What Now?
So Miers withdrew. What does this mean? I'm not exactly sure but it's probably both good and bad. It's good that Bush's own party is finally saying "enough is enough" with appointing unqualified cronies to important posts. We know you love your friends, George, but seriously...
The bad part is the next nominee might be an unabashedly extreme right-winger. Bush might be annoyed enough with GOP dissention that he may just find the most divisive pick in the nation - and if the Republicans climb on board there's no stopping it. Go on with your bad self, Dubbya.
The bad part is the next nominee might be an unabashedly extreme right-winger. Bush might be annoyed enough with GOP dissention that he may just find the most divisive pick in the nation - and if the Republicans climb on board there's no stopping it. Go on with your bad self, Dubbya.
posted by Smorgasbord at 10:17 AM
10 Comments:
Hi Mochi!
I have yet to read a left site that understands the conservative opposition to Miers. I have also watched the mainstream media and listened to the likes of Reid and Kennedy, and they don't get it either. I think if I hear the word "extreme right wing" again I will throw up. These people are so predictable its pathetic!
Ronald Reagan said:
"We need rebirth of the American tradition of leadership at every level of government and in private life as well. The United States of America is unique in world history because it has a genius for leaders -- many leaders -- on many levels. But, back in 1976, Mr. Carter said, "Trust me." And a lot of people did. Now, many of those people are out of work. Many have seen their savings eaten away by inflation. Many others on fixed incomes, especially the elderly, have watched helplessly as the cruel tax of inflation wasted away their purchasing power. And, today, a great many who trusted Mr. Carter wonder if we can survive the Carter policies of national defense.
"Trust me" government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs--in the people. The responsibility to live up to that trust is where it belongs, in their elected leaders. That kind of relationship, between the people and their elected leaders, is a special kind of compact."
And conservatives when reviewing the Miers nomination indicated that "Trust me" from President Bush was not enough to place an unknown on the court. Conservatives want a conservative--they want someone who will rule constitutionally and not legislate from the bench like Roe or Kelo. We want judges who will interpret the law, not make it. Miers is an unknown, with no track record. She is also not the best qualified. Her nomination had everything to do with her friendship with George Bush and the fact that she wore a skirt--affirmative action in action. Nothing about her nomination was conservative.
I know the left likes to bash Thomas and Scalia, but I have yet to have any of them come up with a clear cut case for these men legislating from the bench. It would seem to me that liberals would like having such men on the court, unless they feel their agenda cannot be advanced elsewhere.
Anyhow, if you have a chance, please provide me a definition of "extreme right winger". I would like to know what this person believes and how they would rule in a court of law.
Regards,
-Jack
Extreme right-winger. Good question. Extreme right-winger is something different; you could say this administration is extreme right wing: these people have re-defined the Republican Party, or have attempted to.
When I think of extreme right-wingers nowadays, I think of those who have changed the Republican party for worse. They see America as infallible, never wrong, and they are so narrow-minded it is sickening.
Today's extreme right-wingers support sticking our noses in other countries business, and if we do not like what they are doing, we have this inherent right to attack them before they attack us, or start smear campaigns against them.
I see today's extreme right wingers as total cowards and pansies who have never contributed anything to their country other than undermining everything it stands for. Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kristol. The Patriot Act, which I am convinced that if Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin ever read, they would bitch slap this administration up and down Pennsylvania Ave. I am not just talking about Guantanamo, I speak of the precedent that something like the Patriot Act sets. There are certain elements of the Patriot Act I do agree with, parts that no one ever hears about that have to do with the financial world, that combat money laundering and ID theft. Nonetheless today's extreme right-winger, while they talk of preserving the constitution, have done nothing of a sort. They have attempted to alter it as they see fit, all the while wanting to repeal Roe (and hey, there is a legitimate argument there), but at the same time wanting to ban gay marriage.
Today's extreme right winger is paranoid and so fearful that they attempt to inspire fear in others. I have done my best to define them, and in all honesty, the reason it is hard to define an extreme right-winger is because they are a small faction- people redefining the party, and for a few years, those PNACs were getting away with it because we were in such a state of shock given the events that took place. We became a country that sold its soul for what was called "security," "safety," and the biggest lie in the history of this nation, "the preservation of democracy." These extremists played on the true conservative's passion and appreciation of democracy that they were able to pursue any agenda they so desired. But, the true conservative is now beginning to realize it, or they may have already. At first, I think the Republicans were just ecstatic to have the White House back. But as time has progressed, the true conservatives realize that Bush/Cheney do not represent their GOP in any capacity. The extremists are full of double standards that at first, many conservatives let it go, either because they didnt notice or didnt care- this administration believes in the free market, but as they see fit. For the reconstruction of New Orleans, they repeal wage laws that are not going to help anyone besides contractors who are already wealthy enough. They believe in tax breaks but have spent excessively. They said they would not pass on problems to future generations, but that is all they have done for the past 5 years. The border control problem is something they would not touch with a 5 mile pole owned by Bill Clinton, and it is not helping our country in any way.
In comparison, the left's tone the past few years has been spiteful and is not geared at solutions as much as it is attacking. The Democrats became reactionists as opposed to activists. There is a part of it that had to do with the "extreme" right wingers campaign of the new century, to redefine the country and play on the fears from horrible times we had to endurel; they abused the sympathy that the rest of the world had for us and quickly turned sympathy into hatred. Republicans stayed loyal to their party, Democrats who opposed any decision were labeled terrorist supporters, treasonous. It undermined the party, and they had no defense or solutions, and they lost elections. They had Howard Dean coming out left and right constantly saying that no Republican has ever made an honest living. That was their answer(?).
But now, despite guys like Dean, things are changing and I think you will see Bush's administration becoming more and more undermined in the last couple of years of his tenure. There have been very few positive results from their actions. Not saying that Democrats will start getting elected so much, but I think Republicans will isolate themselves more and more from the right-extremists/Bush Republicans. If Bush nominates a solid conservative for the court, it will stop the bleeding- but only temporarily. The fact is, the damage has been done to Bush's administration. He has done too much to divide this country and made too many empty promises, and this administration is bound to make more boneheaded decisions.
That being said, you will not see an extreme right-winger voted to the court based on my definition. And since the nomination is rendered by Bush, the confirmation process for anyone he nominates will be ugly and grueling. I would not define Roberts as an extremist under any circumstances and his process appeared to be painful for anyone to go through. Take Bolton for example- he is definitely an extremist and he could not get voted to the UN. Im probably comparing apples and oranges, since the UN deals primarily with foreign policy. But- if Bush nominates someone whose philosophy is similar to Bolton's, he will be committing suicide not just for his presidency, but for his party. The Democrats and the media will pounce.
Well said, Chickenhawk.
Jack, you're comment about why conservatives didn't like Miers is exactly my point: Bush just appointed another friend to an important post. He didn't consider for a second whether she was qualified or not, he just appointed her because she was a loyalist. This is the same thing that happened with Brown at FEMA and several other posts. Bush is a complete moron who surrounds himself with cronies. I think that's terrible and, as far as I can tell, so do you. You should. Now conservatives are finally waking up to it. Good for them.
Bush is running the absolute definition of a "trust me" government. That's what you're saying, right? You realize he's terrible?
As for who I would consider an extreme right-winger, read chickenhawk's comment (and try not to vomit).
Kind regards,
Smorgasbord
Arrgh!! CH, Smorg, I wrote a book in response, and lost the whole thing!
Oh well, I will try to summarize what I said in a nutshell.
CH, I think you're off a little on your definition of right winger. Bear with me:
If one starts at democracy in the middle of the political model, then proceeds left he will become socialistic, communistic, then fascistic. (Credit: Lenin) If one proceeds right from democracy, then he will become libertarian, anarchic, ochlocratic, then fascistic. If you think about this, then its a big circle. If one deviates any direction from democracy then the ending point is fascism no matter which way you go.
Now think about the Bush administration and its policy. Economically Bush's fiscal policy is almost identical to Clinton's (which was a continuation of Bush the elder's, which was a departure from Reagan's which was a reaction to Carter's). His economic policy is largely socialistic or Keynesian. I won't take the time to explain all that here, but would be happy to drop you an email if you want me to go into detail. His policies aren't RIGHT at all--nothing libertarian or any of the others--but exceedingly socialistic in nature. Most of his domestic policy is also socialistic in nature.
You mentioned the Patriot Act--another social policy based on collectivism (giving up individual freedom for the safety of the collective).
Much of what we see the administration and our current single party doing is moving further and further toward the left--toward fabian socialism--toward communism, then toward fascism. Most people know what complete fascism is (although we are a long way from experiencing it here--I have lived under fascism, and Americans don't have a clue--which I'm thankful for our Constitution which holds it in check) It's common sense. One way to see this very simply is to look around you and ask the question, "as a society and governmentally are we more liberal than we were 20 years ago?" If your obvious answer is "Yes", then compare our freedoms to what we had 20 years ago--and you will see them consistenly disappearing. So a leftward direction is a restriction on freedom, just as much as a rightward directio would eventually be.
"Wait, Jack--I'm a liberal, but I believe in individual freedoms!" you might say, and yes, I have met few liberals who do not favor individual freedoms, but they are of the variety they prefer, meanwhile they empower the government to remove more and more of the checks and balances that guarantee us those freedoms. Gay marriage. The government has no business in marriage to begin with, but the current socialist thought is "gay marriage is not good for society as a whole, therefore we must legislate it away"--Socialism--although not the kind that many liberals morally want. One can't have it both ways, either we limit the power of government or we expand it, and it is the agenda of fabian socialists to involve the government in every aspect of our lives.
CH, did you know that the original intent of the second amendment was to guarantee that citizens would have the means to arm themselves and rise up against a tyranical government when it began to overstep its boundaries? Most liberals don't, and yet they want to take away all guns from citizens not realizing that the purpose of that amendment was to give the people the power over the government to keep it from imposing "gay marriage bans", etc. Of course we are far outgunned now by our own military, but that was the purpose of the second amendment. You see, where our founding fathers came from weapons were denied the plebian class so that they could not rebel effectively against totalitarian rule. So they kept them disarmed. The left is adamant about disarming the public, all in the name of "public safety', but not once realizing that in doing so they increase the power of totalitarian rule. Or...is that what they really ultimately want? Hm...
Several other things you say are endemic to both sides--fear--the left uses it daily to advance its agenda. Scares old people with their social security, parents with speculation of conscription, and a host of other things. Fear is used by anyone to advance an agenda. I have read more paranoia from the left in recent years, more kook conspiracy theories, more wacked our phobias than I have the "right" in a long time. Its there, and neither side owns the franchise.
War, war has been waged from all angles of the political spectrum. From the left we saw Stalin and his socialist machine, Hitler with his fascist agenda, and the American Revolution from quite a different angle. The contemporary American liberal has been brainwashed to think: war-right, peace-left, but in all reality would have to deny that the left has been just as involved in war as the right so-called (Roosevelt, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, Truman, Wilson, etc., etc.)
Anyhow, CH, I think that a lot of what you say is true, but if evaluated we would see that many of the things we are seeing in our present government are things that we have allowed to take place through our complacency. Keep in mind that egalitarianism is always at odds with individualism, and when we try to do away with individual rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and start making decisions for the "collective good", we end up with decisions like Kelo vs. London. Such are the aims and goals of socialism (which it proudly admits).
Right wing--an extreme right winger would be a person who shoots an abortion doctor, just like an extreme left winger would be a person who spikes trees so that loggers kill themselves with their own chainsaws. Both have the same moral makeup, and are identical in though, just differing on issues. I happen to believe that there is no right wing faction in the United States (except maybe the libertarians--which I am most like) while the rest are out and about accomplishing those goals of the left leaning spectrum. Remember, just think over time and it becomes pretty obvious.
Enough of my rambling. Good to be back conversing with you guys!
-Jack
Oh, a quickie,
It would be inaccurate to label an originalist or constitutionalist conservative extremist right-wing. Refusing to legislate from the bench is not extreme righ wing.
-Jack
The comment is so long I have to print it out. I'm going to read it on the john later and get back to you.
Ha! Not sure if WSC is being serious or poking fun. Maybe we can start an email chain for this rather than me filling up the comment section on NL's.
I see where you're coming from Jack, and I agree to a certain extent. There are two things about your comment that I take issue with though. One, you didn't address what, to me, is the point of the original post: Bush frequently appoints unqualified people to important posts because he likes them and they're loyal. That is his #1 criterion for, as far as we can tell, ALL of his appointments. Perhaps you were speaking to Chickenhawk and not me though. That's fine, but I would like to hear your thoughts on Bush's cronyism.
Second, your commentary about right-wing/left-wing is good. It makes sense, but it's strictly academic. It doesn't really matter at all in the real world. Nobody thinks about these things when they govern us. Nobody thinks about these things when they vote. Maybe they should. That would probably make our democracy more robust and I'm all for it, but your comment sounds like a lecture from a political science class. What does it matter?
I used to be a card carrying Libertarian. I believe government should be as small and unobtrusive as humanly possible. I truly do. But we are waaaaaaay past the point where we can actually attain true libertarian ideals. The United States was founded on the notion that the states would rule the federal government, not the other way around. That's why they named it the United States. But think about how much power the feds have now. It's absolutely mind-boggling. On top of their obscene power, every aspect of government has become about who knows who and how much one contributed to another. It's repugnant, frankly, but it's been that way for longer than you or I have been around and it's not stopping anytime soon.
I think I'm drifting a bit. My point is you can call Bush a socialist if you want. That's fine, but it's just a label. It doesn't really have any practical application. Most people, including myself, use the terms "left wing" and "right wing" very loosely. They're just other mostly meaningless labels. In the second part of my original post when I said it would be bad if Bush appointed an "unabashedly extreme right-winger", I pretty much meant somebody who uses the power of "legislating from bench" to usurp the things that I believe in. You see, I want it both ways. I am for limiting "judicial activism", but I want the good things that have come out of it to stay in place. Otherwise we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I was going to stop there, but then I heard voices in my head from Jack and Sean saying "how about our elected officials in Congress legislating for us". That is there job, to be sure, but their number one goal - all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike - is to get elected again. Effectively giving legislative power to people with lifetime terms is scary and definitely not the way our country was founded. It's not really what I want. But the alternative is simply waiting for the day that the corrupt legislative and executive branches take it upon themselves to end their own corruption. What are the chances of that?
Hi Smorg! I believe almost 100% that Miers nomination was cronyism--or friendship, dependent on how one looks at it. This is politics and every president does it. Does that make it right--absolutely NOT, especially in an important position of supreme court justice.
Sorry...my academic background rears its ugly head every once in a while. It is political science, but it is also common sense. And it is very important that people understand it, Smorg. The problem is that people don't and that is the reason for all of the rhetoric, inaccuracy and misunderstanding there is out there. It matters very much, Smorg, because when one has perspective, they can launch from there and draw correct conclusions. Let me give an example. The seat belt law. GOOD law, great law, saves lives--it contributes toward the common good. That is what most people think, and so they don't oppose it. Something that is so beneficial to society should be law right? Now think about what kinds of law we have--we are supposed to have two in the United States: Tort and criminal. Tort law covers private wrongs against individuals. Criminal law covers public wrongs against society. In a democratic society, this is all the law that is needed--but when we introduce socialism into the mix we come up with an entirely hybrid brand of law--private wrongs against oneself. The synthesis of such laws is that government begins finding many ways to control private behavior with private outcomes based on what is happening in society. So something like the seatbelt law could lead eventually to things like fat taxes, mandatory flu shots or innoculations, and anything else the government determines is best for you. Prohibition, the current drug laws and many other laws are formulated this way to limit ones freedom based on the "cost" to society. Ultimately it assumes the government knows what is best for you in all aspects of your life, both personall and public, and you live under a dictatorship.
You see, Smorg, this hasn't just happened overnight, it is just small tiny steps that have led us here. Many of the good liberals I know who value freedom want to take on Big Oil, Big Wal-Mart, Big something, but don't realize that the true threats to their freedom come from the small things that place us further into bondage. Kelo vs. London could have NEVER happened if the eminent domain laws had not been gradually stretched further and further.
So our responsibility is to put small things into the proper perspective in order to combat the big things. And, Smorg, this IS the real world we're talking about.
Libertarianism can work, but not without personal responsibility and accountability. I do agree about your statement of the power of the Fed. Alan Keyes said that we are far down the road of tyrrany and I agree with him.
Smorg, the organization of our government came through much thought and the separation of powers was the ultimate in checks and balances. That is the reason that judges just interpreted the law, not made it. That was reserved for the other branch, because they realized that those who made the laws had to be beholden to the people. Judges are not, therefore when they start making up laws we have a significant problem--we create judicial tyranny or rulership and that is not allowed under the Constitution.
And in regards to your last question. I would say pretty close to zero!
Have a great weekend all!
-Jack
Great comment, Jack. I agree 100%. Seriously. I think at our core we have pretty much the same ideal picture of government.
Post a Comment
<< Home