Fred Thompson
Posted on 07/16/2005 8:21:39 AM PDT by kellynla
A broad spectrum of nationally recognized conservative leaders is sending a clear message to President Bush: Please, don’t nominate Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Supreme Court.
From former presidential candidate and now American Conservative Editor Pat Buchanan to Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, the movement seems to be speaking with one voice.
“If the President picked Gonzales, it would break the hearts of conservatives,” Buchanan told Human Events. “The appointment would be the deflation of the whole conservative movement, because the activists would feel that the President had surrendered to [liberal Democratic Senators Chuck] Schumer [N.Y.] and [Teddy] Kennedy [Mass.]. And it would be the beginning of the end for Bush among his base, not unlike his father’s breaking his no-new-taxes pledge spelled his defeat in 1992.”
Kristol agreed. “Conservatives would be demoralized by a Gonzales appointment,” he said. Bush, Kristol added, would “pay a price, substantively and politically, if he were to name Gonzales. Reversing the trend on the Supreme Court has been such a core cause for the conservative movement for more than 40 years. Nixon tried but had [1969 appointee Clement] Haynsworth rejected by the Senate, and Reagan had Bork rejected by the Senate. The Democrats controlled the Senate in both cases, but today, it would be out of the question if a Republican President and a Republican Senate could not get through a nominee to click the court to the constitutional side.”
Noting that the court has been a helpful issue for Republicans in recent elections, Kristol pointed out that Bush’s nomination of Gonzales “would intensify the fact he is a lameduck, because he would no longer be seen as the leader of the conservative movement.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
"“If the President picked Gonzales, it would break the hearts of conservatives,” Buchanan told Human Events."
I agree that Bush should nominate a conservative to replace O'connor, but why is Pat Buchanan being presented as a conservative voice here?
Big problem with this statement. Bush isn't up to re-election, and after the Terri Schiavo incident, his brother has zero chance of running for the President. In other words, the New World Order's agenda will be ahead of that of a re-election strategy.
If there's one thing us conversatives can truly count on, it is that we will be dissapointed 90% of the time, regardless of whether the President, Administration, or Congress is ruled by a majority of Republicans (moderate liberals) or Democrats (left-wing nuts).
Obviously Buchanan is a conservative but the media wants to continue to push the who "far right extremist" angle.
Fred Thompson
between the judicial appointments and illegal immigration and deficit spending; unless the GOP gets its collective act together they may find themselves out of the WH and in the Congressional minority because conservatives will just stay home in November '06 & '08...
Any unjust Judge who thinks the Constitution says what some judge says it does --and NOT what the clear language and intent of the men who ratified that document meant when it
was drafted- ought NOT be placed in any position of trust. There is no rule of law if the judges are appointed for life to be petty despots-or high priests of the cult of lawless lawmaking.
If Bush nominates Gonzales, the Republicans in the Senate don't have to vote to confirm...
Pat Buchanan is not a conservative, he just plays one on TV.
> why is Pat Buchanan being presented as a conservative voice here?
I think the MSM pretends that Buchanan speaks for conservatives and gives him coverage for the same reason that we are delighted whenever Howard Dean shoots his mouth off.
Neither of those voices speak for me!!!
"--judicial appointments and illegal immigration and deficit spending--"
hmmmm President Bush does have his hands full.
**I wonder if Rhenquist and O'Connor and others give their imput.
**I never thought I would ever think of closing our borders, but I'm there now!!!
**I'm glad you bought up the deficit spending --- I remember when President Reagan entered office and the spending that had to take place due to the Carter years. Our National Security was at bottom levels and I look at the 8 yrs. of the clinton's the same way.
Nothing, nothing, nothing can keep me from voting in '06 & '08. That would serve no purpose!!!
The nomination of Gonzolas to the Court would be a betrayal so emphatic as to rend the party in twain and render very likely the election a Democrat President.
That same day I also posted this:
The scary thing is that I would not put the attempt beyond Bush to whom personal loyalty is a solemn obligation.
I have seen nothing in the weeks since which would cause me to edit either comment.
"Nothing, nothing, nothing can keep me from voting in '06 & '08. That would serve no purpose!!!"
I will be voting too, but there is a growing number of those who say "why bother if we can't get conservative judges(if that happens) appointed after waiting thirty years and the borders are WIDE OPEN, not to forget the HUGE DEFICIT SPENDING!"
and I won't even mention what will happen if we have another 9/11 terrorist attack! Americans will go BALLISTIC!
Especially since the W administration has failed to secure the borders.
That's where they're "misunderestimating" the base.
Threat of Hillary or not..if they let us down AGAIN (Lucy and the football, anyone?)..it's Third Party for me. I realize that it'd be a wasted vote - but, if enough of us do it - and send a strong message that they cannot take the conservative vote for granted, maybe FINALLY it will sink in and they'll start doing what we sent them to Washington to do.
As much as I hate to say it, I'd almost accept Hillary in the WH to make a point.
Either way - if Dubya lets down the conservative base on this, I'm personally DONE voting (R). I'm out.
Hey, here's a thought..maybe this is all "strategery" and Dubya is a closet lib trying to destroy the party from within. Don't laugh - almost everything he's done (non-existent border control, weak on domestic defense, spending like a drunken sailor and horrible immigration policy) looks, smells, and quacks like a liberal duck.
I guess there's very little left today of "true conservatives". It's just differing degrees of liberalism.
Have you ever been to Forrest Park in Memphis?
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.