Head West, Turn Right

The Joint Blog of the Conservative Northwest Blogging Alliance: Red State Points of View from a Blue State Point on the Compass.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Now Let's Just Try To Keep Some Promises

Thankfully the "doomed from the beginning," nomination of Harriet Miers is over.

Unfortunately GW Bush tried to break another political promise and this time his base, those that worked so hard for him, said "enough is enough."

The opposition to Miers was not, as the administration elitists would have you believe, about sexism or elitism. Those were just all excuses made up by some folks that made a mistake and lost the idiological high ground. As we have seen over the last ten years, the idiological low ground is not a good place to be.

So now we are back. Back at looking at nominees. Some things for Bush to consider this time around. First is, remember the promise you made to the American people while running for office. You said "I will appoint justices in the line of Scalia and Thomas." Sorry Mr. President but is it too much to think that you meant it?

Point number two to consider is that now the base is as united as it ever has been. Now is the time to enter into a battle of ideas.

So, as noted over on my blog NWRepublican the rumor mill is sending out two names. They are:
Emelio Garza


and


Michael McConnell


Now, check the intellectual background of these two fellas. There is some firepower there.




Yip Yip

17 Comments:

At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Janice Rogers Brown would be the best nominee for the Supreme Court.

 
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now Let's Just Try To Keep Some Promises."

"Thankfully the 'doomed from the beginning,' nomination of Harriet Miers is over."

Are you a politician?

The reason I ask is because politicans re-invent themselves every election hoping that people don't look into their voting record or what they said before.

You SUPPORTED MYERS.

Are we supposed to forget this?

And now, you say that she is the wrong person for the job?

You just say what the Republican Talking Points say.

Well I am NOT A PARTY HACK. I am a PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE and I opposed Myers from the start. ON PRINCIPLE!

I hate people like you. You are such a double talker. You just do and say whatever the Republicans want you to!

 
At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Mark of Meneltarma said...

Do you even know that this is a group blog?

Do you know what blogger you are talking to?

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger Brian B said...

Here's my beef with the "Thank God Miers is gone, now maybe the President will keep his promise" crowd:

I have to give some credence to James Dobson's claim that Miers wasn't choice #1, and that more deserving candidates turned the job down because they didn't want to go through the wringer of the confirmation process.

I remember how long it took to get lower court nominees confirmed, and what complete PUSSIES the congressional Republicans were when it came to standing up to the Dems in support of GOOD nominees.

So all of a sudden, the President nominates someone the DON'T like, and THEN they find their freaking spines???? Talk about hypocrisy!!!!

So here's the message I'm preaching to all those conservatives who opposed Miers: Congratulations, you got your wish, she's gone. Now, if the President learns his lesson and nominates someone who meets your standards, will you please GROW A PAIR and SUPPORT THAT NOMINEE with as much fire as you opposed Miers? Because if you wimp out, I'll have to conclude you're all a bunch of self-serving poseurs.

 
At 2:52 PM, Blogger I am Coyote said...

Mark,
Thanks for fixing the anonymous out. Some folks can't take a simple look around before they start getting all, well, kookie. Or in this case "hatefull."

Unlike Republicans like me (and I can only assume the others on here as well) who merely argue our points in a calm and sane manner you, Anon, need to shoot off at the mouth and get all hatefull on us. Must be a Democrat, after all they have become the party of hate.

Now as for Brian B. Ahem... I have a pair already and unlike some (I won't say you because I do no know enough about your past support and non support) I have been more than willing to go out on a limb and support those that call for it.

It does not help though that now that the base is more united than ever that Brian and others act like sore losers. No one is crowing about this so there is no need to feel sore about it.

What we have proven is that unlike the "support Bush blindly no matter what he does crowd," we have stood for ideas. We have hopefull proved to folks like yourself that in the days ahead you need not be afraid to take a principled stand. Take heart my friend we have taken the initial blows for you. The path is clear now.

If Bush picks a constructionist as a SCOTUS nominee you can bet that our side will be there with bayonets fixed. (oops, now will some limp wristed libral take that bayonet comment literal?... poor weak liberals.)

So, Brian. Call it over. Unless GW goes native on us again.

 
At 3:16 PM, Blogger Brian B said...

Coyote,

First, to call me a "Sore Loser" would imply that I was a blind Miers backer. I wasn't. I admit, I was not as dismayed as others at her nomination, and urged some circumspection before flying off the handle, but I was never a big fan.

As for you personally, if you were as vocal in your criticism of GOP politicians for failing to force a vote on judges like Owens, I applaud you. THOSE are the people with whom I'm angry.

The problem I have with the base being more united than ever is that they SHOULD have been this united all along, and maybe if they HAD been, Miers never would have been nominated.

 
At 9:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like the next nomination might be as bad as Myers.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47100

Maureen Mahoney.

She is 50 years old, a lawyer in private practice – one of the credentials Bush said attracted him to Miers.

Mahoney is perhaps most famous for representing the University of Michigan before the Supreme Court defending its indefensible affirmative-action program. She wasn't just a hired gun. She really believed in the case. She really believed that government agencies should discriminate against people based on race. She really believed that was constitutional and moral.

She told the university news service: "I'm a Republican, and there's a common misconception that all Republicans oppose affirmative action. I care deeply about the issue."

BUSHES NEXT NOMINEE WILL SPELL THE END OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. At least for the forseeable future (It might rise again in a generation).

They have squandered the years of power they have and betrayed their base.

 
At 9:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Unlike Republicans like me (and I can only assume the others on here as well) who merely argue our points in a calm and sane manner you, Anon, need to shoot off at the mouth and get all hatefull on us. "

It's because I have seen what people like you hjave done to the Republican party and the country.

You think logical debate wins the day? Well it doesn't.

We have practically lost our country. If that doesn't make you mad then you really don't understand what is going on.

Either you really don't care about the issues that you are "debating" or you are some twit. Either way I have nothing but contempt for you.

 
At 9:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Must be a Democrat."

One thing I can say for the Democrats (or I should say liberals) is that they know how to win.

We have won political campaigns of course. Not all the time, but frequently enough. But does it really matter since the same kinds of liberal policies get advanced regardless who might hold the seat of power?

I remember how awesome it was that after 40 years, imagine 40 years Democrats were no longer in power in the House of Representatives. Things were going to change now, especially with all the spending and government waste.

But 10 years later it's even worst.

And that is just talking about something so simple and supposedly non-controversal as sound fiscal policy. If there was one thing that Republicans were supposed to be united on, it was sound fiscal policy. But Republicans couldn't do that right.

As for liberal social policies well in the 10 years since the Republicans took control liberal social policies continue to advance.

Winning elections is one thing, but it means nothing if the people you put in to office continue along the same liberal policy path as those you got out.

 
At 12:49 PM, Blogger I am Coyote said...

Anon that comment was so conveluted that I don't know if one should even try to dissect it.

You have displayed hatefull and argumenative rhetoric twice now and the first one was because you failed to look close enough at who you were hating.

No one said that winning the debate is all it takes to win the day. However I do know that bending over backwards to court individuals that CHOSE to be ignorant will not win you anything either. So if you chose to remain ignorant then all the truth and love in the world will make no difference with you.

However to those that did see your hatefull diatribe direct at me while assuming that I was Mike will fully understand the nature of things. They will also understand that it is the liberals like yourself that are perpetuating the politics of anger, and now, ignorance.

 
At 12:52 PM, Blogger I am Coyote said...

Brian,
The reason that the base hs not been united all along is that the President decided to nominate a blank slate that if anything, leaned a little to the left in her speaches.

Oh and he has spent money like a drunken sailor.

Oh and he has offered amnesty to illegal aliens.

etc...

I would posit that the President has been slowly dividing the party and the idiological conservatives stepped up and brought us back together.

Especially if Bush does what I am predicting he will do on my blog.

 
At 5:59 AM, Blogger Brian B said...

Coyote:

"The reason that the base hs not been united all along is that the President decided to nominate a blank slate"

Owens? Brown? I'm talking about the lack of unity and courage showed by the GOP for Bush's entire first term when it cam to judicial nominees.

"I would posit that the President has been slowly dividing the party and the idiological conservatives stepped up and brought us back together."

And I respectfully disagree. The party across the board let the nominees to whom I refer suffer at the hands of the Democrats for four years. That's some unity.

 
At 8:21 AM, Anonymous Mark of Meneltarma said...

I agree Brian. It's so easy to only remember how we have been "wronged" when it's the GOP at large has let so many good nominees fall ... (Pickering and Estrada).

 
At 8:51 AM, Blogger I am Coyote said...

Ok fellas so I would partially agree that the Republicans in the Senate did not fight for other folks hard enough and in the case of Estrada let the left destroy a very good man.

However you cannot lay that at the feet of the party base. The few times that those nominations made enough waves to call attention you would note that the base was there to support them.

They did not let them twist in the wind. It was not the "party as a acrose the board," that let them down.

There is only so much attention that one can generate for lower level appointments. The SCOTUS is probably the most watched appointment in the world and thus support for and against is hightened disproportionately.

The base of the party did not divide over Pickering and Estrada. No the base was being divided by Bush on his other liberal policies.

 
At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nelson said Alito had assured him "that he wants to go to the bench without a political agenda, that he is not bringing a hammer and chisel to hammer away and chisel away on existing law."

Durbin said the judge never refused to answer any of his questions — as Miers and John Roberts had during their private interviews — and that Alito told him he saw a right to privacy in the Constitution, one of the building blocks of the court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision.

Alito said that when it came to his dissent on Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses, that "he spent more time worrying over it and working on that dissent than any he had written as a judge," Durbin recounted.

 
At 11:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/3/83730.shtml

For example, of the four abortion cases in which he participated as an appeals court judge, he voted on the pro-choice side in all but one. A 1995 Alito vote striking down a Pennsylvania abortion restriction in particular is raising eyebrows among some legal scholars.

 
At 9:51 AM, Anonymous hi said...

hi

 

Post a Comment

<< Home