Mike Krempasky has a pretty reasonable round-up on why the full-blooded conservatives are so adamant about the SCOTUS nominee:
I’ve been thinking more about what a Gonzales nomination could mean for conservatives – and it’s not good.
We’ve watched over the past 5 years as President Bush has, politically, made many gains. He’s done so with extraordinary performance at the ballot box, at least in the Senate. Last year’s elections were extraordinary – not at the top of the ticket where the President beat John Kerry by a tiny margin using the most sophisticated and professional campaign in history – but in the US Senate elections across the country.But we’ve also watched this White House snub its nose at the conservative agenda. Those of us who believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for conservative principles have become all too practiced at the art of excuse-making for the President.
– Steel tariffs in an attempt to satisfy unions
– An education bill that the President brags about, and Ted Kennedy smiles about.
– An unacceptable delay in signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
– Campaign finance regulation, despite the President’s insistence that it failed the constitutional test
– Support for the extension of the so-called assault weapons ban
– The largest entitlement expansion in forty years, one that adds a burden to our children that makes Social Security look tameThroughout it all, we have supported the President (if sometimes grudgingly). His support for economic freedom generally, and political freedom (around the globe) specifically, is worthy of praise.
But the real determinant of our support has been and will be (certainly in the continued absence of any real leadership on cultural issues) the President’s firm and demonstrated committment to putting good men and women on the federal bench.
Let me be clear: We have given the President MANY a pass almost SOLELY because of his judicial appointments.
He is right, to some extent- everyone feels somewhat betrayed by this administration (insert obligatory “see- Bush IS a uniter” quip here). They have spent so much time triangulating, signing bills I would never want supported, that for many conservatives, this is it- the judicial nominations are all that are left.
Yesterday, I described my unwillingness (to be honest, I also forgot to get a ticket) to attend the Bush rally here in my hometown:
Not to mention, I don’t fit into the two defined categories, that of Bush-supporter or Bush-hater. If they had a separate section for “Republicans who voted for Bush and support the war in Iraq but who are so pissed off by everything else this administration is doing they don’t want to be perceived as giving blanket support to the President” (John Cole, party of one), I might have gone.
The only people Bush has left are the social conservatives, and he is, it appears, going to have to dance to their tune in order to remain viable for the next few years. My only hope is that whatever conservative is nominated will have a real libertarian streak and everyone will be wrong about the nominee. I doubt it, and thus, my ‘Sullivanesque hysteria’ regarding the demands from the social cons.
I don’t agree with the agenda of the religious right, but I FULLY understand why they are making so much noise and demaninding they get what they want. They did go to bat for this administration. So did I. If I had received more in the way of what I wanted, I might be willing to look the other way about some of these issues, but instead, I have received the worst of both worlds. A fiscally reckless administration that appears to betray all of the core conservative beliefs while giving too much say (in my opinion) to the religious right. And administration that speaks in code words about homosexuals while signing McCain-Feingold. An administration that is supposedly free trade, while implementing steel and shrimp tariffs (not sure where we stand on sugar subsidies- I thought they were working to end those). You get the point.
Where to go from here…
KC
John, there really is no place to go from here. You have to admit, the next President, Dem or Republican, is probably going to face a tough go of it as our bills come due. If he is a Republican, he could face the same situation Bush’s father faced, a huge deficit, a rough economy (assuming what I’ve been reading is right), and a dissatisfied constituency. A Dem President wouldn’t be all that better off either.
Tim F
The balloon payment on the mortgage for the 2004 election has come due. Bush might as well stop begging now because the bank isn’t waiting any longer; they’ll get their Roy Moore or they’ll foreclose.
JG
They used these people to get elected. Plain and simple. They know the court will never overturn Roe V Wade and no elected official will support a constitutional amendment that discriminates against tax paying citizens but they will pretend to in order to rally people to their cause. That and yelling. “he’s a liberal’ at everyone who challenges them is all they need to be re-elected. Meanwhile life is getting better for owners of industry and the rest of us are concerned about exactly what will our country be like for regular folks to live in. May I suggest they make drugs legal? At least we can get high to offset our misery.
JG
Anyone else read William Saletan?
http://www.slate.com/id/2122012/
Rick
– Steel tariffs in an attempt to satisfy unions
– An education bill that the President brags about, and Ted Kennedy smiles about.
– An unacceptable delay in signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
– Campaign finance regulation, despite the President’s insistence that it failed the constitutional test
– Support for the extension of the so-called assault weapons ban
– The largest entitlement expansion in forty years, one that adds a burden to our children that makes Social Security look tame.
John,
When someone puts it that way, it reminds me of that old “conservative,” Richard Nixon. That’s Richard “we’re all Keynesians now” Nixon.
That said, I’ll return to my criticism that you’re entirely too cognizant of the SoCons. They don’t wag the dog, and it’s in the interests of the left to pretend they do.
Why that is, given the failure of the tactic over the past 25 years with Falwell and Robertson, I won’t presume to say. Unless some fringer provokes a remark.
Cordially…
albedo
“The balloon payment on the mortgage for the 2004 election has come due.”
Would I be guilty of extreme naivete if I asked what exactly the far-right will do if this payment isn’t made? Are they going to become Democrats? And why should Bush care? He’s not running in 2008. To be sure, a Gonzales nomination would make life (somewhat) more difficult for whomever the GOP runs in three years, but is there evidence that Bush cares or is thinking about that?
Tim F
it’s in the interests of the left to pretend they do.
Rick’s right John. You forgot to ask yourself whether everything you say or do helps The Right before posting. Tsk.
JG
‘That said, I’ll return to my criticism that you’re entirely too cognizant of the SoCons. They don’t wag the dog, and it’s in the interests of the left to pretend they do.’
They may not actually wag the dog but they appear to and perception is more important than reality.
Tim F
They sure as shit wag DeLay and Frist.
JG
You could say its in the rights interest to ‘pretend’ certain things to be true. Such as:
1. anti war means anti troops (so stupid its actually embarrassing)
2. liberals want troops to die (so stupid its painful)
3. Invading a muslim country (especially after Osama said we would) makes the US safer from islamc terrorism.
4. only liberals oppose President Bush
5. corporate tax cuts create jobs (my company hasn’t hired a soul and is actully planning job cuts Fortune 500 company BTW)
Anyone want to add on?
Doug
Social conservatives don’t wag the dog. They are the dog.
And this pretty much sums up why I generally vote against Republicans:
Nixon was the last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. Call it an amazing string of bad luck if you will, but it looks like a trend to me.
Jimmy Jazz
Well…
Every action Bush has taken is perfectly understandable when viewed through the above quote (and yes, I know he was supposedly “poking fun at himself” Har de freakin har). Not the national interest. Not conservative values. The wealthy.
Baron Elmo
Let’s face it, the Republican Party has been pimping the religious right for three decades — taking their cash and exploiting their manpower without delivering on a single issue from the moralist wish list. Compare this to the windfall of riches and perks the GOP has been showering upon big business and the upper class in the same timespan, and one begins to detect the presence of a very odiferous rat on the premises. Of course, any GOP congressman with more than two brain cells to rub together knows that the fulfillment of the religious right’s agenda would unleash a tsunami-sized backlash that would be the biggest disaster for the Republicans since the Great Depression. However loud a racket the Lou Sheldons of the nation make, the cold hard fact remains that most Americans don’t wish to live in a nation run by the principles of the Moral Majority.
My prediction: Bush will nominate a ringer — a hard-right moralist of the Roy Moore ilk. The Demos and GOP moderates will shoot him down, Bush will throw up his hands and say “well, I tried,” then submit the more moderate jurist he wanted all along… raising Dubya’s standing in the polls and giving Republicans a fresh clip of ammo to unload on the Dems and the RINOs come election time.
Christian though he be, I’ve long harbored the suspicion that Bush’s commitment to the issues of Falwell and Bauer has always been mostly cosmetic. Nonetheless, the religious right is banging at the door with a three-decades long invoice in hand. It’ll be interesting to see how the GOP power structure tries to weasel out of paying up…
Mike S
That said, I’ll return to my criticism that you’re entirely too cognizant of the SoCons. They don’t wag the dog, and it’s in the interests of the left to pretend they do.
The President has cut exactly 1 vacation short to fly back to DC for an “emergency.” Anyone remember what that was?
Tim F
Ooo – was it the PDB warning, ‘bin Laden determined to attack within the United States?’ I’m good at these quiz things.
SeaChief
I grew up in Utah in the 70s and 80s, and the perspective I saw there is exactly what is happening nationally with Bush and the religious right.
In Utah, Republicans would count on the convervative Mormon vote, and then do whatever they wanted. Because they knew damn well that Mormons would be loathe to vote Democrat due to an edit from one of the muckity-mucks that said it was morally wrong to vote Democrat (mostly over the abortion issue, but women’s rights were also right up there).
Conservative Mormons bitched, and during primaries where there wasn’t an incumbant somebody would invariably cater to their interests. He (and it was always a he) would then get elected, and promptly discard the religious base like the cheap whore that it is.
Because, religious Mormons wouldn’t vote for anyone else.
This is also why places like Utah and other heavily red states get screwed so often nationally. They’re always going to vote red, and any Democrat that is occasionally elected won’t last. So if you need a sacrifice (like a nuclear waste dump), you dump it on a state that will support you no matter what.
The religious right will always vote Republican, because really their one and only issue is abortion. Pity they aren’t as concerned about the death penalty, which also violates the same commandment as abortion, but I digress. So, Republicans will always appreciate their support, and when it comes time to do something, they’ll do whatever it is they want, regardless of whatever political capital the religious right thinks they have.
They have none.
They vote Republican. That’s it. End of story.
So Republicans can do whatever they want, because there is no downside. The vote is locked up.
So yeah, we’ll see lots of whining and lots of campaign dollars (the withholding thereof being one of the few things the religious right can do), but otherwise, expect them to get the fucking they so richly deserve.
albedo
That’s my point, exactly. There’s been a lot of saber-rattling over the last few days by the RR, but what exactly do they propose to do if Bush, as it seems is likely, nominates Gonzales? Unless they decide to start their own party, they’re joined at the hip to the GOP because of abortion.
la
You support corporate outsourcing agreements and the War in Iraq? How do you justify those positions? Scary!!!
Rick
That said, I’ll return to my criticism that you’re entirely too cognizant of the SoCons. They don’t wag the dog, and it’s in the interests of the left to pretend they do.
Was I right, or what? Except maybe the left genuinely believes it, which by definition, then, precludes it as a matter of fact.
The SoCons fringe owns the Republicans like the MoveOn fringe owns the Dems. That is, not much.
Except the SoCons haven’t come right out and said they bought they party. And yes, it’s in my side’s interests to flog the MoveOn connection. Just following Herr Rove’s orders. As you know, he’s really, REALLY powerful.
Cordially…
ARROW
“Ooo – was it the PDB warning, ‘bin Laden determined to attack within the United States?’ I’m good at these quiz things.”
PDB “warning”… what was the date of this Presidential DAILY Briefing? Well, was he right Mike S?
frenchy lamour
– An education bill that the President brags about, and Ted Kennedy smiles about.
Not to get technical, but I’m pretty sure Ted kennedy became UNHAPPY rather quickly with NCLB when it was underfunded. Yup: google gave me quite a few hits.
Bit him right on the butt it did.
narciso
You mean like that nearly identical PDB that Clinton received in Dec 1998; which he reacted to by launching
the Kosovo operations. Gonzalez, seems OK as far as things go; but considering the likely train of litigation, involving a myriad of matters; from illegal combatant to
abortion to affirmative action; he’d probably have to
recuse himself all over the place
Sojourner
Can you provide a link for this?
Sojourner
Never mind. I found it.
I wonder why Bush didn’t take the same steps to protect the airports.
ARROW
Bush Failed to Stop al Qaeda During Clinton Years
(2004-04-11) — A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.
In fact, when correlated with last week’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.
“The August 6 PDB (President’s Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998,” said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, “and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn’t do anything about these threats until after he became president.”
A former senior official from in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was “aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s.”
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001665.html
ARROW
Bush Failed to Stop al Qaeda During Clinton Years
(2004-04-11) — A presidential briefing, dated August 6, 2001, and released by the White House yesterday, shows that in 1998 George W. Bush did nothing to respond to the threat of terror attacks from Usama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network.
In fact, when correlated with last week’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, it seems clear that the Bush administration had virtually no plan to act on top-secret intelligence gathered during the Clinton administration until after George W. Bush took office in 2001.
“The August 6 PDB (President’s Daily Brief) clearly shows that the White House knew of potential al Qaeda threats within the United States in 1998,” said an unnamed source from an unnamed, non-partisan Washington think tank, “and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn’t do anything about these threats until after he became president.”
A former senior official from in the Clinton administration, who requested anonymity, said that former President Bill Clinton was “aghast at the lethargic response of Governor Bush to the clear and present danger al Qaeda posed to our homeland in the 1990s.”
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001665.html
JG
‘and yet Texas Governor George W. Bush didn’t do anything about these threats until after he became president.’
Is that supposed to be funny? I have trouble finding humor in anything involving 9/11.
I love the early form of the revisionist histr=ory you got going on there. Bush did something about the threats? Could you explain?
SeaChief
I grew up in Utah in the 70s and 80s, and the perspective I saw there is exactly what is happening nationally with Bush and the religious right.
In Utah, Republicans would count on the convervative Mormon vote, and then do whatever they wanted. Because they knew damn well that Mormons would be loathe to vote Democrat due to an edit from one of the muckity-mucks that said it was morally wrong to vote Democrat (mostly over the abortion issue, but women’s rights were also right up there).
Conservative Mormons bitched, and during primaries where there wasn’t an incumbant somebody would invariably cater to their interests. He (and it was always a he) would then get elected, and promptly discard the religious base like the cheap whore that it is.
Because, religious Mormons wouldn’t vote for anyone else.
This is also why places like Utah and other heavily red states get screwed so often nationally. They’re always going to vote red, and any Democrat that is occasionally elected won’t last. So if you need a sacrifice (like a nuclear waste dump), you dump it on a state that will support you no matter what.
The religious right will always vote Republican, because really their one and only issue is abortion. Pity they aren’t as concerned about the death penalty, which also violates the same commandment as abortion, but I digress. So, Republicans will always appreciate their support, and when it comes time to do something, they’ll do whatever it is they want, regardless of whatever political capital the religious right thinks they have.
They have none.
They vote Republican. That’s it. End of story.
So Republicans can do whatever they want, because there is no downside. The vote is locked up.
So yeah, we’ll see lots of whining and lots of campaign dollars (the withholding thereof being one of the few things the religious right can do), but otherwise, expect them to get the fucking they so richly deserve.
SeaChief
I grew up in Utah in the 70s and 80s, and the perspective I saw there is exactly what is happening nationally with Bush and the religious right.
In Utah, Republicans would count on the convervative Mormon vote, and then do whatever they wanted. Because they knew damn well that Mormons would be loathe to vote Democrat due to an edit from one of the muckity-mucks that said it was morally wrong to vote Democrat (mostly over the abortion issue, but women’s rights were also right up there).
Conservative Mormons bitched, and during primaries where there wasn’t an incumbant somebody would invariably cater to their interests. He (and it was always a he) would then get elected, and promptly discard the religious base like the cheap whore that it is.
Because, religious Mormons wouldn’t vote for anyone else.
This is also why places like Utah and other heavily red states get screwed so often nationally. They’re always going to vote red, and any Democrat that is occasionally elected won’t last. So if you need a sacrifice (like a nuclear waste dump), you dump it on a state that will support you no matter what.
The religious right will always vote Republican, because really their one and only issue is abortion. Pity they aren’t as concerned about the death penalty, which also violates the same commandment as abortion, but I digress. So, Republicans will always appreciate their support, and when it comes time to do something, they’ll do whatever it is they want, regardless of whatever political capital the religious right thinks they have.
They have none.
They vote Republican. That’s it. End of story.
So Republicans can do whatever they want, because there is no downside. The vote is locked up.
So yeah, we’ll see lots of whining and lots of campaign dollars (the withholding thereof being one of the few things the religious right can do), but otherwise, expect them to get the fucking they so richly deserve.
Tim F
SeaChief, we got it the first time. A good point made thrice becomes spam.
Rick
As a former Chief myself, let me speculate that maybe the old salt is in the necessary habit of repeating himself to the dullards of the deck force.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
SeaChief: It’s the same problem the African-American community faces within the Democratic Party.
Stentor
It’s caused by hitting the refresh button too many times to see your own remarks on the page without deleting them from the box, which caches text typed into it. I see the same problem on other blogs, so it seems to be a universal glitch that the cache isn’t flushed after the comment is posted.