Redstate

I spent the best part of last year having those arguments.  I kept hearing that Bush was way to "compassionate" and not even "conservative".  I kept hearing about the more odious sections of the Patriot Act.  I heard all about his support for renewing the AWB about every fifteen minutes.  I heard about the Medicare perscription drug benefits.  I heard about all the other prolifigate spending.

But I hung in there for GWB.  I kept announcing that whoever got elected this time would be putting some Supreme Court Justices on the bench, and that was the important thing to be worried about right now.  I, in fact, rated it as equally important with the War.

If I went through all that to get a "kinder and gentler" Republican Party that wants more David Souters on the bench, I was stone wrong.

And I won't be fooled again.

who tends to vote for the dems but is fiscally conservative (in its original sense) and socially more liberal I never understood why conservatives support the GOP so much. There's no doubt that the GOP has made great gains in the past decade but I would argue that conservative ideas and policies have mostly lost.

It seems to me conservatives should be voting for divided government if they want to see at least some of their policies in place.

Why do you say this?

He likes Democrats, probably hates social conservatives, and wants to see the Republican party split.

    * 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

at least would probably benefit from divided government, as during the Clinton years when the enmity between the president and Congress acted to damp down excess spending.

 * President Bush may have raised taxes on foreign steel and Chinese bras, but overall Republicans are much friendlier to free trade than any other party.

 * The Republican party has, indeed, gone away from those breathtaking days of Speaker Gingrich and the Contract with America on education, but if anyone repeals NCLB it'll be Republicans.  Democrats are saying it doesn't go far enough, after all.  President Bush's views do not represent the whole party on this.

 * "Unacceptable delay?"  I'm hoping there's some sarcasm there.

 * More Democrats than Republicans supported the BCRA.  Again, this is where Bush diverges from his party.

 * Support is relative.  President Bush never lifted a finger to push for renewal of the (now-expired) Clinton-era ban.  He said he'd sign it if the Congress passed it, because he knew the Congress wouldn't.  It's a gambit similar to the one he played on the BCRA (counting on one branch's actions letting him neutralize opponents), only this one worked.  The Republican Congress had no chance to pass it.

 * The Medicare expansion is the only one on this list that I can't defend, minimize, or even put lipstick on.  So you get one of six.

divided government the two parties tend to limit fiscal excesses and no one party can go too far.

I don't buy this myth, the idea that divided government doesn't get anything done.  Welfare reform, anyone?

The deficit went away in the 1990s because taxes went up under the first two years of Clinton, tax receipts went up during the boom, and the Republican House was led by strong fiscal conservatives Gingrich and Armey.

Divided government had nothing to do with it.  Leadership and ideas carried the day.

Today, however, Republicans aren't led by fiscal conservatism.  They are led by "compassionate conservatism," that wants big government to help people.  If there were a Democratic Congress, I'm sure President Bush would spend just as much money.

I could just as easily ask you why you voted Clinton twice even though he gave up on nat'l health care and signed DOMA and welfare reform.

As you know, there are no perfect choices in life.  Voting is just like selecting jobs, apartments, relationships, etc.  You select the option that will give you the greatest return.  No option is going to return at your ideal rate.  But one will surely be closer than all the others, and that's the one you choose.

Last fall, Bush offered to maintain current tax rates.  Kerry would have raised them.  Bush offered new spending.  Kerry offered more new spending.  Bush wanted originalists on the Court.  Kerry wanted Ginsberg types.  Bush wanted to modernize failing entitlements.  Kerry didn't think there was a problem.  Bush wanted to fight the war on terror.  Kerry wanted to go about it as a law enforcement operation.

Neither choice was perfect, but Bush was the far better choice for those who believe that taxes and spending should generally be lower, that entitlements should be more market based, that the courts should stay out of the culture, and that there is, in fact, a war at hand.

that currently the GOP is more free-trade friendly tha the dems. That used to be the case but since Clinton was much more of a free trader that Bush (who  is the most protectionist since Reagan) it's really hard to argue that the GOP is the party of free trade. Maybe 3 decades ago that was true.

at least would probably benefit from divided government, as during the Clinton years when the enmity between the president and Congress acted to damp down excess spending.

in part because he voted for welfare refom. I said I was fiscally conservative (in the true sense, not the new let's-just-cut-taxes sense).

Bush has been much worse than Clinton on almost any fiscal issue. Tax rates will go up no mater what so saying that Bush refuse to raise them is no compliment. So long as Americans want 20% and more of GDP in federal spending you can't have taxes of only 16% of GDP.

The steel tariffs have already been repealed and were the political price paid to get the votes for Trade Promotion Authority.  While economically they made no sense on their own, I can see the logic of trading a temporary tariff on a few items in order to get the votes necessary for a broader and more permanent trade agreement like CAFTA.

The assault weapons ban is dead and barring a change in both houses, not going to be brought back.  Frankly I think that some RTKBA folks (and I'm one) are making a bit much out of a couple of comments that were obviously designed to take away the issue from Democrats during a close presidential race; particularly as how the administration has put zero effort and political capital into trying to renew the ban.  

The rest of the grievances you listed - the Medicare prescription drug benefit, the expansion of the Department of Education, and McCain-Feingold - were much like the steel tariffs and assault weapons ban, positions that then Governor Bush took when he ran for President.  While I agree that they're all bad policies, they're also things that he campaigned on when he ran for President which put us on notice that we were voting for a candidate who supported those policies.  That doesn't mean we're obligated to support those policies or to refrain from trying to roll them back; but it does make it difficult to accuse the administration of "snub[ing] its nose at the conservative agenda" for doing the things it said it would try to do if we elected it.

That being said, he also campaigned on Social Security reform with a PRA option, Association Health Plans (of which yours truly is preparing a monster diary entry), Health Savings Accounts (done), legal reform (partially done with regards to class action reform), and appointing judicial nominees like Scalia and Thomas.

IMO it would be wise to wait until a name has been actually offered before we start to feel demoralized.

I stumbled across this site the other day and joined. My reason for joining is to hear some reasonable and intelligent ideas on the conservative viewpoints about many different political topics.

I will identify the fact I am independent in my political affiliation. I believe in a lot of the conservative political objectives. I lean more towards the liberal side when it comes to the societal parts of our lives.

I'm stating this because I really would like to understand what the viewpoints are from individuals that can be found here. I don't want to come off as someone trying to create a flame war. I want to be thought of as someone from the left side who would like to get a better understanding of the thoughts and ideas from the right side.

Sorry for the preferences above but this is my first post and I don't want to give the wrong impression.

What I'm interested in learning about is the conservative's view of what makes an acceptable Supreme Count judge. I'm sure that I will have difference opinions about this but my attempt is to find common ground between my more liberal social views and the views of those on this blog.

Could there be some discussion of what are the most important qualities of a Supreme Court justice? If there is already a blog about this then point me in the right direction.

Look at the CAFTA Roll call ( http://www.afsc.org/trade-matters/stop-the-cafta-vote/senate-roll-call.htm ).  54 Senators voted in favor.  44 Republicans, 10 Democrats, 1 Independent.

44 Senators voted againt.  32 Democrats, 12 Republicans.

It's not a pure party line vote, but 80% of Republicans supported it, while 75% of voting Democrats opposed it, unless I messed up my count.

As of January of this year - Gonzales said he supported the extension of the ban.

but the Senate is only part of the issue. Bush did a lot of harm to free trade with his steel tariffs. So to compare the GOP with the Dems I need to compare presidents with presidents. Clinton is the only current comnparison and he was much more of a free trader than Bush. Had he passed steel tariffs chances are Gore would have won WV and the WH.

I'm more of an economic conservative than a social conservative (Pew calls me one of the Enterprisers) But I can't vote for the Democrats because their answer is to raise taxes to balance the budget. On the surface this sounds like it would appeal to me (balance budget over deficits), but the problem is spending; for every spending proposal the Republican's say $1x, the Democrats usually say $1.5x. So if Democrats raise taxes to cover a shortfall in the budget, they will just spend more, thus having to raise taxes again, rinse & repeat. Cutting taxes forces congress to spend less then they otherwise would have, when the deficit rises people finally get serious about at the least holding the line on spending (ideally we would cut spending). In the last 5 years, I have not seen a proposal by the Democrats that would have spent less that the alternative Republican proposal.

Also President Bush in 2000 never ran as a fiscal conservative other than his promise to cut taxes, then again I couldn't cast a vote for Al Gore, his proposals spent even more. President Bush also had to deal with a senate that was 50/50 to start with, then under Democrat control after the Jefford's switch (and still very close after the 2002 elections), so as the spending coming out of the House was more in line with conservatives it had to be negotiated with the senate bills. I don't think there was one spending bill in the senate that was lower than the house version. While it would have been nice for President Bush to veto a bill or 3, he was trying to `change the tone'; acquiescing to most of the spending of the Democrats (and got a slap in the face in return). He seems to have finally gotten serious about spending restraints in the last year, and the gains in the senate in 2004 should help that, so I am taking a wait and see attitude right now, but really where else can I go? I guess you can call it the lesser of 2 `evils'.

As for the divided government, I would agree, but only in this way, Republicans control both the house and the senate with the presidency controlled by the Democrats (as we had from 1994-2000). But national security trumps that, otherwise I might have been open to a Democrat last year (probably still couldn't have voted for Kerry either way).

If Bush doesn't deliver 100% on SC nominees, there will likely be a split.  

About 2/5 of the GOP is there for moral issues like pro-life, and pro-family, and pro-God.  maybe another 1/5 agrees with most everything the GOP stands for.  another 1/5 is there because of defense issues, international issues, national security, and the like.  Only about 1/5 are there because there purely for financial/economic issues.

If the moral issues people don't get what they want, we will have a legitimate 3 party system in much of the country.  Here is the break-out of the country with the new 3 party system:

Pro-choice/pro-busines/pro-security GOP - 20% of population

Pro-life/pro-family/pro-God - 30%

Democrats - 40%

Swing voters - 10%

GOP loses Senate seats in Maine, RI, PN, VA and a few seats others states Democrats.  Loses other Southern seats to the pro-God party in  south.

GOP loses about 40-50 House seats to Democrats; about 40-80 to new party.

Democrats win next Presidential Election.  Bush is forever known in history as a divisive, ineffective, weak leader.

All those people who vote GOP for pocket book reasons, need to understand that the moral voters don't lose anything personally by liberal economic policies and don't have the same to lose as the pocketbook people.

We can wait out the Democrats time in office; can you afford increased taxes?  How about increased liability, enviornmental regulation, etc?

That is how it is.  A pro-choice nominee is a deal-breaker.

Alright, let's look at Presidents (and candidates)

President GW Bush: supported CAFTA

Candidate Dole: supported NAFTA

President GHW Bush: supported NAFTA

Candidate Kerry: opposed CAFTA

Candidate Gore: supported NAFTA

President Clinton: supported NAFTA

And Senator Clinton, frontrunner for the Democrats, also opposed CAFTA.

While Bush doesn't have a 100% pro-free trade record, he is coming through for the biggies.  The Democrats, on the other hand, are showing a mixed record there.

So I maintain that Republicans are far better on trade than Democrats.  To pick on one good here, and one there, ignores all the other tariffs that these agreements control.

to fall to an individual who supports the rights of Pharmaceutical companies, Health Insurance companies, Large corporations in general and a deterioration of state's rights, as well as a deterioration of individual rights.  

Not only is he a RINO, but does anyone honestly think that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster Gonzales.  I mean they accused the man of justifying torture six months ago in the AG hearings and and any switch from a yes vote on the AG vote would allow Dems to filibuster.  Do you really think the ACLUers would make nice with him on a SCOTUS appointment!?  

It would be the perfect excuse for the Democrats to bring back abu ghraib (sic?) and torture incidents and further hurt the President's approval ratings. I think people underestimate the Democrats desire to further attack the President's policies on this if they get the chance.  The Gonzales would be the easiest nominee for the Democrats to paint as an extremist due to the torture memo (IMO he isn't), and it would be seen as a huge sell out by conservatives.  

If the President really wants Gray Davis numbers, nominating Gonzales would do it.  It would be a mistake that would absoultely cripple the President for the next three years and cost the Republicans not only in 2006, but 2008 and beyond as well.

there is no evidence that tax levels determine spending. Lower taxes have not reduced spending under Bush, in fact it has increased.

There's probably a good argument that lower taxes (that lead to higher deficits) raise spending because voters get a free lucnh, at least temporarily.  

The sad reality is that spending is set to go up and by a lot, mainly due to healthcare. Tax rates will have to be raised, and also by a lot.

Of those things, you mentioned it is a little hard to get mad at Bush; because he said that was what he was going to do.

Steel Tariffs, were a promise he made in the 2000 campaign.  Clinton made a promise in 1992 but didn't follow up.

Bush pushed a massive new spending plan for education in 2000 also, yes he gave up on School choice, but it wasn't going to happen in the senate.

Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban and pushed for its passage, again what he campaigned on.  Don't understand your problem here.

Was disappointed on CFR, yes Bush didn't keep his promise here.  But after the Enron scandal he had to sign it.

He didn't sign a weapons ban extension because it was dead in the senate.

Again, I don't support the drug plan it is a huge entitlement plan.  But, Bush talked about support for such a program in 2000.  

Bush does what he says, at least more than most politicans.  

What is the agenda of the Pro-God party?  Are you not free to worship now?  What would you the pro-God party do for the country?  What would it do to help the other 70% you describe?

But I'm focusing on actual policies. I don't trust what any -politician says but rather look at what he does. Bush called himself a free-trader and imposed tariffs. Reagan was also supposedly a free trader but negotiated voluntary export limits with the Japanese. Clinton did not sell himself as a free trader yet was one of the most free-trade president we have had.

I'm sure I won't get much agreement here, but I could stand a Judge like William Young who, at least stands loud and proud about AMERICA when he's on the bench.

Maybe a judge that looks to OUR legal precedents rather than trying to engage international courts and laws.  Maybe a judge that looks to defer anything not specifically defined (read EXPLICITLY) in the Constitution to the Constitutions and ultimately legislatures of each of the several states. Etcetera.

That would be a nice breath of fresh air.

During the middle of the last century the Democrats  lived with the Dixiecrats because they needed their votes on some issues.

Now most of those poeple have become Republicans and the party has to decide what are fundamental principles and what are open to compromise.

 

Not only is he a RINO, but does anyone honestly think that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster Gonzales.

Democrats don't have the luxury of choosing a SCOTUS nominee they would actually like.  Gonzales would get all the "no" votes he got for AG, and maybe a couple more for a SCOTUS vote, but I expect Democrats would let him by without a filibuster.  From the Democratic perspective, he's a better option than a respected strict constructionist.

If the President really wants Gray Davis numbers, nominating Gonzales would do it.

No argument there...

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, the acceptable judge is someone who is a judge, not a policymaker in judge's robes.

See here for more details.

-TS

OK, let's not exaggerate...Gonzales would not be the worst pick ever and would probably lean to stricter interpretation of the Constitution than Souter.

I'm willing to give he President the benefit of the doubt on this one.  I've trusted the President's judgement before, I will on this decision too.

But, I do agree there are dozens of qualified candidates with more experience and stricter constructionist philosophy, and the USA's interests should come before friendship.  Piled on that the fact he may have to recuse himself from several important cases, he's not a good a pick for Supreme Ct Justice.

Reform party represents the Perot voters who split off because of Bush Is father's tax-and-spend policies.  The fiscal conservatives left for a while; and Clinton took office for 8 years based on that.

If the social conservativies leave, the same thing happens.  My suggestion to Bush II, is learn from papa.

The base will be quite pleased with not only this S.C. pick, but also the next one soon to come and the one after that.  This president has corrected mistakes his father made in many areas-from Iraq, to public appearances, to making idle promises (no new taxes), to fighting for policies and people (Bolton) he believes in.  He will not make the worst mistake of his father's term by nominating another Souter-type justice.  I look for solid, mainstream conservative judges to be nominated, and for the so-called nuclear option to be invoked.  McCain will lead the way, believe it or not.

I suggest a No Whining symbol. Unfortunately that's not entirely appropriate right now.

In the last week my work has been fairly slow. I've had time to watch the angst-filled posts eminating from this and other sites. It's interesting how the volume has escalated as posters tell each other the latest outrage proving just how liberal and out of touch Gonzales is. If SoCons bolt the Republican Party I'm now guessing that Hillary will nominate him.

By any reasonable measure, Gonzales is a middle of the road conservative, probably not as right as some, but about where the president is. The supreme irony would be if the president is forced to name Gonzales to show that he can't be pushed by all the threats eminating from his right. Check Amazon.com for "Triangulation for fun and profit" by Bill Clinton.

I started this week seeing Gonzales as an OK choice, possibly not the best, but not bad on his merits. With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect he's moved to to top of my list. Anybody who can tick that many people off without opening his mouth has to have something going for him.

Steel Tariffs, were a promise he made in the 2000 campaign.  Clinton made a promise in 1992 but didn't follow up.

You may want to check your facts there.  The Clinton commerce department imposed steel tariffs almost immediately upon taking office in 1993.  And do we need to remind you that it was then President Clinton who signed the Byrd Amendment which is what's causing the bulk of our problems at the WTO?

So his administration negotiating and pressing for passage free trade agreements with Singapore, Australia, and Central America don't count?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Reform was also the party of isolationism and tariffs.  Remember the "great sucking sound" we were supposed to have heard?

...if Bush replaced O'Connor with Gonzalez and Rehnquist (who will almost certainly retire in the next year or so) with an arch-conservative?  Would that placate the base at all?  I'm not supposing you can speak for his entire base, but I get the feeling that Gonzales will get the nod now for his loyalty, and the real hardcore appointment to satisfy conservatives will come in a few months (closer to the 06 elections I might add).

Replacing O'Connor with another "centrist" (Which is the politest way I can refer to her.) who may turn into another David Souter?

Thanks a bunch, but no thanks.  I haven't been busting my posterior for the Republican Party for the last 20 plus years to see the downhill slide continue.

If that's all it's worth, I'm going on to better things.  Or at least to a party that doesn't lie to me.

For the first time in my life, the Republicans have a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.  If they can't do anything useful with it, they don't need to be there.

Angst, my ugly white posterior!

I am about to be purely and totally foaming at the mouth angry.  I'd have to take the Zell Miller approach.

I didn't leave the Party.  The Party left me.

But do keep this in mind:  We the people keep asking for MORE stuff... and that has to be paid for.  Now we can ignore all requests for new funding, but that does nothing for fully funding existing promises made by our government to the people.

Those have to be fully funded whether or not we agree with the program (unless it is like a mohair subsidy that it an anachronistic holdover kind of deal), because that was a promise made by Uncle Sam.  And we do not want to make our government a liar to its' own people by renigging on a promise, or weaseling.

So the best you can do is stop government growth.

But that is not entirely wise in all cases either, but for now we say it is since I don't want to deal with that tangent...

The cold hard truth of the matter is taxes happen, noone likes them heck even the dems don't like them.  I mean it is not like they work any LESS hard or have to deal with any less BS from their job then members of the GOP.

So they want to keep as much of their money as they can as well.  And that has been used to gain votes, by in effect buying them by offering to give back more and more money to them.

But there comes a time as it has already, that in order to cover the promises already made.. we need funding!  And personally I am not overly thrilled about going to the PLA investment bank and borrowing them and then paying interest on top of it to people I may have to send my son to fight in a few years.. just seems like a bad idea.

So negotiate a deal whereby all government growth is stopped halted, kiilled in its' sleep for the next 10 years or so with the Dems in exchange for raising taxes to a sane and reasonable level to cover the existing programs FULLY and to pay down the debt just a bit.

Just an idea...

Re: Loses other Southern seats to the pro-God party in  south.

There is no such thing as a "pro-God" party. the very idea is religiously offensive.

1)    There is no guarantee that President Bush will get a second SCOTUS nominee.  Granted it seems likely but nothing is guaranteed.

2)    There is no guarantee that any judicial nominee will turn out to be a conservative.  We could nominate a candidate to replace Rehnquist (assuming he leaves the Court and President Bush gets to name his replacement) who turns out to be another Souter.

3)    As we saw from Clinton's replacement of the more moderate White with the more liberal Ginsberg, there is nothing particular sacred in trying to maintain the current ideological makeup of the Court. No one would seriously suggest that had Gore or Kerry won their respective elections that they would feel compelled to maintain any particular "balance."

4)    It's quite likely that if the second nominee is more conservative than the first, that Democrats would use it to tar the second nominee as being some sort of "extremist" as opposed to the first nominee.

5)    In keeping with reason # 3, there is no guarantee that Scalia and Thomas when they leave the court will replaced with conservative or constructionist jurists.  This could be our last chance to appoint any conservative or constructionist jurists to the Court for a long time.

Bottom line: you only get so many opportunities in this life and you take them when you get them.

a Democrat sat in the White House the GOP in Congress would naturally shift into opposing most of his spending priorities, except on defense and a few similar "red" issues. And don't forget that most of the Congress that is stitting now was the same Congress that was sitting under Clinton. They became big spenders when there was no longer any reason to oppose the White House in doing so. In effect the White House and Congress are a now A mutually enabling society

Also, you are correct that useful things (welfare reform as you cite) can still get done under dividied government.

No one in the Bush inner circle is any kind of liberal. Bush did include a RINO or two in his first cabinet (given his electoral situation he needed all the GOP support he could get) but those folks (Powell, Whitman) have now departed and the remainder are all Bush loyalists.

that Bush I made was leaving Saddam Hussein in power. That error far outstrips either his tax gaffe or anything Justice Souter has done.

is that when the Constitution was written in the 18th century the founding fathers had a different life experience than we do. Their views were born from the milieu they were in. The context that they perceived in crafting the constitution was very different than it is today. Today the world is more 'connected' than it was in 1770's when independence was won from the British. So I guess my biggest problem is trying to determine what these specific definitions are and how we would interpret them in the context of our milieu.

I agree with you that federal laws seem to trump state laws in some situation where I don't think they should. I too would like to see the states have more autonomy.

"There is no such thing as a "pro-God" party. the very idea is religiously offensive."

I concur.  I am a Christian.  And I am a Conservative.  But I really dislike the term "Christian Conservative", because it implies that I vote my Religion.

But the way I read the Scripture, I am told to render unto God the things that are God's, and render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars'.

And my God is, in all probability, no more impressed by the Constitution of The United States than he is by the Kama Sutra.  They are all human works, and thereby far short of perfection.

My political interests are for me and my posterity here "under the Sun".  God can take care of His interests without Government intervention.

Don't forget, some of the class of 1994 pledged themselves to term limits, and others just naturally moved on to other offices.  This is not the same Congress that sat 10 years ago.

Hastert is no Gingrich.  DeLay is no Armey.

Not that these two men are solely responsible. It's up to the whole Republican caucus to elect good leaders.  They just have failed to do so.

First of all, welcome to Redstate?  This site welcomes respectful and thoughtful questions from all political philosophies.  From your initial posting, I doubt you came here to throw f-bombs, apropos Daily Kos disciples.  Good to see it.

If you want a wider response to your question, on what Redstaters think makes a good SCOTUS justice, you should put that in a diary.  Many more will see it, and will have the chance to respond.

Again, welcome.

Meant to follow the first mention of "Redstate" with "!".  Dontcha hate it when the fingers slip?

I am confused. AG Gonzales has obviously Pres Bush Trust and Confidence.  So why are conservatives against him?

What in his 2 years as Texas SC Justice makes conservatives not like him?

he$$ no.

I'm ready to throw the moderates under the bus and go for broke.

I seem to recall term limits being dropped faster than a skunk at a garden party as soon as the GOP was in the majority. As well, I recall the stats, election after election, showing only 1% or 2% turnover in the House. That gives us pretty much the same Congress (albeit with some new leaders) since the late 90s.

There are quite a few "moderates" within the GOP who support placing strict constructionists on the judiciary and while they may disagree on some policy issues, they believe that the proper place to deal with that is the legislature.  There are quite a few people who favor "abortion rights" but who agree that Roe was wrongly decided and that it should be decided at the State level.

There are also some who may not even agree with that but have a sense of loyalty to their party and will support an up-or-down vote on whomever the President sends to the Senate.  Actually I know quite a few liberal/moderate Republicans who are loyal Republicans who fall into that category.  Let's not let the opposition party drive a wedge within our ranks by falling into the trap by adopting their language in defining judicial nominees as "moderate" as opposed to "(arch/ultra)conservative."  

What we are looking for are strict constructionists who favor interpreting the law based on the text of the law in its context (e.g. original intent) and support both the Tenth Amendment and Reserved Powers Doctrine's limitations on the power of the federal government.

If we get that, the rest falls into place.

Ya know I think you are a great guy and all, but pandering to the moderates of either party isn't going to get us a strict constructionist judge.

I've had with all the "reach across the aisle", "please consult with the dems", "we must replace O'Connor with another moderate", blah, blah, blah.

We won the election and it's time to spend the capital.  Bush needs to appoint strict constructionist judges, JUST LIKE HE PROMISED.  To do anything else would be to let down those that put him back in office.  

how you can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal when so many of the social liberal programs require big government funding and thus bloat the budget.

Is a pretty weak statement. Quick - name me a second term cabinet officer who's more conservative than their predecessor from the first term?

Hint: Jim Nicholson (VA) and Condi (and that's a big maybe)

Yes, House seats are often uncompetitive.  We're talking about a different number than is usually cited, though.  For comparing 1994's Congress with 2004, we have to look at the exact candidates.  If an incumbent doesn't stand for re-election, even if his party keeps his seat, that's turnover for the purposes of this discussion.

Not surprisingly, I'm having a really hard time finding this number.  People usually just don't care when someone leaves a safe seat.  Example: When Sonny Bono died, nobody was worried about his seat being taken by a Democrat.  This area (where I live) is Republican, and the incumbent has been safe, but Mary Bono isn't as conservative as I'd like.  (I'll always love Sonny Bono's take on illegal immigration: "It's illegal, isn't it?")

Aha, I just figured out how to dig up this data: Search for "open seats."  In 2004, there were 17 open Republican seats (source: http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_house_race_04.htm)  If that was an average year, then we could easily have a radically different Republican caucus over 5 elections.

I just don't have the data available to me to be sure, though.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is certainly further to the left than your average Republican on some social issues and was more willing to work with the UN than a lot of us would be.

But. He's. No. Rino.

The fact is that ever since he publicly declared his party affiliation in 1996, he has lent his not inconsiderable public appeal to stumping for our presidential candidates and served honorably and faithfully as our Secretary of State.

Show the man some respect.

As far as former governor/EPA director Whitman, while I actually thought she did an honorable job as EPA director and had some good ideas*, however despite her claims to want to "start a dialogue with conservatives" she seems to be trying to pick a fight.

As I've always said, one can be a loyal Republican and articulate their differences publicly but you ought to be respectful and constructive.

She's crossed that line IMO but that doesn't justify tarring Powell with the same brush.

* There has been a notable failure at the national level on the part of Republicans to articulate and implement an agenda for the environment that embraces market-oriented and federalist principles and we are being tarred as just "rolling back environmental protections at the behest of Big Oil."  Whitman was an articulate spokesperson as EPA director and we could have done better to let her take the lead on issues such as the Clear Skies initiative IMO.

Colin Powell lost my respect when he conspired with the press to try to undermine the President, and when he failed to do his job and stop his underlings from doing the same.

If anything, his public stumping only makes him worse, because it makes him two-faced.

Powell has earned the respect of the American People, but as Secy. Of States go, his legacy is not something for the best seller list at Barnes & Noble.

Checked the leak rate lately visa vis Bush, war policy, DOD, and the general feel & look of the Iraq policy?

Sorry.  Powell was no friend (read loyalist) of GWB.  He had his own personal agenda to further, and you can look for the infamous tell-all book, but as S.O.S. goes...sorry. He didn't cut it.  Israel. France. Germany. The list goes on & on...

Not all conservatives think Gonzales would be a bad thing. A lot of us trust the president to bring in a very good justice a lot more than we trust the bombthrowers on either side to give an evenhanded evaluation of the candidate.

A lot of the conservatives that concentrate on social issues (abortion primarily) think he may be more liberal than one would hope in that area. He was in the majority of a court decision in TX that allowed a 17 year old girl to get an abortion without notification of parents.  He claimed that the dissenters were reading more into the TX law than was there. Who knows the truth?

Also many are afraid because as White House Counsel he overruled Solicitor General Ted Olson to soften the administration stand on affirmative action in a brief before the Supreme Court in the Michigan Affirmative Action cases. But the brief and indeed the case came out pretty well where his boss wanted them -- race can be a factor but not a predominant factor in state school admission standards.

But I think the biggest problem is that Gonzales has so little paper trail. It's hard to see exactly what his core beliefs are beyond loyalty to President Bush.

Here's a link to a diary that I wrote a few days ago. My conclusion is that he would be a pretty good justice. I've modified that a little in the past few days. Anybody who can drive both extremes of the debate batty without uttering a word has a world of talent. He's at the top of my list now.

1. Social conservatives and free-enterprisers - 2 major pillars of the Republican Party (btw, they are not mutually exclusive either) demand a Supreme Court Justice who will not legislate (that justice should run for Congress or for a dog catcher), but strictly interpret the Constitution.  

The justice's job is not to make up law as he goes along - Constitution is a "living document" theory, but to read the text, and if makes no sense, then analyze the context of the text, and further understand the historical circumstances, and the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  End of story.  

2.  You can always vote for the socialist/atheist/liberal/left who is destroying this nation with its social and economic engineering from the bench.  How about Michael Moore for the Justice.  He sounds "mainstream" doesn't it? Hmm...or Barbara Streisand? We need a minority, after all.
   
3.  Well, we need 3 more strict constructivist or original intent Justices to make it 5.  I recall someone during the election saying something like "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas."  Does anyone recall or was it an empty promise?

Jasmine:

one word: Roe. THere are many religious conservatives who suspect he would uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade. And this is the 800 lb. elephant in the room very few REpublicans have the guts to admit, to wit, any justice Bush picks MUST support overturning Roe. Every Republican wants a "conservative" justice. But listen closely and you begin to realize that for many REpublicans, a "conservative" = "overturning Roe". There are alot of loyal Republicans (on this site, myself included) who want a "conservative" and a nominee's view on Roe would be AN indicator. But for many evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP, it is the only issue. period. In other words, if you asked Bork, Bauer, Perkins, Robertson,  etc. and the rest of the religious right, a justice could be 99% with us on the issues, but if that last 1% is pro-Roe, he or she would be unacceptable. Now, I highly doubt there is a candidate of this ideological make-up. But the issue remains, there is a large and very influential segment in the GOP ranks who view ROe v. Wade as the decision: morally, philosophically, and symbolically that epitomizes how activist judges have destroyed America over the last 40 years beginning with the Warren Court. This is the reason why Gonzalez is unacceptable. The irony is, no one really knows his views on abortion. His brief tenure on the Texas Supreme Court is ambiguous, though if he is anti-Roe, he was definitely making a conscious effort to conceal it. Which is why conservative evangelicals dont want to take a chance. If this was 1991, the religious right would probably be supportive. But after Kennedy and Souter, the religious right is taking no more chances. It wants a sure thing. An ideologue who is certain to strike down Roe at a moment's notice. A true believer who equates Roe with the judicial activism that produced Scott v. Sanford. Personally, I am pro-choice (if a woman wants to kill her fetus go ahead). But I am strongly anti-Roe. It was an abomination that is a stain on the judicial history of this country.  THis is why I highly doubt Bush will go with Gonzalez. If he does go brown, it will be Estrada or Garza. Bush is loyal, but he isnt stupid enough to piss off the very foot soldiers who brought him victory in 2004. hope this helps

one word: Roe. THere are many religious conservatives who suspect he would uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade. And this is the 800 lb. elephant in the room very few REpublicans have the guts to admit, to wit, any justice Bush picks MUST support overturning Roe. Every Republican wants a "conservative" justice. But listen closely and you begin to realize that for many REpublicans, a "conservative" = "overturning Roe". There are alot of loyal Republicans (on this site, myself included) who want a "conservative" and a nominee's view on Roe would be AN indicator. But for many evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP, it is the only issue. period. In other words, if you asked Bork, Bauer, Perkins, Robertson,  etc. and the rest of the religious right, a justice could be 99% with us on the issues, but if that last 1% is pro-Roe, he or she would be unacceptable. Now, I highly doubt there is a candidate of this ideological make-up. But the issue remains, there is a large and very influential segment in the GOP ranks who view ROe v. Wade as the decision: morally, philosophically, and symbolically that epitomizes how activist judges have destroyed America over the last 40 years beginning with the Warren Court. This is the reason why Gonzalez is unacceptable. The irony is, no one really knows his views on abortion. His brief tenure on the Texas Supreme Court is ambiguous, though if he is anti-Roe, he was definitely making a conscious effort to conceal it. Which is why conservative evangelicals dont want to take a chance. If this was 1991, the religious right would probably be supportive. But after Kennedy and Souter, the religious right is taking no more chances. It wants a sure thing. An ideologue who is certain to strike down Roe at a moment's notice. A true believer who equates Roe with the judicial activism that produced Scott v. Sanford. Personally, I am pro-choice (if a woman wants to kill her fetus go ahead). But I am strongly anti-Roe. It was an abomination that is a stain on the judicial history of this country.  THis is why I highly doubt Bush will go with Gonzalez. If he does go brown, it will be Estrada or Garza. Bush is loyal, but he isnt stupid enough to piss off the very foot soldiers who brought him victory in 2004. hope this helps

I agree with everything you said and I would add one more caveat: Bush has failed miserably to stem the illegal sunami that is bringing social and economic disaster to so many of our states and cities -- not to mention the tremendous threat these out-of-control borders pose to national security. I, too, have looked the other way when these affronts to conservative principles have been pursued. But if Bush betrays us (and himself - his own words tell us that Scalia is the type justice he prefers) this will be the last straw for the base. In the past many elections (like '92) have been lost because the base has been disgusted and didn't turn out to vote. Perhaps I'm getting cynical but I can understand why people don't get excited when the choice appears to be between "tweedle-dum" and "tweedle-dee".

Unless a DLC-like candidate wins the nomination. I don't see John Kerry channelling Clinton. I could see Lieberman & Gore.

I thought Bush opposed Mccain-Feingold?

you are confused as to what socially liberal means.

when intelligent people writing about politics say that thier side would never do what the other side does. The idea that there is only liberal judicial activism but not conservative liebral activism is something only a true fanatic could believe.

but he signed it anyway, thinking the Courts would rule it unconstitutional (as did some members of Congress who voted for it). There is something derelict about that sort of behavior: I'll just pass/sign this bill even though it's bad idea, but I'll let the courts take the blame for dumping it. At the very least it encourages judicial activism.

As often used it appears to be a slur word meaning "any Republican less conservative than I am (especially on social issues)". And if you are going to restrict it to true GOP liberals (e.g., Chafee, etc.) then I would say that tarring Gonzales with the RINO brush is wrong.

Re: Bush has failed miserably to stem the illegal sunami that is bringing social and economic disaster to so many of our states and cities -- not to mention the tremendous threat these out-of-control borders pose to national security.

It's not so much that he failed, as that he hasn't even tried. In fact he (and much the GOP leadership) seems not to be aware that there is problem-- perhaps because they are insulated from it personally, and know too many people who benefit from illegal immigration. This is very much the sleeper issue of the future

Generally the term means someone who while holding themselves out to be a Republican, in practice supports the Democratic Party than their own party.  Usually it refers to the people who make the (unsubstantiated) claim "I've been a lifelong Republican but I have decided to support John Kerry because the GOP is so extreme, mean, etc."  Often times upon examining their positions you find that they're generally closer to the other side on the major issues or the issues that were the basis of their "reluctant" decision.

I agree that sometimes the term is abused to mean "anyone less conservative than me" or "anyone that doesn't meet my (single issue) litmus test."  Obviously I don't agree with that sort of standard and prefer to keep the bar fairly but reasonably high as it ought to be used to distinguish posers (people who claim to be Republicans merely to give themselves more "credibility" when they "reluctantly" denounce the party) while still keeping the tent fairly big.

So, is AG Gonzales more in the mode of the retiring Justice O'Connor?  

is the best way to ensure another 40 years in the wilderness.  If Bush tries to push RvW out of law with an Alan Keyes lookalike Justice, you can kiss about 10 senate seats goodbye over the next 4 years.

Perhaps that will suit you, but you have a strict constructionist, "hands off" court and you split the Republican coalition, you may not like the lay of the land you wind up with.

The courts need to look out for all of us, not just 51% of 51%.  

I'd apply the label to Ron Paul, too.

Although he is probably "less conservative" than I am, in his case it would hardly mean that he's a Donkey in an Elephant suit.

jasmine,

Depends on whom you ask. The religious right certainly holds this belief. Remember though, O'Connor was not seen as a pro-Roe nominee. In fact, the religious right had high hopes for her before Casey confrimed she would not vote to overturn Roe. But maybe Gonzalez has told President Bush in confidence that he would overturn ROe. This would set up a delicious scenario where the religious right would have to take Bush's word that AG Gonzalez is anti-Roe. But then, who knows what Gonzalez would do after he got on the SC. However, I think the Right is beginning to realize Bush is not as pro-life as he projects himself to be and he wouldnt be devastated if the justice he picked was a solid conservative, but also didnt overturn Roe. The bottom line is, even if the pundits are right and Gonzalez is another O'Connor, this would be a loss for the GOP because we want to change the court. Replacing O'Connor with Gonzo would maintain the status quo. Thats why I envision Bush picking two solid young cons like LUttig, Roberts, Brown, Estrada, or Clement. THen, once Ginsberg or Stevens croaks, Gonzalez MIGHT be acceptable.

P.S. this washingtonpost.com story does a decent job of explaining why religious conservatives are adamantly opposed to Gonzalez.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR200507060
2014.html

but, I found this to be a very succinct and honest assessment of the 2004 election:

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.

THe Bush campaign was extraordinarily run, the Kerry campaign was a disastorous train wreck, and yet Bush narrowly won.  AT the same time, the GOP did a remarkable job in the Senate races, despite the fact that not every Dem Senate campaign was run as badly as Kerry's.  THough, the Dem party did not put forward a national message (really at all) which hurt every nominee with a (D) beside them.

I used a famous line from a "Simpsons" character for effect - I know there are worse justices on the court.  

I would take Gonzales over Ginsburg, Souter, or Stevens any day of the week.  But I think he's the worst nominee the President could pick of those on the table right now.

Well I'm certainly one who believes strongly in the Democrats' ability to be duplicitous.  They did bring us "I voted for it, before I voted against it."  

They very well could see Gonzales as the best they can get, but many of their constituents will demand a fight regardless.  If they wanted to filibuster, they would be more likely sustain one on a Gonzales nomination than any other.  

I really disagree. The strongest pro-filibuster voices on the Democratic side are pro-choice. They're not going to wheedle for a filibuster on Gonzales. Gonzales, if he goes down, will go down on a straight "no" vote as a result of an alliance of all Democrats and far right Republicans. I doubt Bush will let it get to that. But Gonzales, IMO, is the least likely to get filibustered, much less the filibuster most capable of sustaining itself. Some Democrats will just vote against Gonzales to show their displeasure, but no way that the 7 Dems in the gang of 14 agree to the filibuster.

People will on the record derision for Roe v. Wade and statements that indicate a hatred for the precedent and a desire to overturn it, these will be the savaged nominees. I don't think there's another clear cut issue besides abortion -- not even affirmative action -- where the filibuster would hold. The pressure groups just aren't there to get the non-gang of 14 Democrats hounded by the whips and the leaders of the Democratic Senate minority.

And it's all about those centrist Democrats.

Indeed, Gonzales wouldn't fit my personal idea of the definition of RINO (that would be Souter and Stevens), I would say moderate-centrist would be my personal perspective on his view.  

However, many Republicans I know locally have used that label to describe his views when the topic comes up.  My point was mainly to show how nominees might be percieved by the base and how this will affect the fight ahead.

If I was a pro-choice Democrat and Bush nominated Gonzales, I would take it.  From their perspective, it is likely the best they will do.

However, there are alot of groups who mainly want to show their political muscle and want to hurt the President - and its clear POTUS is very close to Gonzales.  The dynamics change if there is a second opening - I can definately see the Dems giving Gonzales a silent pass while hammering the other one as extreme,etc...  But the those interests are going to want to get their shots in at somebody.  

With two nominees at the same time, they could let Gonzales not be the main story and focus on the other one.  But alone, I don't think it would have been easy for them with much of their base demanding a fight to give him a pass.