SCOTUS

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush

is this president bush the one we elected?

i’m reserving judgment on harriet miers, president bush’s pick to take the next seat on the supreme court. i’m not thrilled with it, because it does suggest to me that he isn’t taking on these democrats while they are this vulnerable. she may very well be the answer to conservative prayers and maybe we are all wrong. i do think that the president could have found someone better than miers, and i’m disappointed by this pick.

this is part of a broader concern with president bush. conservatives right now are feeling betrayed on some level by this guy. we voted for him because we wanted a president strong on terrorism, and we wanted someone who reflected our values on smaller government and tax cuts. most of all, we wanted someone who would appoint justices like scalia and thomas to the supreme court. while we got some of what we wanted, this president has not been the guy we expected or voted for. dare i suggest that he might end up being like bush 41 (except for raising taxes)?

bill kristol has some excellent advice for the president. i hope he takes it.

i’ve never been an apologist for the bush admin. but i’m ready to stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Technorati : , ,

Posted on Conservatives, George W. Bush, Republicans

the deconstruction of john roberts (part II)

people for the american way lists some conservative supporters. these groups generally do their homework on nominees, because abortion is an important issue to them. ann coulter disagrees with their endorsement. i generally don’t pay much attention to ann, but she makes a valid point about wanting to know more about john roberts.

the republicans have the majority and we have a president with the ability to elect a strong conservative to the court. we should be taking more advantage of being the party in power, instead of kow-towing to the democrats. this also goes for advocacy of conservative policies and programs. why are we so afraid to stand up for what we believe in? why are we considering candidates for ’08 who bear no resemblance to the reformers in the gingrich revolution?

this drives me nuts. i have yet to see an ’08 republican presidential contender committed to the issues that we believe in as strong conservatives. i mentioned gingrich before. newt’s a smart guy, with a lot of baggage. that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good ideas on how to move this country in the right direction.

the problem with our hard-core conservatives right now is that they have recently done or said stupid things that have gotten them bad press. hopefully they can repair their images before they try to run for president. that’s the kind of president we need in the future — a proponent of all conservative values. we elected reagan, didn’t we? so it can be done. the future of our country is at stake.

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.” –Dante

previous:

the deconstruction of john roberts (part I)

Technorati : , ,

Posted on Democrats

the deconstruction of john roberts (part I)

women’s rights groups, gay rights groups, and leftists of all special interest persuasions oppose this nomination. according to one article in the washington post, his involvement in romer vs. evans did little to convince gay rights groups that he would rule with their side on the supreme court. the general consensus is that his role was minimal.

also worthy of note in that article is a little blurb at the end mentioning groups in the african-american community who support this nomination. why is that important? it is important because some of his critics accuse roberts, among other scathing indictments, of being racist. those who oppose the nomination are convinced that he will return women’s rights (as defined by naral, people for the american way, human rights campaign, et al.) and civil rights to the dark ages. that’s a rather outrageous allegation. i strongly disagree with that view, based on what i’ve read about him.

here’s the truth of the matter. those opposed to the nomination want to scare the heck out of their supporters about him, so they make up these crazy allegations to mobilize their little armies of fanatics. they are fanatics not because they disagree with me, but because they disagree with the views of the majority of americans in this country. i can’t say i blame them for trying this. both sides use this tactic. republicans have used this tactic for years, and most of the time it works.

Technorati : ,

Posted on Liberals

air america’s bumper sticker contest and the naral ad against john roberts

i support air america’s right to exist. the marketplace of ideas should be open to every point of view, whether you agree with it or not. but air america has the inconvenient problem of promoting generally unpopular ideas on their radio network. this doesn’t help ad sales or ratings very much. if you don’t have either of these, like hannity and rush do, it’s hard to make a profit in radio. if a liberal radio network can be financially self-supporting like the conservatives mentioned above, we should welcome them to the debate. now serious questions have been raised about air america’s finances and these should be investigated just like any other company would be.

for those of us who disagree ideologically with air america, here’s a blog with some rather interesting proposals for air america’s bumper sticker contest.

Here’s my favorite.

ok. that’s rather cruel. i’m sure they are more popular than that tagline would suggest. i admit to listening to the rachel maddow show via podcast. but they need more listeners than they have, obviously.

on to another topic of the day somewhat related to my previous point about air america. should we, as conservatives, apply pressure to the networks not to show the naral ad against supreme court nominee john roberts? it accuses judge roberts of supporting abortion clinic bombers and excusing their behavior. it is totally inaccurate, based on his comments regarding that case. it is a dishonest ad. it reeks of poor taste and desperation by naral and other bush opponents.

even keeping that in mind, i still say let the people decide. let them see the ad. conservatives can put up their ads, liberals can put up theirs, and we’ll have the brawl everybody expected. the american people are smart enough to see through the lies once they have all the facts. you don’t legitimately win an argument by gagging the opposition, no matter who it is. until we have a “good taste” clause in network ad contracts, there’s no legitimate way to block this ad.

Technorati : , ,

Posted on George W. Bush

abortion and the U.S. supreme court

once again a president of the united states has the historic opportunity to appoint a justice to the u.s. supreme court. this is an important choice because the supreme court can make rulings affecting all of us. we shall see which partisans are right with their views on bush’s pick.

the main issue on each group’s mind is abortion, specificially roe v. wade, which legalized abortion in the first place. the potential to change this decision motivates each group. i would like to see roe v. wade overturned. life has value and abortion cheapens that value. unfortunately, i don’t believe it will be overturned, regardless of how many supreme court justices bush appoints. there are too many obstacles to overcome to completely outlaw abortion.

what we can do is take small steps, such as parental notification, to help teens think twice about making this decision. we need to encourage parents to get involved in their kids’ lives. having a parent around to give advice on situations their daughters/sons face is key to heading off future problems. yes, even in the best of circumstances, kids screw up. but having an involved parent could short-circuit disaster in many cases.

it’s wrong to kill babies. it’s also wrong to bomb clinics or take the law into your hands to kill abortionists. bombing clinics and killing abortionists in cold blood is not acceptable in a civilized society. civilized societies have laws. the way to affect change is to make the case for a change in those laws.

here’s the question though — if abortion becomes illegal, how will that be enforced? punish the clinics without a doubt. but how about the young women who get these abortions? what would you do with them? it doesn’t seem like throwing them in jail would be the right thing to do. we need to think through the implications of overturning roe v. wade before trying to do it.

Technorati : , ,