Harriet Miers, a logical take
I have taken alot of time to think about this today, as opposed to liberals who ran to their blogs to write about their predetermined talking point: cronyism. Liberals have never been bothered by cronyism before, but somehow it is the crime of the day. I have posted elsewhere while acquiring information throughout the day and now have a better take on this nomination.
My first thought was a desire for a strong, known conservative which would bring the debate about the real role of the Supreme Court in the public eye. Years of a liberal education system and mainstream media have left many without the slightest idea that a Supreme Court justice should interpret law, not create law. This nomination does not seem to be a good vehicle for that type of debate.
I was quite dismayed about later reports of her support for Al Gore in 1988 and the positive responses of Reid and Schumer. Then I thought of Al Gore in 1988 and recalled at that time he was pro-life and his wife was crusading against song lyrics. This was before they sold their souls to get on the '92 ticket. I then thought of what I believe I know about George W. Bush. If Miers is a bad candidate after the likes of Souter and O'Connor, then Bush is not who we think he is. Since he knows her very well and has worked with her for several years now, it is not likely to be the same story as the disappointing judges. If she is bad, then he knows she is bad and that means he is bad.
As I look at what the Clinton presidency did to the Democratic party (see this link) my fear is that Bush could easily do the same to the GOP. If Roberts and Miers turn out to be liberals, the true conservatives will take their toys and go home, hands down. The Dems will storm '06 and '08 like the Gingrich revolution and that will be the end. The fairness doctrine will be reinstated and talk radio will disappear. The internet will be more regulated than in Red China, and the NY Times will start making a profit again. The US will pull out of Iraq and thousands will be slaughtered in a civil war. The US will give away the internet like the Panama Canal, and surrender its sovereignty to the UN. We will be paying another level of income tax to the UN and sign the economy killing Kyoto agreement.
I have kept away from extreme claims I could have added, but this list is bad enough. As Buchannan said, it is Bush's big gamble. We have gambled on Bush and I choose to see it through. My final vote of the day is support, with a hail Mary.
My first thought was a desire for a strong, known conservative which would bring the debate about the real role of the Supreme Court in the public eye. Years of a liberal education system and mainstream media have left many without the slightest idea that a Supreme Court justice should interpret law, not create law. This nomination does not seem to be a good vehicle for that type of debate.
I was quite dismayed about later reports of her support for Al Gore in 1988 and the positive responses of Reid and Schumer. Then I thought of Al Gore in 1988 and recalled at that time he was pro-life and his wife was crusading against song lyrics. This was before they sold their souls to get on the '92 ticket. I then thought of what I believe I know about George W. Bush. If Miers is a bad candidate after the likes of Souter and O'Connor, then Bush is not who we think he is. Since he knows her very well and has worked with her for several years now, it is not likely to be the same story as the disappointing judges. If she is bad, then he knows she is bad and that means he is bad.
As I look at what the Clinton presidency did to the Democratic party (see this link) my fear is that Bush could easily do the same to the GOP. If Roberts and Miers turn out to be liberals, the true conservatives will take their toys and go home, hands down. The Dems will storm '06 and '08 like the Gingrich revolution and that will be the end. The fairness doctrine will be reinstated and talk radio will disappear. The internet will be more regulated than in Red China, and the NY Times will start making a profit again. The US will pull out of Iraq and thousands will be slaughtered in a civil war. The US will give away the internet like the Panama Canal, and surrender its sovereignty to the UN. We will be paying another level of income tax to the UN and sign the economy killing Kyoto agreement.
I have kept away from extreme claims I could have added, but this list is bad enough. As Buchannan said, it is Bush's big gamble. We have gambled on Bush and I choose to see it through. My final vote of the day is support, with a hail Mary.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 8:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home