presenting these amicus curae filings. It seems the Justices, especially O'Conner, are very desirable of the Bush Administration take on these issues. They respect the President, Gonzalez and especially Ted Olson greatly, and I think Bush could be very influential if he made a passionate argument one way or the other. But, the Justices know he'll make a well considered and pragmatic recommendation that is founded solidly in law. That's Olsen and Gonzalez in action, and people like Kennedy and O'Conner give their arguments major consideration.

It seems that the Court rules pretty much right down the line with what Bush's legal recommendations are. I think that U of M case was pretty much what the White House argued and the outcome they recommended. Same with Campaign Finance Reform and other decisions. They like being in rhythm with the 8 year Executive team who'll be enforcing policy. Sodomy laws were history as soon as they hit the SCOTUS, that one didn't surprise me at all.

This Administration has a pretty solid record in winning challenges to their policies related to holding terror suspects and managing evidentiary security and other challenges to the prosecution of terror suspects. They trust the judgement and care of guys like Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge and Chertkoff.

31 posted on 07/04/2003 2:37:37 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Your three paragraphs deserve a thread of their own.

The level of strange naivete, wussiness and just plain compromise at the heart of most Republicans trivializes the imagination. I fear that our Republic is in very deep weeds...certainly from a true Constitutional perspective. I used to believe that a turnaround was possible. No more.

At the risk of winning runner-up status in the Freeper tinfoil hat Oscars - I believe that the Matalin/Carville linkage is a type, a paradigm, and most emblematic of the ultimate spiritual bond between the "Two Parties."
32 posted on 07/04/2003 2:57:36 PM PDT by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: esopman
I would just advise George W. Bush to use some of this bountiful political capital to pancake Tom Daschele, Pat Leahy and Robert Byrd.

I suggest next Senate Recess he appoint his filibustered judicial nominations to open slots and worry about the re-certification after the 2004 elections. Put Pickering, Owen and Estrada in plum Districts with high profile jurisdiction.

American citizens are getting ripped off by these undermanned District and Appeals Courts. We are ensured a speedy trial, and every vacant bench erodes that.

Let the Democrats go into seizures. They don't want anyone to know they've been subverting their duty through the first filibuster of a Court nominee ever. Let them defend the thing they've conspired with the media to hide.

And Bush can call Daschele and say ... "Don't eff with me Senator. Do your duty, quit the b.s. gamesmanship. I don't have time for that anymore. You've done a grave disservice to these two fine people letting them hang without a vote for two years. Enough is enough, I have tools of the office too. Now, if you'll excuse me ..."

33 posted on 07/04/2003 3:11:19 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
During a court conference, Jusice Scalia was railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint. When he finished his rather lengthy monologue, O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"

O'Connor never published in law journals, at least before becoming a Supreme. But Souter didn't have any history of legal scholarship either, just state court opinions of little relevance to Supreme Court practice. The fact is that presidents often nominate those without an impressive history of legal scholarship -- it makes it easier to get them past the Senate. Unfortunately, as the O'Connor and Souter examples suggest, what we don't know may hurt us.

It is silly to suggest that a Supreme Court nomination is a merit position you get for being America's best legal scholar. It is instead a political nomination. (If it is a merit position, I nominate UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volukh. He's only moderately conservative, but still has no chance due to having published too much about too much.)

Lastly, in case anyone is wondering, despite innumeral liberal slanders, Justice Thomas DID have a good pre-nomination history of legal scholarship.

34 posted on 07/04/2003 3:17:08 PM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: esopman
I believe that the Matalin/Carville linkage is a type, a paradigm, and most emblematic of the ultimate spiritual bond between the "Two Parties."

Don't forget key Bush advisor David Gergen sliding seamlessly into the Clinton Administration as a key advisor.

35 posted on 07/04/2003 3:18:38 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"Don't forget key Bush advisor David Gergen sliding seamlessly into the Clinton Administration as a key advisor."

True. And then David slid right back out of the Clinton Administration. Quickly. Ever since, I have repeatedly asked myself the question: "What did he learn?" It wasn't nice, that's for sure.

Every time I see David G.'s smarmy face on the tube, I ask that question: "What do you really know, David...and why don't you come clean & tell us." But that will never happen. He is a power-addicted member of the chattering class. He is now up at the Kennedy School at Harvard. Fitting! I once did some interpreting (Russian) at a conference there; a more self-satisfied assemblage of elitists cannot be imagined.
36 posted on 07/04/2003 3:29:31 PM PDT by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
I can accept that O'Connors political philosophy and personal temperament evolved and changed over 20 years. That's not unusual.

Part of the equation is that she's become, in perception and fact, THE swing vote on that court. She takes that responsibilty seriously, and she has probably become too politically acute because of that. Rehnquist, Kennedy or Olsen needs to talk with her about that friend to friend, professional to professional. She can't be the oracle of our Constitutional integrity. She will always err toward tolerance and half-assed contrivances to forestall any social wildfire. That's not her job.

Souter has been a left wing dolt from day one. What a malfeasence that vetting process was. He has never, in my rememberence, voted differently from Ginsburg. Sununu!!! He was angling for a CNN gig. I've got all kinds of Sununu conspiracy theories.

37 posted on 07/04/2003 3:31:22 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: esopman
I'm thinking he was the chief advocate for the Bush tax increase and the Hillary Health Care commission. Then he recommended that his client introduce "New Coke" and a he persuaded Warners to ink a long term deal with Vanilla Ice. Then the Jerrold Nadler Workout System ....
38 posted on 07/04/2003 3:39:16 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Steve Eisenberg
I believe it is best to nominate someone who has experience inside the Beltway. The three conservatives(Rehnquist,Scalia and Thomas) all worked for a considerable period in Washington and thus understood its allures. The other current Republican Justices (Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens) had no Washington experience and were appointed from outside the Beltway. They were more susceptible to being courted and reading in the Washington Post how enlightened they were or how much they had grown in office. At least, that is my theory. (BTW, I understand that Thomas does not even read the newspapers in order to escape insofar as is possible their influence.)
39 posted on 07/04/2003 3:51:32 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
Say no more.

Larry Klayman.

40 posted on 07/04/2003 3:54:52 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
" So, the good precedents get overturned and the bad precedents are accepted as an accomodation. We continue to lose ground case by case."

And this parallels what I said about waging war as gents with the likes of socialism. It's as if the democrats are running through the woods with heavy artillery and our side is armed with badminton rackets and birdies. We will lose everything the founders fought for if we don't recognize we have to pick up equivalent or better artillery and if we don't recognize there are some rotten eggs within our side as well.
41 posted on 07/04/2003 3:56:04 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
" That's how David Souter the cowbird cruised through the process. He didn't know nuthin' bout nuthin'. The Democrats knew."

Time to fight fire with fire and use these same tactics...develope a pseudoliberal/pseudomoderate cadre for the future bench.
42 posted on 07/04/2003 4:03:40 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...we need the scarlet pimpernel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"the GOP needs to find a Lee Atwater acolyte"

We need a bunch of them... the scarlet pimpernel gang that presents the dignity of the gent but understands the battle ground like a West Point grad and can be ruthless for the sake of the Constitution as it was written. And time is running out.
43 posted on 07/04/2003 4:09:47 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
"Craft a message that is unapologetic for 2nd Amendment protection, abortion opposition, gay right and environazi fascism abuse, and intolerable illegal immigration. It can be done through advocacy ads, talk show appearances, House legislation, commentaries, State by state grassroots coordination etc."

Again we need to use some of the opposition's tactics. The have professional protestors who get paid and that's why they aren't at a regular job that show up at various events. We need some sort of antisocialist/fascist foundation or org to get this kind of planned activity funded and running. We have great FR patriots here like Dr. Raoul who show up at Hillary's book signings and such and that is a fantastic start (and these folks should be in the leadership of this offensive) but we have to get serious and get really organized on the offensive...well beyond grassroots but with the grassroots appearance just as the opposition presents their message.
44 posted on 07/04/2003 4:19:24 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
The GOP, and George W. Bush in particular, lack the party discipline to step up against "Saddened" Tom with any legitimacy. He'll get 47 votes on ANY measure the tong orders, regardless of the benefit/injury to any Democratic Senator's constituents. Zell Miller and Ben Nelson, two Governors of distinction and duty, are the only Dems who will cross Hillary/Daschele/Kennedy in that caucus. They are shunned, penalized and Miller said "Enough of dealing with this imperious group of pissants, it's watermelon time in Georgia." Nelson might hang it up too, he's an adult and he deals with Tom Daschele, the Peter Pan of political pathology.

No Republican pays when they go into business for themselves. Specter, Olympia, Chafee, McCain and sometimes Collins work the best deal for themselves, party be damned. Yet ... would Bush imagine blocking that New England Dairy Compact that Jeffords sold his soul to pimp? Would Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee be vigorously opposed by a primary challenge?

I ran into my Senator Norm Coleman at one of the Wild playoff games, and I've met him numerous times and I told him how proud I was watching him operate on the Floor and in Public appearances. Then I told him how disappointed I was that his vote defeated the ANWR drilling bill. I told him he betrayed the President, who needed a win badly at that time - he was under seige regarding Iraq etc - when Bush put his time, his support and his office behind Coleman's campaign. Bush won the day for Norm. Coleman said "I promised in the campaign ..." I said "Nobody who voted for you did it because of that pledge. In fact, 99% of your supporters would celebrate your policy reversal."

It's too common. These guys fear their local editorial boards and enviropsychotics more than they do the President, their Party apparatus or their voting constituency.

That lack of party discipline is probably admirable in a principled way, but it's a real deficit when the Democrats are fighting like Hamas bomb throwers who get their orders from Allah through some camel's butt.

45 posted on 07/04/2003 4:19:30 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Charles Krauthammer writes: Whenever one argues for this kind of judicial minimalism, however, the other side immediately unfurls the bloody flag of segregation.

Charles Krauthammer has his sayings wrong. An emotional political appeal, especially in the context of Southern Segregation politics, is not to “unfurl the bloody flag”, but rather to “wave the bloody shirt”. According to the website listed below:

In the years that followed the American Civil War, there was a debate over the fate of the defeated Confederate states. Abraham Lincoln actually favored a relatively easy treatment and readmission into the federal union while the so-called "radical republicans" in congress favored a more punitive treatment with troops occupying the southern states, what came to be called the reconstruction. Opposed to the "radical republicans" were the democrats who had supported compromise even before the war. This battle was fought both in the congressional halls and the elections that filled those halls and it became the habit of reducing each conflict to a single issue: The War. And “The War” was reduced to the slogan "waving the blood shirt". Many believed that the bloody shirt was just a symbol. In fact, while it was symbolic, there was also a real bloody shirt, a nightshirt, but still a shirt.

The (night) shirt in question belonged to a federal agent named A. P. Huggins who served as tax collector (always a popular job) and school superintendent in a town in Mississippi. One night he was dragged from his house and beaten by the local Ku Klux Klan and then ordered out of town. This incident was used to justify the occupation of the southern states by federal troops and ultimately for voting republican rather then democratic. Benjamin Butler (R-MA) waved the actual “bloody (night) shirt” from this episode in congress during a speech requesting that the president be given the right to send troops to southern states to enforce the federal authority. Subsequently other bloody shirts were used to raise the emotions of the voters rather than deal with the issues.

The “Bloody Shirt”

46 posted on 07/04/2003 4:19:38 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

bookmark
47 posted on 07/04/2003 4:22:19 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (I've been making fine jewelry for years, apparently.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
We need a Conservative ACLU. Let's start suing School Districts for their Earth Day religion, their political indoctrination, their social promotions, off site field trips to the Mall of America or a Spike Lee film etc. Sue the NEA, sue AFSCME, sue "No guns allowed" communities, trial lawyers working with the State etc. Sue the ACLU for tax-exempt violations, sue NPR etc.

They need a taste of their own medicine. I'll help fund that kind of organization. It has to be organized and well funded. Relentless in challenge to the liberal nerve center of public unions, trial lawyers, non-profit bagmen and Gay/Lesbian smear salons. Urban Baptist Money Centers, vote day registration/cigarette giveaway scams ... take it to them.

48 posted on 07/04/2003 4:34:48 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Domestic Church
I hope I don't insult anyone but ...

Street protests are needed because they are fun, lively and cocktails quaffed in fellowship post event is never a chore.

The rubber hits the road within the institutions each party controls. Democrats do all their work moving tax money through their hierarchial client network. The work in the offices of the ACLU, the County and City Economic Development, Community Service and Civil Rights bureaucracies, in Attorney Generals offices where AGs strategize with trial lawyers, in Emily's List disbursement sessions and within the offices and ranks of the public union members we employ. The bond houses that lend money to our government offices. In Hollywood, on Wall Street, at GLAAD. We're paying them to scheme to grab more of our money and more of our freedom.

Not only do they pick our pockets, but they are contemptuous in the process.

49 posted on 07/04/2003 4:49:02 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
I find her opinions(even when I agree with the result)not written nearly as well as Scalia or Thomas,

railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint.

O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"

Case closed.

50 posted on 07/04/2003 4:54:32 PM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson