“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” -James Madison

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Now What?

Interesting to see that according to many blogs, my position on the Miers nomination indicates that I am a "far right-winger."

Hmmmm, an agnostic with many gay friends (not in support of the "marriage" issue), who voted Libertarian until 2000 and only voted Republican because of Al Gore (ditto in 2004 and John Kerry), is now a far right-winger.

In my mind that shows how far left everyone else has gotten. Recall the words of Ronaldus Magnus and how his party left him.

Well, this far right-winger now sees an opportunity not only for proper Court makeup, but also in political realignment across the Senate and even the House.

Now the President MUST nominate a short-lister, one of the Scalia types that everyone is convinced would trigger the war with the Dems, someone who will satisfy most conservatives and make Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, and Biden squeak.

At the same time, the President had better have a come-to-Jesus meeting at the White House. Invitees? ALL 55 Senate Republicans and the Redstate Dems. He needs to explain to this august assemblage that 2006 and 2008 are coming, and that the conservative based has now been sufficiently riled up by Miers as to actually pay attention to how Senators vote on this issue. He also needs to remind them that Stevens might possibly retire during this presidential term, and maybe even Ginsburg. Mostly, he needs to remind them that he is President and that the people who made him President expect Scalia-style nominations.

It is time for war. Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy need to be made to eat a bug. Filibuster? BRING IT ON! The stealth nomination of which I made so much admiration previously has been shown to be faulty and misplaced. Conservatives deserve a dance with our date, not her ugly sister. Bring out the big guns, call people out, and force the issue. If the RINOs prove disloyal, shout their names from every rooftop. If the Redstate Dems don't break ranks, shout their names as well.

Which nominee? I don't know. There are better and more engaged minds than mine debating that right now. My limited viewpoint tends toward Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, or Mike Luttig. Beyond that I haven't paid enough attention and really don't have a hard opinion among these three. Perhaps later I will research and give my opinion.

I am focused more on a larger picture of realignment. The Senate RINOs have to go, and we need unapologetic constructionists on the Court. Time to make it happen. It will require tremendous political will on the parts of all involved, but that's why they get paid to do this political stuff full-time and on our dime.


P.S. To any Repub pollsters, you need to get back to work earning my vote. I went with George in '00 to block Gore, and in '04 to support the war and to block Kerry. You got 2 for free. Now you need to show me that you are truly a small-government party that is interested in originalism, budgetary restraint, and border control. Otherwise having a Dem in power doesn't really seem any different than the Republicans we have now.


2 Old Comments:

How you can view your position (maybe not you personally) as anything other than far right?

You claim that RINO's should be identified and punished - because of what? The fact that they adhere to the via media - the middle way. You proclaim your war against the likes of Ted Kennedy and other Democrats, and you declare so boldly that the "the people who made him President expect Scalia-style nominations"

Are you then postualting that the 51-53 percent of America is that passionate about having this style of appointment? like 156 million people ALL know and all care about this type of hard core rightist side?

I think that would clearly put you in the rightist camp.

You seem unapologetic about it, so why are you being defensive about it.

I disagree with your analysis about it btw - I think the president would be much, much, MUCH wiser to come up with a candidate that most people can agree to. I am a self declared left of center thinker, but I did not oppose Roberts. Why? Because the President has the right to choose a candidate. Choosing a right of center candidate slowly advances his parties' agenda. That is his right as president. Roberts was well qualified. This candidate is different. Qualified, but clearly pandering to the right WingNuts.

(inspired to write by the Religous Right(wrong))

By Blogger Foston, at 1/11/05 1:46 PM  

RINO -- Republican In Name Only. This is a politician who has the (R) after their name but is not conservative. Sometimes conservatives may split with their party on a vote, but as a rule someone who tends to vote with the Dems is not conservative. This is not a "middle way"; it is a Democrat hiding in Republican clothing.

Ted Kennedy and the socialist wing of the formerly great Democratic Party have nearly ruined this country with their poison. The party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy beating back the communists has become the manifestation of Marxism and the slow degradation of limits on governmental power. Yes, I have declared war on them and will not apologize for it. The philosophy of "we're the government and we will take care of you cradle to grave whether you like it or not, and if you don't need the help we'll force more from you to pay for others" is NOT "middle way", nor is it the American way; it is the remnant of a failed system that has been slipped into ours through governmental and judicial backdoors over 40 years of Dem control.

One of the pillars of Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns was a clear promise to nominate originalist judges. Like many other conservatives, I decided not to vote 3rd party for the first time in my life and back the Republicans and Bush based with some weight on this promise. Many people were energized by the appearance of a conservative nominee who would reign in the Court if given a chance, possibly enough to put him over the top in enough battleground states. There is reason to believe that this promise, while not entirely responsible, was instrumental in his victory. We did, and do, expect Scalia-style nominations.

Unfortunately 51-53 percent is NOT passionate about this or any other governmental issue. Most people simply don't pay attention or don't believe their voice really matters. All the more reason to exercise my right to speak. At any rate, this country is largely conservative, although not "far right". If it were not conservative, then the phonies that the Dems have been putting up for decades would be able to come out and show their true aims without the disguises. They can't win at the ballot box; they have a reliance on the activist judges to carry out the liberal agenda. Since the Reps have taken control of the federal government, the Dems have been relying heavily on the courts, and now the possibility of originalists taking that over is too much for the liberals to bear. But the country tends to be conservative overall. Get away from New York and LA, out into the 'flyover' states and rural areas and small towns -- you will find very few liberals, and even those liberals will have conservative tendencies.

I *am* in the rightist camp. That's not a crime nor an insult. Nor am I defensive (at least my stuff doesn't read that way to me -- subjective, yes ;-). The problem is one of definition. If Harry Truman or John Kennedy appeared today, they would not be Democrats and would be considered "far right" by the modern definitions -- belief in US military strength and superiority, belief that tax cuts stimulate the economy and benefit all Americans, belief that the government should not be in the business of charity. Add the demonstrations by both that when push comes to shove, you'd better not bet against the US and do *not* call our bluff, and you have a modern "right winger". Ronald Reagan was a Democrat, as was Zell Miller, until they realized the Dems had been co-opted by the Marxists and no longer stood for the great ideals they used to.

Alito does not pander to anyone, much less "wingnuts". He is an originalist who by all accounts, including Dems like your precious Ted Kennedy who voted for him in prior nominations to lower courts, is a fair arbiter of constitutional law. The debate on the right now is of course focusing on those decisions he has made where they were correct in the particular case but not for 'our' result. There are some hardcore rightwingers out there, and some of them want to establish a theocracy (and will no doubt find Alito too liberal), but I am not among them.

I don't even believe in any gods or any religions -- they are all distasteful in my opinion. I also understand I am in the minority not only in my nation but also in the world in this respect. There is no possible way to consider my stance as coming from a Religious Right. Nor am I a Republican. I am a conservative who finally realized that the Libertarians are insane and will never get momentum or traction to induce change. The Dems have absolutely no place for anyone with my opinions of liberty, the Constitution, individual rights and responsibilities, and governmental roles and restrictions. The Republicans aren't much better but there is some degree of similarity with my beliefs there, and I have learned that one must work within the system to effect real change.

It is not the job of the President to nominate someone that "most people can agree to"; it is his job to nominate someone who will interpret the Constitution without making law up out of whole cloth. Most people did not agree with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, former head of the ACLU and unabashed judicial activist. Yet the Republican-controlled Senate decided not to look at political ramifications or "balance" of the Court; they simply voted on her qualifications alone, and she got a near-unanimous vote despite the fact that everyone knew she was a liberal activist. Will the Dems now extend that same courtesy to this President's nominee?

Parting shot -- please define "far right". I am curious.

By Blogger Skymuse, at 2/11/05 12:54 AM