Stanley Kurtz, writing at the Corner:
[…] Senate Republican’s know that nominating a strong and open social conservative will set off a paralyzing battle, and virtually shut down the rest of their agenda for the duration. The mammoth battle will also turn the pressure now being aimed at the president onto the Senate’s Republican moderates. At a minimum, that would mean exacerbating party divisions and jeopardizing the majority’s congressional agenda going into a midterm election. At worst, the internal squabbling would threaten the Republican senate majority itself. Knowing this, I believe that senate Republicans themselves begged the president for a stealth nominee.
Well, yes and no. First, the base is not necessarily asking for a “social conservative,” I don’t think (after all, James Dobson is behind Miers, and yet an array of staunch conservatives are still quite unhappy) so much as it is demanding a legal conservative with a track record of intellectually supporting conservativism by showing a fealty to the text of the Constitution. And so while yes, nominating a strong conservative could indeed exacerbate party divisions insofar as such a nomination will expose Senate Republican “moderates” for the unprincipled political fencesitters that they are, no, I don’t think it will hurt the Party so much as it will party members who cede control of the process to the managed and manipulated outrage of Senate Democrats and a not entirely disinterested media.
But back to Kurtz:
The president believed he had found that stealth nominee in Harriet Miers. He trusted her, because he’d known her for years. And no doubt she shows her conservative face -– which is genuinely a part of who she is -– to the president. But I doubt that Miers went into her meetings with George Bush in 1998 and 1999 telling him in excited tones how happy she was to have pleased her liberal feminist supporters by setting up a lecture series for Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi. The president was taken by surprise by Miers long-practiced penchant for silence about her own complex political sympathies. So the wobbly Republican moderates in the Senate, combined with a stealth nominee who was less conservative than her own backers believed, got us into this mess.
I oppose the Miers nomination. But I’m realistic enough to admit that the sort of nominee I want would mean a politically dangerous Senate battle, with real risks for the Republican majority. I think the stakes justify the battle–and the fight would have the huge political plus of uniting and exciting the base going into the mid-term elections. But Republican Senators clearly have reason to fear the pressures such a battle will place on them.
Republican office holders are always reluctant to go along with the cultural battles craved by the base. Republican officials regularly beg Ward Connerly not to come into their states with his petition drives against racial preferences. And this is true, even though clear majorities of Americans oppose preferences. The wimp out on this nomination by both the president and the congressional Republicans is the ultimate example of that familiar split between Republican office-holders and their base. What the Republican officials need to understand, is that their base has been willing to swallow that sort of wimp out for decades -– all on the theory that one day we’d get it back through this nomination.
For years, politicians of both parties have avoided difficult cultural battles by passing the buck to the courts. Now we see the consequences. Court nominations themselves become the focus of politics, and when politicians try to pass the buck even on the most important nomination, the base finally turns on them. Again, I believe that it’s the Senate Republicans -– every bit as much, or more, than the president -– who need to get the message that we demand a real battle on this court seat, bruising and risky for Republicans as it will admittedly be.
Precisely right. As I noted yesterday, it’s my belief that the nomination of a strong judicial conservative will finally force the country to take notice of the slide of the judiciary toward a superlegislature—the very thing responsible for making judicial nominations as contentious as they’ve become of late, and the reason why a calculating “third way” group like the execrable Gang of 14 has been able to effectively hijack control of the confirmation process.
In “McCain’s Blunder,” Mark Levin writes:
[…] this Gang of 14 moderates, led by Senator John McCain, did make it much more difficult for the president to win an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats did, in fact, send warnings that they were prepared to filibuster the second nominee. And under such circumstances, the president would have needed 60 votes to confirm his candidate, not 51.
Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol’s favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort. And that’s exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president’s blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican “allies” in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
Underlying all of the political calculating here (and I will admit, I am beginning to understand better the complex web of considerations Bush had to navigate in making his pick– though I’m still a long way from allowing them as justifications) is the unspoken assumption that a disruption of the process by the Gang of 14 and by weak-kneed Senate Republicans will hurt the Party; this, as Kurtz points out, is certainly possible. But what was given insufficient consideration, in my opinion, is that a disruption of the process in the wake of a strong conservative pick (whether than disruption takes the form of a threatened fillibuster or an actual fillibuster) would galvanize conservatives and strengthen the conservative judicial movement precisely because the conservative judicial movement (as opposed simply to the desire for the placement of social conservatives or evangelicals on the bench) wants nothing more than for the judiciary to act like a judiciary—a message that will certainly resonate with the American people (and the reason John Roberts was virtually bulletproof).
I wrote yesterday that John Roberts was the perfect stalking horse for a more controversial conservative nominee because he was opposed, by those who opposed him, not on the grounds of his obvious conservatism but on the grounds that he didn’t provide them with enough information to make a few Senate Democrats comfortable.
The time has come now for Senate Republicans to understand that the conservative judicial movement is no longer satisfied with winks and nods—nor is it satisfied with the kind of buck passing that has created a Court that is has become the de facto legislator on many important cultural issues.
But instead, we get Republican party loyalists (and even, disappointingly, the First Lady) taking absurd swipes at those who have the temerity not to swallow this latest suggestion that their beliefs—though Constitutionally sound—are nevertheless unpalatable to the American electorate.
And in doing so, they join the likes of DNC Vice Chair Susan Turnbell, who told FOXNews’ Bridget Quinn this morning that Republican elites are sexists—and so align themselves with the very kind of identity politics rhetoric that has proven so effective at silencing conservatives on university campuses and elsewhere.
It is a sad sight—a lashing out born of desperation and exasperation. But like many of the recent moves made by Party loyalists, it is cowardly precisely because it attacks its allies in lieu of the much more difficult task of taking the battle to its ideological opponents.
****
update: Gang of 14 Coalition of the Chilin’ member John Cole disagrees with some of what I write and agrees with some
Our disagreement proceeds directly from our disagreement over the role of the Gang of 14. John sees them as knights riding in to save the both the filibuster and the nuclear option; I see them as opportunists who seized control of the process and are now in the position to choose what nominees are viable. John points out that they had no problem with Roberts, whom I’ve called a clear legal conservative. But the reason for that, I believe, is that Roberts had a spotless paper trail that frustrated Dems, which made him acceptable inasmuch as he wouldn’t make waves.
But that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Roberts shouldn’t have been approved on the basis of how much of his conservatism he was able to hide; he should have been approved on his merits, many of which proceed from that conservatism.
(and even, disappointingly, the First Lady) taking absurd swipes
Dafydd says no she didn’t.
That would be very out of character for her.
Else, you are exactly correct. Political cowardice rules. Couldn’t GW make his legacy of Supreme Court appoints about doing the right thing instead of appeasement?
Part of the Kurtz explanation doesn’t make sense. How would the President think that nominating an avowed born again Christian who had fought the ABA on its support of abortion would not kick up major dust? Not to mention the blatant appearance of cronyism especially after the Michael Brown debacle at FEMA (oops, I mentioned it).
I STILL want to know where this political capital went that Bush was going to spend. I mean, do we need to check under the cusions in the oval office or what?
I wasn’t aware that Bush was up for reelection and that political fence walking was needed at this point. If not now, when would a Republican president make such a stand?
Just out of curiosity… is nobody else but me willing to actually wait until she sits before a Senate hearing to make up his mind?
It seems kinda funny actually. Most nominations of late have been clearly qualified… and people have instead complained that politicians were using confirmation hearings purely for political grandstanding.
Now we have a candidate whose qualifications are at least suspect, and nobody wants to let her sit before a hearing.
Personally I’d like to see a Senate confirmation hearing where there might actually be real substance… this might be our only chance. But then again, knowing the batch of Senators we have… the chances are still slim.
Well, that’s the thing, Nick. I think once she sits, she’ll get more support from Republicans and conservatives. But for the time being, many of us wish to express the problems we have both with the nomination and with the response to our criticisms from other conservatives / Republicans.
I see nothing wrong with that. And I’ve said several times now that the best argument for a Miers confirmation is that the process is proceeding as it should and that, should Miers convince the Senate of her worthiness, she will be confirmed.
But none of that means we should sit on our hands and not know anything about the nominee in advance of the hearings. Else, how would we know what we’d like to hear asked of her?
Nick, if there anything else to say in her favor, the White House would already have said it. This is what is known as summary judgment. No disputed issues of fact, therefore no trial.
Bush would be getting a lot more slack if he actually acted like a Republican on anything except the war and some choice issues like religion, something that doesn’t exactly water the mouth of a libertarian like me. I suspect many saw it coming the moment he stuck “Compassionate” on his title and backed away from mean old Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism.
I mean, “trust me?” Trust you to do what? Place a jurist with the same record as you on illegal immigration, affirmative action, CFR, and any other number of issues? The Bush family, regardless of its new Texas roots, reminds of the old North Eastern Rockefeller Republicans who would have doomed the GOP to Canada-status [imo] had not Nixon [himself hardly a right-winger] and Agnew brought the party back to the right.
Well, between you and the guys at Q and O, I’m coming around to the less-inclined-to-trust-W way of thinking.
I’m kinda wondering how I can best make that known, however.
Turing word: “Believe”. I believe in judicial conservatism! Stop legislating from the bench.
Let’s play “What if?”. Meirs asks her name to be withdrawn from consideration. Bush nominates “a strong judicial conservative”. The BATTLE is on! From what I have read, it is a fight that can not be won in the sense that the nominee can not be confirmed and the filibuster can not be stopped. Do you agree? If so, would the “fight” be worth the “loss”? Why? What would then be the end game for the next nominee? Would the “strong judicial conservatives” be better off or worse off after the fight?
Hmmmm.
1. “Dafydd says no she didn’t. “
Absurd. She was asked a question. She replied in the affirmative. She did not add any qualifiers. She did not correct herself. The White House has not issued a correction. The White House has not acknowledged that she has said anything that she did not *mean* to say.
And frankly Dafydd has never once impressed me with either his logic, his writing or his thinking. He wrote for a short time on CaptainsQuartersBlog and really unimpressed me there on a whole host of issues.
2. Miers is going to adopt the Ginsburg/Roberts rule and she will say as absolutely little as possible. You’re also going to see a lot of Republicans runnign interference for her.
If she isn’t defeat before being seated at the confirmation hearings, she won’t be defeated before being seated on the court.
3. It’s almost worth it to have Miers get on the court. Then all those people who supported Miers will be forced to live with their choice, and reminded of their moment of unity over principles every single day for the next 30+ years.
Hmmm.
“Why? What would then be the end game for the next nominee?”
Why? Because liberals have been trying to paint conservatism as a fringe lunatic ideology for the past 30 years. And have largely succeeded from their commanding position in the media. All during that time conservatives have fought tooth and nail to redefine conservatism as both mainstream and not a lunatic fringe.
And in just a couple weeks President Bush has set back conservatism 20 years. President Bush has categorically made it clear that conservatism is a lunatic fringe ideology that is both unworthy of consideration and not suitable for discussion in the senate.
Additionally Bush has gone to two “stealth” candidates. Why not go with openly conservative candidates? Because it’s easier? Because Bush and the GOP don’t want to fight for a conservative candidate?
So what does that tell conservative law students and lawyers? That any open declaration of conservative views will lie like a timebomb waiting to explode 30 years from now? That there is no future in the federal and Supreme court for open conservatives? That their only hope is to hide and scurry about, leaving no paper trail?
And that advances conservatism, how?
Miers is a bad decision on many many levels.
1) I’m not sure that we can win, but I AM sure that we shouldn’t surrender principles to McCain and his buddies who have assumed institutional control over the Senate on this issue.
And yes, I believe the fight would be worth the loss for reasons I outline in the post—specifically, that it would clarify the terms of the debate (and I think conservatives win on that issue) and it exposes the weak Republicans as unpricipled.
The end game is that conservatives will eschew political pragamatism in favor of fighting for principles. They refuse to allow the judiciary to become a superlegislature without a fight, and they wish to take back the process from those who have corrupted it.
You guys can quit arguing now. Bush has revealed the real reason for the pick and it should end all debate. Wait for it…wait for it:
She goes to the right church.
Stick that in your hash pipes and smoke it, libertarian dope fiends! And pipe down, sexist elitist fair-weather GOP fellow travelers of all ideological stripes.
I’m so tired of defending this President when he won’t defend himself on foreign policy issues, and I’m well and truly sick of defending his mushy middle domestic “agenda”, such as it is.
And now this. Damn. Just damn.
Since the requirement of this nomination was to be a female, what if the well-known, paper-trailed constitutional constructionists who are female did not want to go through yet another test subject for an ideological battle we “are not sure that we can win”? Particularly when proven there are Senators(R) who will join the opposition.
Perhaps nominating Miers now would have made it far easier for a paper-trailed constitutional constructionist to definately win the battle in the next nomination. The current nomination had to be a female, but the filibuster would have destroyed any chance for a verifiable constructionist to win. Miers was on a list of recommended candidates, Bush chose her because he knows her well enough to trust she will be an effective judge, fulfills the feminine demand, and sets up the opposition making it difficult for them to use a filibuster the next nominee.
I still have to hear her own defense before I can commit myself to commenting on her qualifications.
I just had the horrible thought that, if not for the war on terror, John Roberts, and the fact that John Kerry was the alternative –
– I would rather see George W. Bush in jail than in the presidency.
No vetos, not even McCain-Feingold?
Prescription drugs?
Illegal immigration?
Big spending?
Is there a conservative in the house?
Can we get him or her to run in 2008?
In the history of senate judiciary panels have we ever learned anything of significance from said judge? At best we learn if they are well spoken and have honed deflector shields in a verbal game of smear the queer. It’s not in the saying you learn about important public service officials, it’s in the doing. If you knew nothing of Bill Clinton, he could get before that panel and convince most that he seems like a compotent fellow.
Miers did not achieve her level of success in law by not being able to articulate a position. I’m sure a lot of observers will come away from the hearings with a better feeling because she will present a smart and clever facade. In reality, we will learn nothing more about the woman than we know now. When Feinstein says she’s not sure if she’s going to vote yes or no that’s a total and complete bald faced lie. Every senator knows how they are going to vote which is why several make big public announcements like Kerry so the other Democrats know how the numbers shake down and they can get their vote count right. You know, get those Democrats in moderate to conservative districts a yes vote while still getting enough no votes to keep the base satisfied to what ever degree they believe they need to.
What’s going on here by most isn’t just investigtion… so many are already demanding her nomination be withdrawn. Investigate away… but then let’s question her about what we find in a hearing… not simply demand her name be withdrawn as if she’s guilty without a trial.
I’m at least willing to let the woman defend her record, and make her case in the one place where she’s supposed to… the Senate.
You social conservatives are so naive. When will you realize that the Republican Elite, who control your party, are not interested in your social agenda. They are only interested in your money and retaining political power. You see money keeps them on top.
If you would like to take a look at what this administration has passed, you will find one common thread. Keep the rich in control and crush the middle class.
From tax policy to the medicare drug bill, to the energy bill, to the transportation bill, all contributing to outrageous deficit spending,takes from the middle class and poor and gives to Corporate Interests.
Good grief, if they nominated the Supreme Court Jurists that you want, then you might start thinking about important matters like your jobs and your pocketbooks and they certainly don’t want you to do that. They might lose 5% to 10% of the electorate, enough to lose some elections. You might even become an independent or God forbid a progressive and kick most of these elitist bastards out of office.
EH—I’m not a social conservative. If you think that I am, you’re a total moron.
Actually, wait: you’r a total moron who thinks that I am.
Nick —
So you’re of the Lindsay Graham “just shut up” school?
I don’t even know who Graham is or what him/her might be. Maybe I hit a true nerve, your a Republican Elitist who is only interested in staying in power. Methink’s that thou doth protest too much.
Could it be that I did hit the nail on the head as to the Republican Elitist agenda?
EH—The Graham thing was directed to Nick. Are you Nick?
No.
I agree.
You Sir are the ultimate optimist! I salute you and will stand by your side fighting the fight as long as I am able to draw a breath.
TW = position, as in I agree with yours.
Then why didn’t Bush nominate a “True Beleiver” with a previous record?
The basis of democracy is compromise. Bush may have learned something in the last 5 years unlike the coolaid swalloing “True Believers”.
Hmmm.
@ susan
“Since the requirement of this nomination was to be a female, what if the well-known, paper-trailed constitutional constructionists who are female did not want to go through yet another test subject for an ideological battle we “are not sure that we can winâ€Â? Particularly when proven there are Senators(R) who will join the opposition.”
The White House will have to reveal both the list of names and the names of those that declined. Because one of the writers at NRO contacted Owens, who categorically denied that she withdrew her name.
And any list of femake candidates for the Supreme Court that didn’t have Owens’s name on it would be a curious thing indeed.
spamword: “evidence”. Spooky.
Just for arguments sake, let’s pretend that Bush had nominated a Luttig or Rogers-Brown or some other justice that Soros and company won’t allow Kennedy and company to accept. And let’s assume that the Dems response is to use the Fabian tactic of an extended filibuster. In other words there’s an ideological fight, out in the open for the whole nation to see. I’d like to hear from some of you guys as to possible scenarios.
Ed,
What’s a Constitional Constructionist? Sorry for being so dumb.
What’s a Constitutional Constructionist? Sorry for being so dumb, again.
Scenario 1: the Dems convince the nation that textualists are “extreme” and “out of the mainstream.”
Scenario 2: the people of the US are able to see through such an attempt by Dems (and wobbly Rethugs) and agree that justices should act as umpires. They’ll conclude that legal conservatives are not nutty fruitcakes looking to return the US to Jim Crow and back alley abortions, but are rather looking to return the US to the people—not to 9 black-robed wise men.
Engelbert Humperdick: your Thomas Franks, faux Marxist false consciousness schtick don’t play here. But feel free to beat your head against the wall. This is one social conservative who finds it quite entertaining. Thanks for the laughs.
EH,
What’s “Sorry for being so dumb”?
“Progressive” towards what, exactly?
Again, I don’t know who Thomas Franks is but I do know Faux means. So I’m a false Marxist but with a false consciousness? Is that a double negative?
I asked one simple question. What’s a Constitutional Constructionist? Sorry for being so dumb, again.
Oh! I get it now. It’s a code word for social conservatives to rally around but really has no meaning or definition. Thanks for the info toungeboy.
And whose brilliant aneurystic idea was it to recruit James Dobson to the pro-Miers side thinking his endorsement would defuse any social conservative qualms? Do these strategists really think so little of social conservatives that they think they can buy us by implicitly assuring us that her evangelical background is all the assurance that we need that she will vote the “right” way, nevermind that the thinkers among us, who are quite numerous despite what Mr. Engelbert Humperdick would have you believe, are more concerned with judicial philosphy than with predetermined outcomes? Or that we blindly follow the lead of one distinguished but fallible person?
I have great respect for James Dobson as a Christian teacher, listen to his broadcasts on a fairly regular basis and have found valuable insights in his writings about child-rearing. That doesn’t mean I march to the Dobson beat on partisan political infighting. He is free to express his views on this particular issue—and I will still respect his other teachings and writings—but I am free to disregard them. I may be but a single data point but I suspect that my position is fairly representative, among those of us who are also politically aware and active, of social conservative thought.
/preaching mode
Eh,
You don’t know who Lindsey Graham is, don’t know who Thomas Franks is, misunderstand a simple phrase (faux Marxist false consciousness schtick), and ask me a question that should be directed to Ed (or is it @ susan? I had a little trouble understanding Ed’s reference). And why should any sane human engage you? And, no, I never made a positive affirmation that I was sane…
Yep, kind of like “progressive”.
Hmmm.
@ EH
“What’s a Constitutional Constructionist?”
That was susan’s phrase, not mine as I quoted her when I wrote a response. Frankly that phrase doesn’t make much sense to me but I think what she means is a strict Constitutionalist. Otherwise known as a Textualist.
There are a couple diverging points of view about the Constitution. A good, but not great, analogy is to think of the current rift over the interpretation of the holy Bible. Some people think it is the Word of God, and so it must be read exactly as is. Others think it was written my people, and so it shouldn’t be read exactly but rather interpreted.
This same sort of arugment applies to the Constitution.
One group believes the Constitution is a “living document” that can be “evolved” to meet changing times. That interpretations or findings that aren’t necessarily within the text of the Constitution are still valid because the application of both Stare Decis, i.e. precedent, and compounded interpretations provides a mechanism for the Constitution to “grow” without the necessity of an amendment process.
Another group believes the Constitution is as it is, written as it is and must be read exactly as it is and that if you want to interpret it differently, then you need to actually amend the Constitution.
Conservatives generally fall into the latter category.
So a strict Constitutionalist, or Textualist take your pick since they’re two names for the same thing, is someone who will absolutely abide by the written text of the Constitution and will not seek to create new laws or interpretations that are not in the text of the Constitution and were not a part of the deliberations of the Founders.
As an example Roe vs. Wade is based, I believe, mostly on the right of privacy. The only problem is that there isn’t necessarily such a thing *in* the Constitution.
And it’s this maybe/maybe not constitutional right to privacy that has been the engine for most of the social engineering that the liberals have undertaken.
*shrug* it’s a complicated thing with a lot of details. In summary a a strict Constitutionalist or Textualist is someone who believes in a very strict reading of the Constitution and who also belives that, if you want something new, then you need to go and get an amendment passed.
Hmmmm.
“I had a little trouble understanding Ed’s reference). “
I *really* need to start using blockquotes.
Sorry all.
Jeff:
Your post, and especially your most recent comment about returning the US to the people, instead of 9 black-robed wise men, put in mind this quote from Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Why couldn’t Bush have appointed another one of these!?
RC:
Progressive to the point where all people in the US and around the world will be free to express their personal and religious opinions. Can earn a living wage by gaining a descent education and working hard. Getting a fair shair of the profits of their labor no matter that Communist and Democratic Croynism is envolved.
The United States had pretty much pure capitalism until the 20th century.
Teddy Roosevelt, the best President who ever lived, put a stop to that kind of trust capitalism, now called monopolism.
Since that point we have become more and more a socialistic society just like every other 1st world western democracy.
You will have to accept that Democracy means Socialism not pure capitalism. I’ll let you figure the numbers yourself.
You might even become an independent or God forbid a progressive and kick most of these elitist bastards out of office.
Snicker.
They only “elistist bastard” I can come up with was the one that lost the last presidential election and you no doubt voted for, EH.
And spare us the socialist pieties, dude. R. Crawford’s question was, I’m sure, sarcastic and rhetorical.
???????????????????????????
So, eh, if Teddy was the great trust buster that he was and your hero, why do you still have a 19th century view of the rich and elite?
Why would the “controlling” rich want to crush the middle class? Where do you think the money the rich make comes from. Unlike you, the rich aren’t stupid (pssst, that why they are rich). They’re not going kill the golden goose. And that’s assuming that they’re running a secret oligopoly. In truth, “the rich” are in competion with other rich folks.
Progressives don’t understand economics and I fear they never will.
It is just possible Jeff, that you misjudge the support for a ‘strict constructionist’. I think quite a bit of the support amongst the rank and file comes from ‘social conservatives’ who view the strict constructionist idea mainly as a weapon against RvW. The base (not including the hyper-poli-blogo-pherions who live and breath politics) may indeed consider themselves well served by a conservative judicial activist.
This may actually be the biggest threat to the ‘legal conservative’ movement (if Miers is confirmed). A social con vote against RvW could dispel this coalition, leaving the ‘legal cons’
to fight the uphill battle by themselves.
TW: products…..of my imagination, possibly
Kelly,
You don’t think that the US. is socialistic?
You social conservatives are so naive. When will you realize that the Republican Elite, who control your party, are not interested in your social agenda. They are only interested in your money and retaining political power. You see money keeps them on top.
If you would like to take a look at what this administration has passed, you will find one common thread. Keep the rich in control and crush the middle class.
From tax policy to the medicare drug bill, to the energy bill, to the transportation bill, all contributing to outrageous deficit spending,takes from the middle class and poor and gives to Corporate Interests.
Good grief, if they nominated the Supreme Court Jurists that you want, then you might start thinking about important matters like your jobs and your pocketbooks and they certainly don’t want you to do that. They might lose 5% to 10% of the electorate, enough to lose some elections. You might even become an independent or God forbid a progressive and kick most of these elitist bastards out of office.
OooOOoo, the Socratic method EH! Can I play?
Which economies are in better relative shape, Western European economies like Sweden or the USA?
How about German, where they embrace science instead of fighting it.
EH :(
You REALLY need to work on your copy and paste skills. It screws up your paragraphs with phantom returns and when you’re not paying attention, while you’re regergitating someone else’s take you copy and paste the same thing twice. Come on my little Marxist, buck up and format!
I understand that I get excited when I get my appoinents on line. But, grammer is not one of of my big concerns. I’ve also noticed when the opposition has nothing to say they attack grammer.
Most excellent EH, this is why the Socratic model of debate works so well.
To answer, 10.5% unemployment, public deficit of 3.8% of their GDP not to mention some reliance on American military base income. Not to mention a 45% tax rate on income over 52,000 a year.
In summary an economy in shambles. Silly EH, NEXT European fantasy Island example please!
Hell EH, I’m not attacking your grammar. I’m attacking your common sense, you know like posting the same exact thing twice because you copy and pasted it from some other location. Read through the threds kiddo.
Ok,Dario
I love you. We don’t need to talk numbers on this site. Give me your e-mail and we can see if we can concur.
I think that explains EH. To well educated by his own standards, obviously.
Only if you promise I get porn, viagra and penile implant emails.
Dario:
I don’t need viagra and the other stuff.
B.Moe
I think you are too undereducated for your own good.
No, EH, I don’t think the US is a socialist country…yet. That’s why I’m glad Kerry lost and why I, like many conservatives are upset with uncontrolled spending from congress.
BTW, it’s generally considered poor form to re-post a comment. In your case particularly so because your populist schtick is so nauseating.
I think saying that I’m of the “just shut up school” is a bit strong. Why is it that somehow my comments on blogs are always taken immediately to some strange extreme? Hmmm
I’m simply trying to say that people are getting whipped into a frenzy, and it almost seems like a mob of conservatives are about to march down Pennsylvania Blvd. to the Whitehouse with torches, Secret Service Snipers be damned to demand that Bush choose someone else… and we haven’t even heard the woman speak at a hearing yet.
Investigate… thats great. Tell us what you find… great. But folks… don’t go all MSM and whip people up into a frenzy without hearing her side of things. Honestly… I’d like to see one Senate confirmation hearing in my lifetime that actually talked about the merits of a nominee… it might just give me hope that the Senate is worth something.
Ok… so maybe there’s good reason why my comments seem to take people to an extreme. Oh well.
Hmm… its an Ave not a Blvd isn’t it? Damn.
Kelly,
I’m sorry but the US has been socialistic since Teddy Roosevelt who broke up the trusts and negotiated the aggreement between the coal minors and executives in Pennsylvania.
EH, please.
Get your own blog and quit threadjacking Jeff’s post. Color me impressed with your deep grasp of history that no one gives a shit about. Your claim that the US is socialistic is specious at best and would come as a real surprise to the milllions of entrepeneurs in this country.
Milllions.
That extra ‘l’ in there is for emphasis.
TW: seen. As in, “has anyone seen a missing ‘l’?”
Nick:
Seriously, bro, do you expect to learn much about Harriet Miers at the Senate confirmation hearings?
She’s a stealth candidate because the President is obviously scared to death of sending a known originalist up there, given the current composition of the Senate.
At least that’s what I hope is the reason why he’s nominated this cypher. If it’s really just because she’s a woman, an evangelical, and Bush used his extry-special “presidential gaze of discernment” to look into her eyes and see her soul, etc. then color me dismayed.
Actually, color me dismayed anyways. If a GOP Senate with 55 party members, squishes and all, isn’t enough to get a know originalist on the court, well, ahhh…forget it.
I don’t remember seeing a link to this here, I am sure that most have seen it.
Just in case, Scalia talks briefly (very) about the confirmation process here.
Engleburt,
One reason those of us who are stuck in the middle class aren’t in much of a hurry to topple the rich, is because we can look around at the last century and see what socialism has wrought. We’d rather make a comfortable living in the current system, even if there’s others who get rich when we don’t, than suffer bonecrushing poverty along with everybody else. Socialism hasn’t distributed wealth worth a shit, but it has distributed poverty pretty evenly. I’m thinking USSR, and it’s former satelites.
You don’t have to look very hard at the reunified Germany to figure out that the West Germans were a hell of a lot better off in almost every sense than the East Germans were. Don’t give me some bullshit about how resourses didn’t allow prosperity. Russia is as gifted as the US when it comes to natural resourses. Probably more so. You posted earlier about a “living wage”. Millions of people are crossing the border every year, to come here and work for wages that the poorest of our citizens won’t take. You don’t have to look very hard at the poor in our country to figure out that, more often than not, they’re victims of their own bad habits and poor judgement. It’s hard to get me to buy into the utopia, when I’m eating all I want, and living in a nicer house than what I grew up in.
Come on people, let’s not keep feeding the trolls. It just makes them hungrier.
Does anyone else get the feeling that Englebert HumperDICK is some experiment involving a monkey with a laptop and a lab assistant?
Hmmmm.
@ EH
Everything depends on definitions. If your definition of capitalism is being able to hold a gun to someone’s head to make them buy products, then yes America is not *your* idea of capitalism.
But no, America is not socialist and it most definitely did not become socialist with Teddy.
Now if you have something worthwhile to add to the discussion as posted by Jeff, then let’s hear it.
Otherwise: Piss off.
spamword: “french”
EnglehumP does have something of a point about creeping socialism. I’ll give him that. Until I started getting news from the internet, I didn’t realize the extent to which its vile philosophy had poisoned the public mind. And I’d say it had more to do with Keynes and FDR than Teddy…
HumP: To rouse your brain from its 19th century socialist pickle, try reading a copy of Henry Hazlitt’s famous book, Economics in One Lesson, free online.
It may come as something of a surprise to you, but times have changed since Marx wrote that depressing, negative, unimaginative, wretched, hate-filled manifesto. Communism has been flushed down the crapper of history in the blood of more than 85 million people. Or are you so stupid you wouldn’t know the truth if it sodomized you until you were singing ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’?
tw: away. Now go away.
http://mrsun.us/2005/10/miers-smoking-gun.html
I’m just not of the opinion this Miers nomination was concocted as a conspiracy.
I have a rather herculean post I just composed on the topic, though, which might interest:
Strange Bedfellows
It’s more a wrap-up of ideas, and tendencies in the centre-right of Blogosphere, than any Rovian exposé.
Cheers,
Victoria
I still think if GWB had nominated JRB, the site of the DWI Killer and Robert KKK Byrd lecturing the daughter of sharecroppers, who worked her way through law school as a widowed mother, about civil rights and compassion for the poor would have gained the Republicans seats in Congress in the lame duck off year elections.
sight, not “site”
PIMP