Serious Question... Can the Republicans/Bush afford...

[jAZ]

... to nominate anyone other than a hardline, anti-abortion judge to the Supreme Court?

The fundamentist right has kinda held tight with the moderate Republicans for the last 20 years, rarely getting what they wanted from Reagan and Bush 41 in this area. Bush 43 comes along and speaks their language and pulls hard from the radical right.

I'd suspect it's payback time, and the questions are these:

1) Does Bush have the willingness to appoint someone who will uphold Roe v Wade?

2) Does the Bush move the country further right with an appointment even more conservative than the most conservative on the bench now?

3) If Bush does nominate a moderate (ie, someone who's not anti-RoeVWade), does the radical right run a fundamentalist candidate in 2008 and split the Republican ticket?



My answers:
1) Yes, actually I do... with this nomination. I think if he does, that person will be a bit less moderate than O'Conner, but just shy of over turning Roe V Wade. But the fiscal conservatives will have a friend on the bench.

2) This is the one that worries me most... But I kinda think Bush will do this, but not this time around. I think he will wait for Renquist to step down before making that nomination. The net effect of both of these nominations will be to move the courts right of where they were before.

3) It depends on what Bush does with his 2nd nomination. If he goes even further right than Renquist, then the Republicans will be able to say that they (President & Congress) did their part for the Religous RWers. But it's a risky move politically for Bush to do anything other than pick 2 radicals in the next few years. Their evangelical strategy has empowered the Radicals and they just might think that if the Republican Party can't deliver, they should try doing it on their own.

Should be interesting show, if nothing else.

[jspchief]

I think you're giving the radicals more credit than they are due. A lot of moderate republicans support Bush in spite of his bible beating.

I've always thought abortion was a minor campaign issue anyway. It gets a lot of pub, but deep down I don't think it drives many voters.

[Reaper16]

I think you're giving the radicals more credit than they are due. A lot of moderate republicans support Bush in spite of his bible beating.

I've always thought abortion was a minor campaign issue anyway. It gets a lot of pub, but deep down I don't think it drives many voters.

Oh, but it does. Among church groups, it's a huge issue. More than a couple of churches in my area were preaching politics in the months leading up to the Nov. election. There have to be millions and millions of people who voted for Bush because of their church's support of Bush, and the hammering of divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage.

[jspchief]

Oh, but it does. Among church groups, it's a huge issue. More than a couple of churches in my area were preaching politics in the months leading up to the Nov. election. There have to be millions and millions of people who voted for Bush because of their church's support of Bush, and the hammering of divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage.Even if that is true (which I think is a bit hyperbolic), those peopel aren't going to suddenly vote anything other than Republican in the next election. A very moderate Republican is still more appealing to a RWNJ than a very conservative Democrat.

I also think the Republicans next candidate won't be as much of a bible beater. I think the Republican party knows that getting too far to the right is bad for the party.

[Ugly Duck]

I say the RoveGB will have Bushron nominate a lightening-rod candidate, someone certain to throw the Dems into an absolute frenzy. The Cheneyburton administration is taking a beating right now - even Republicans are starting in on the war thingie. A wild fight over a Roe v Wade-killer is just the ticket to deflect criticism and to re-ignite division between the libs and the cons.

[Joe Seahawk]

I say the RoveGB will have Bushron nominate a lightening-rod candidate, someone certain to throw the Dems into an absolute frenzy. The Cheneyburton administration is taking a beating right now - even Republicans are starting in on the war thingie. A wild fight over a Roe v Wade-killer is just the ticket to deflect criticism and to re-ignite division between the libs and the cons.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a 97-3 vote.

Why shouldn't Bush be allowed to nominate someone conservative?

Why all the hysteria?

[Taco John]

If Bush doesn't nominate a constructionist, he'll have a rough time with his own base for the rest of his term.

[Taco John]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with a 97-3 vote.

Why shouldn't Bush be allowed to nominate someone conservative?

Why all the hysteria?



That was pre-blowjob trial, wasn't it?

[Ugly Duck]

Why shouldn't Bush be allowed to nominate someone conservative? Why all the hysteria?The folks that run Bush will nominate a conservative. Someone that is so extreme and distasteful to the libs that a knock-down, drag-out fight is assured. Right now, moderate Republicans are starting to question both the record and the character of this administration. They are siding with Dems against Bushron's handling of the Iraq war and on several domestic issues. Roveski knows that the deeper the division between libs and cons, the better it is for the Party. He needs to drive a big wedge between Americans right now, drive it deep and wide. This SC resignation is a gift from heaven (or somewhere) for the Party rulers. Whether or not the Party choice is eventually confirmed, they need a fierce battle right now.

[yoswif]

I think most moderates want supreme court justices that will protect their homes and businesses from being bulldozed for tax revenue.

I think most moderates want their children to own the product of their academic achievement and not have their children's hard work diminished simply because their skin is the wrong color.

I think most moderates want common sense limits on third trimester abortions.

I think most moderates want an interpretation of the commerce clause that doesn't make cooking a quarter pounder with cheese on your kitchen stove interstate commerce.

I don't see Ted Kennedy wanting a moderate supreme court justice candidate.

[jAZ]

Looks like I might be right about the potential for a schizm with the wrong Nominee...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/26/gop_rift_looms_over_high_court_nominations/

(note this article was published even before the O'Conner anncouncement.

[jspchief]

The stupid ass religious right never seems to realize that they are more likely to get something closer to what they want simply by keeping their f*cking mouths shut.

[Mr. Kotter]

The stupid ass religious right never seems to realize that they are more likely to get something closer to what they want simply by keeping their f*cking mouths shut.

Every faction has it's share of extremists and idiots.

Is it really appropriate call an entire faction of citizens "stupid ass"? You may disagree with them, but does that make them "stupid ass"? :shake:

I strongly dislike extremists/radicals/idiots from both sides; but to tar an entire faction (as opposed to calling an individual an "America hater" TIC, heh).....I try to avoid that. When the right calls all Democrats, or all feminists insulting names, that's not appropriate either.

This tendency is a major reason why politics in America suck today....

[jAZ]

Every faction has it's share of extremists and idiots.

Is it really appropriate call an entire faction of citizens "stupid ass"? You may disagree with them, but does that make them "stupid ass"? :shake:

I strongly dislike extremists/radicals/idiots from both sides; but to tar an entire faction (as opposed to calling an individual an "America hater" TIC, heh).....I try to avoid that. When the right calls all Democrats, or all feminists insulting names, that's not appropriate either.

This tendency is a major reason why politics in America suck today....
I'm sure you had a few similarly choice words for Karl Rove the other day when he attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass.

[RINGLEADER]

Seriously Jaz, I think Bush is going to nominate someone whom he believes shares his beliefs about a strict interpretation of the constitution. I don't think he needs to give "payback" to anti-abortion groups when the last time I checked he won re-election by running against abortion. I don't understand why you'd think he would nominate someone who would not share his beliefs.

[Cochise]

ROFL did someone say that the abortion issue doesn't drive many voters ROFL

[RINGLEADER]

Another reason I like Joe Biden...here's his take on how nominees should answer questions posed by the Senate:

Then-chairman Sen. Joseph Biden told Ruth Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."

Set hypocrisy deflectors at maximum strength!

[Michael Michigan]

I'm sure you had a few similarly choice words for Karl Rove the other day when he attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass.

When was that?

[Logical]

I predict that the nominee will be either Latino or a Woman (possibly both). As it will be his first nominee I also predict it will not be a hardline conservate, someone likely to survive the Congressional oversight process without threatening the compromise worked out on the filibuster issue.

Then again this administration has shown great capacity for displaying stupidity at the most inopportune moments.

[Logical]

The stupid ass religious right never seems to realize that they are more likely to get something closer to what they want simply by keeping their f*cking mouths shut.:clap:

[trndobrd]

The administration obviously can't put up a nominee who is demonstrably pro Roe v. Wade. I think the first nominee will be more of a moderate than a fire-breathing conservative. I would look for a second nominee (for Rehnquist) to be female and very conservative.

[jAZ]

When was that?
"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.

[Hercules Rockefell]

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.

I didn't know that all Democrats were liberals, because Rove only said liberals. Attempting to categorize Rove's comments as encompassing the entire party is intellectually dishonest. But I'm sure you knew that.

[Simplex3]

I just hope that the f**king Repugnicons can't find a way to turn this into a new entitlement program. Other than that I'm not expecting much.

[RINGLEADER]

I think it would be funny if Bush nominates Patricia Owen...the Dems will have a complete meltdown but I think they'd have some problems filibustering her when she was confirmed by this same senate just a couple weeks ago (with even Senator Byrd voting for her!).

[RINGLEADER]

"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.


Also, Jaz, from the contents of the moveon.org document he was referring to I'd have to say that his comments were pretty accurate. Funny that'd you'd see them as an attack since the moveon.org document seems to parrot your POV on the issue. I'd be surprised if you hadn't signed the petition yourself.

Here's what Rove said:

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring "the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

[jAZ]

I didn't know that all Democrats were liberals, because Rove only said liberals. Attempting to categorize Rove's comments as encompassing the entire party is intellectually dishonest. But I'm sure you knew that.
1) What are you talking about? Who said all democrats are liberals? Mr. Kotter would be pissed to hear you suggest such a thing.
2) What happened to the Republicans assertion that Dean (specifically identified by Rove) - in his role as party chair - represents the entire Democratic Party?

Can't have it both ways, can you?

[jAZ]

Also, Jaz, from the contents of the moveon.org document he was referring to I'd have to say that his comments were pretty accurate.
No one should be suprised to hear you defend Rove's comments.

[Hercules Rockefell]

1) What are you talking about? Who said all democrats are liberals? Mr. Kotter would be pissed to hear you suggest such a thing.

Can't have it both ways, can you?

Obviously you're a little confused. You quoted Rove talking about liberals, and said he attacked "liberals and Democrats" en masse. As I pointed out, Rove only attacked Democrats in the quote you used if all Democrats are liberals. Since not all Democrats are liberals, you're being intellectually dishonest by saying that Rove attacked Democrats by inferring that from his statement. Try to stay with everyone next time.

[jAZ]

Obviously you're a little confused. You quoted Rove talking about liberals, and said he attacked "liberals and Democrats" en masse. As I pointed out, Rove only attacked Democrats in the quote you used if all Democrats are liberals. Since not all Democrats are liberals, you're being intellectually dishonest by saying that Rove attacked Democrats by inferring that from his statement. Try to stay with everyone next time.
Actually I said "democrats and liberals enmass". Your "quote" is bogus and deliberately so, I suspect.

[Michael Michigan]

"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.

While I appreciate you putting me in Donger's class--I'm going to need to know where Karl Rove "attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass."

He was actually very specific.

And citing a "corporate media" source such as WaPo won't do.

BTW Al Jazeera is also using Chuck Hagel's words, and the astonished Senator is none too happy about it.

[jAZ]

While I appreciate you putting me in Donger's class--I'm going to need to know where Karl Rove "attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass."

He was actually very specific.

And citing a "corporate media" source such as WaPo won't do.

BTW Al Jazeera is also using Chuck Hagel's words, and the astonished Senator is none too happy about it.
Somehow you don't read his words to attack liberals enmass? That's not very specific. And I thought Dean represents the Democratic Party enmass? I was told that repeatedly by those who were upset at what he said a week or so ago. Now all of the sudden, the standard is different.

Nice.

[Hercules Rockefell]

Actually I said "democrats and liberals enmass". Your "quote" is bogus and deliberately so, I suspect.

"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5062301727.html

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.

The quote I'm going off of, where Rove attacks "democrats and liberals enmass," is a quote from one of your own posts genius. To claim that Rove attacks Democrats, you're assuming that all Dems are liberals. As RL already pointed out with the full quote, he's attacked the Far Left, not the entire party.

Try to keep up, but it's nice you called a quote that you yourself cited as bogus.

[jAZ]

The quote I'm going off of, where Rove attacks "democrats and liberals enmass," is a quote from one of your own posts genius. To claim that Rove attacks Democrats, you're assuming that all Dems are liberals. As RL already pointed out with the full quote, he's attacked the Far Left, not the entire party.

Try to keep up, but it's nice you called a quote that you yourself cited as bogus.
Liar.

You ... said he attacked "liberals and Democrats" en masse.
I'm sure you had a few similarly choice words for Karl Rove the other day when he attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass.

[Donger]

I'm sure you had a few similarly choice words for Karl Rove the other day when he attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass.

He attacked liberals, not Democrats, en mass.

[Donger]

"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger," he said. "No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062301727.html

But I'm know you knew that. You're Donger-game is weak.

ROFL

I guess I missed where he mentions Democrats in this quote. Care to point it out?

[jAZ]

He attacked liberals, not Democrats, en mass.
Indeed.

Unless you hold to the Republican standard that Dean represents all Democrats as the party head.

Again, you can't have it both ways folks.

[jAZ]

ROFL

I guess I missed where he mentions Democrats in this quote. Care to point it out?
The Democrats are Dean and Durbin in particular and the entire Democratic party as Republicans have repeatedly pointed out that Dean represents all Democrats.

[Donger]

Indeed.

Unless you hold to the Republican standard that Dean represents all Democrats as the party head.

Again, you can't have it both ways folks.

Dean is the chairman of the DNC.

Rove is not the chairman of the RNC.

[Donger]

The Democrats are Dean and Durbin in particular and the entire Democratic party as Republicans have repeatedly pointed out that Dean represents all Democrats.

I guess that's a 'no.'

[jAZ]

Rove is not the chairman of the RNC.
Well, if I said "all Republicans" attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass", I might care. But I didn't, so I don't. Neither should you.

[jAZ]

I guess that's a 'no.'
Click the link for the quote on Dean. I've already posted the Durbin & liberals one.

So the answer is "yes".

[Donger]

The Democrats are Dean and Durbin in particular and the entire Democratic party as Republicans have repeatedly pointed out that Dean represents all Democrats.

They have? I've not seen that.

Besides, you said that 'Rove' made the accusation, not 'Republicans.' Are you moving the bar again?

However, by electing Dean to be their chairman, I'd argue that he speaks for the DNC and, therefore, the Democratic party in general.

But, I fail to see how any reasonable person could construe Rove mentioning two Democrats and spinning that into "Rove attacks Democrats enmass."

[Donger]

Click the link for the quote on Dean. I've already posted the Durbin & liberals one.

So the answer is "yes".

If Rove had said, "liberals and Democrats" and not said Durbin and Dean, you'd have a point. Since he did not, you don't.

[jAZ]

If Rove had said, "liberals and Democrats" and not said Durbin and Dean, you'd have a point. Since he did not, you don't.
He said "liberals" and identified two Democrats (emphasis on the plural) by name.

I have a point.

The fact that his attack on Liberals is a non-issue to you (no matter how unbelievably false it is) and the only issue is playing the parsing game (which you lose anyway)... is truely pathetic.

[Donger]

He said "liberals" and identified two Democrats (emphasis on the plural) by name.

I have a point.

The fact that his attack on Liberals is a non-issue to you (no matter how unbelievably false it is) and the only issue is playing the parsing game (which you lose anyway)... is truely pathetic.

Of course that is your answer. You tried to attribute a statement by Rove about two specific Democrats and try to make that into a blanket statement against all Democrats.

[jAZ]

Of course that is your answer. You tried to attribute a statement by Rove about two specific Democrats and try to make that into a blanket statement against all Democrats.
You are such an unbelivable hypocrite. It's amazing, really.

I said Democrats (plural) and "liberals enmass". Your liguistic parsing and literalism disappear when you want them to.

It's pathetic.

[Donger]

You are such an unbelivable hypocrite. It's amazing, really.

I said Democrats (plural) and "liberals enmass". Your liguistic parsing and literalism disappear when you want them to.

It's pathetic.

You really have the audacity to accuse me of this, when you are doing the exact same thing? That's not only pathetic, but more than a little amusing.

If Rove wanted to accuse all Democrats, he would have. He didn't; he only mentioned two. Therefore, you are incorrect.

[Logical]

While I appreciate you putting me in Donger's class--I'm going to need to know where Karl Rove "attacked Democrats and Liberals enmass."

He was actually very specific.

And citing a "corporate media" source such as WaPo won't do.

BTW Al Jazeera is also using Chuck Hagel's words, and the astonished Senator is none too happy about it.
Reading the speech it appears to me jAZ is correct and below is the quote from the speech that makes me believe it to be true. All through the speech he attacks liberals that is true but here he specifically attacks the Democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html
...But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party - in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes - and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

[Michael Michigan]

Remarks of Karl Rove as Prepared for Delivery

New York Conservative Party

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Thank you very much, Michael, for your kind introduction – and for all you have done over the years to advance the conservative cause in this great state and throughout our land. You are a forceful and articulate champion of conservatism – and all of us are grateful for your energy and commitment to a great cause.

I honored to receive the Charles Edison Memorial Award, particularly in light of your previous honorees, including Representative Jack Kemp, Senator Zell Miller, and above all, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. That is better company than I deserve to be in – but I’ll take what I can get.

It’s a pleasure to be among so many friends and fellow conservatives – and it’s a privilege to speak to the Conservative Party of New York. You provide much of the energy and activism and hard work that has brought us to a moment when conservatism is the dominant political creed in America – and when we are making progress on so many important issues.

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness – and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past 2 ? decades – but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President’s victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.

To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that’s certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country – and there are important things we can learn from it.

Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it – and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November’s victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no "campaign conversion," no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an "ownership society"; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.



President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished – and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.



The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He's the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 – more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton's increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties – and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate – and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.



President Bush achieved what almost none of his critics thought he would. Once again, they misunderestimated what you and he could do.

And now, moving forward, here's why we will defy expectations again. It's because of the ideas we hold.

A quarter-century ago, a Senator from this state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wrote this: "of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas." It was true then; and it remains true today. We are the party of ideas – and as Richard Weaver wrote, “ideas have consequences.” With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I believe will lead to the further realignment of American politics.

We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism – but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you’ll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty.



President Bush has built on those beliefs – and he is committed to something no past President has ever attempted: spreading liberty to the broader Middle East. President Bush’s eventual goal is the triumph of freedom and the end of tyranny in our world. This vision, which will require the concentrated work of generations, is consistent with the deep idealism of the American people – and it is an idealism whose importance is being confirmed by history and events.



During the last four decades we have witnessed the most spectacular growth of liberty in history. More nations are free today than ever before. Consider that in a four month period – from the end of 2004 to early 2005 -- we saw elections take place in Afghanistan, the Ukraine, among the Palestinians, and in Iraq. In the span of 113 days, more than 100 million people, living on two continents, have cast free votes in nations that had never known democracy. More than half of these voters are people of the Muslim faith who live in the broader Middle East. And since those elections we have seen what scholars refer to as “The Arab Spring” in Lebanon and Egypt and elsewhere. We are seeing unprecedented progress when it comes to spreading liberty in the Middle East.



This confidence in the power of liberty is anchored in the words of the Declaration of Independence; the arguments of President Lincoln; and the policies of President Reagan and President Bush. In his second Inaugural Address, President Bush stated it well:



“Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”



Second, our movement’s growth has made us Agents of Reform. Edmund Burke, one of the most important figures in the history of conservatism, was known as an advocate of reform. He understood the essence of conservatism is applying timeless principles to changing circumstances, which is one of the keys to political success.



President Bush has pointed out that many of our most fundamental systems – the tax code, health coverage, pension plans, legal systems, public education, worker training among them – were created for the world of yesterday, not tomorrow. He is committed to reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. As the President has said, to give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools. We will build an ownership society by expanding the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance, and preparing Americans for the challenges of life in a free society. We are putting government on the side of reform and progress, modernization and greater freedom, more personal choice and greater prosperity. The great goal of modern-day conservatism is to make our society more prosperous and more just.


Third, we are defending Time-Honored Values. Conservatives have long known that political liberty depends on a healthy social and moral order. And so the President is committed to strengthening society’s key institutions – families, schools, communities, and protecting those mediating structures so impotant to our freedom, like our churches, neighborhood and private groups - the institutions that inculcate virtues, shape character, and provide the young with moral education.



That is why President Bush supports welfare reform that strengthens family and requires work. That is why he has supported adoption and responsible fatherhood initiatives. That is why he is building a culture of life and upholding the dignity of the human person – and seeks a world in which every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. And that is why he has provided unprecedented support for religious charities that provide a safety net of mercy and compassion.



It is why President Bush supports the protection of traditional marriage against activist judges; why he signed legislation that insists on testing, high standards, and accountability in our schools; and why he he has fostered a culture of service and citizenship.



President Bush supports these things because he believes they will lead to a society that is more compassionate and decent, stronger and better. We are attempting to spread liberty abroad – and we must show that we are worthy of liberty at home.



* * * *



Let me now say a few words about the state of liberalism. Perhaps the place to begin is with this stinging indictment:



“Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance.… [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms.”



These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication.



There is much merit in what Mr. Starr writes – though he and I fundamentally disagree as to why liberalism is edging toward irrelevance. I believe the reason can be seen when comparing conservatism with liberalism.



Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don’t. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a “culture of life”; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.


***
But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be” to “use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States.”



I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.



Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.



MoveOn.Org, Michael Moore and Howard Dean may not have agreed with this, but the American people did.

**



Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.



Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot – three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?



Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.





* * * *



Let me end where I began. Forty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson, a proud liberal, won the Presidency in a landslide. His party held 68 Senate seats; 295 House seats; and 33 governorships.



In 2004 George W. Bush, a proud conservative, won the Presidency for the second time, receiving the most votes in American history. His party has now won seven of the last 10 Presidential elections. Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; 232 House seats; and 28 governorships.



These facts underscore how much progress has been made in four decades. It has been a remarkable rise. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party – in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes – and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.



At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party – and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You’ll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side.



For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better – and this President and today's conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it. Together we are articulating a compelling vision of a better world -- and I am grateful to all of you who are making that better world a reality.



Thank you very much for your attention, for your support of this President, and above all, for your devotion to this country.

[Michael Michigan]

..But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party - in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes - and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens.

My, my---That is quite the attack.

Which exactly is the mosy offensive part?


Ossify, drained energy?

Or entitlement mentality?

Or perhaps, "when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good?"

Ouch!

[Logical]

My, my---That is quite the attack.

Which exactly is the mosy offensive part?


Ossify, drained energy?

Or entitlement mentality?

Or perhaps, "when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good?"

Ouch!The degree of the attack was not in question, the fact is Rove did attack the Democrats with those statements. People were wrong in saying that Rove did not attack both liberals and Democrats. It really is that simple, the facts support jAZ's statement.

Vlad
Just supporting the truth.

[Donger]

The degree of the attack was not in question, the fact is Rove did attack the Democrats with those statements. People were wrong in saying that Rove did not attack both liberals and Democrats. It really is that simple, the facts support jAZ's statement.

Vlad
Just supporting the truth.

First of all, thank you for posting the speech. I'd rather that than the selective WP quotes that WP/jAZ provided.

After reading that, Rove certainly does go after the Democrats in that speech. However, I would not equate what he very specifically attaches to Dean and Durbin and 'liberals,' and his generalizations of the Democratic party.

I'm sure jAZ will, however.

[Hercules Rockefell]

Liar.

ROFL :deevee: ROFL :deevee:

You got your panties in a wad over switched wording? Whatever. You got caught attempting to make Rove's statement more then it was. Carry on with your weak attempt to somehow make Rove's statement encompass the entire Democratic Party.

[NewPhin]

Not going to bother to read the whole thread, but I would assume this is the reaction thread for O'Connor's resignation. After talking this over with some friends, I'm pretty frightened by this.

To me, this is a pivotal point in our history. This is the chance for the right wing machine that's been steamrolling lately to actually "put the final nail in the coffin" in the DNC. The judiciary (as almost any right winger will admit..."activist judges") has been the one remaining stumbling block for the conservative agenda. This block is about to be eliminated. It's going to pave the way for the current hegemony (sorry to use such a loaded word) to consolidate and maintain power indefinitely.

I'm sure most here will celebrate if it happens, but it's a little scary to me. I'm sure I'll get lots of posts telling me that this is what it was like to have been the conservative underdogs for the last 50 years or whatever. Maybe it is, but if this group gets power...they're going to keep it.

[patteeu]

Liar.

You are pathetic. Does reversing the order of "democrats" and "liberals" make any difference whatsoever? Of course not. The dishonest one here is you, jAZ. Putting the best face on it, your original statement was ambiguous.

[patteeu]

If Bush doesn't nominate a constructionist, he'll have a rough time with his own base for the rest of his term.

I think you are right about that. My prediction is that Bush's first nominee will be a constructionist, which will have the effect of moving the court to the right and threatening Roe v. Wade.

I'm not so sure that Roe will fall though because there is some sentiment toward stability and predictability of the law among conservative judges (even if they believe the original decision was incorrectly decided). Roe has been around for nearly 40 years. That's a lot of precedent to overturn completely.

But what really makes me question whether Roe will be overturned is my prediction of how Bush will handle his second appointment. Having confirmed a constructionist with his first nomination, I fear he might nominate someone like Gonzalez (who I don't consider to be a reliable constructionist) at his second opportunity. He will have already fed his base with his first appointment and it will be easier for him to get a guy like Gonzalez through (his base) the second time around. The net effect could be very little difference between the Sandra Day O'Conner court and the court at the end of Bush's term. I hope I'm wrong about this second nominee.

[whoman69]

I think you're giving the radicals more credit than they are due. A lot of moderate republicans support Bush in spite of his bible beating.

I've always thought abortion was a minor campaign issue anyway. It gets a lot of pub, but deep down I don't think it drives many voters.
It along with the carpet statement, moral issues, was the top issue for voters in the last election. That fact that without the religious right voting overwhelmingly for Bush, the last election would have been a Kerry landslide, should temper your low estimate of the importance of the issue.
Bush will also get his chance with Renquist. There is no way he can keep going with his health.

[Cochise]

I don't think Gonzalez will get the nomination, as a number of base groups have said they would oppose him already.

I think it's fairly clear what should happen, at least if the Bush admin. is smart. They need to find a strict constructionist in the Thomas/Scalia mold. They need to find Mr. freakin' Rogers, someone as above reproach as possible. The perfect strict constructionist nominee. Maybe they can even publicly say they would have opposed the property rights ruling from a couple weeks ago. Leave the Democrats to make the excuse for their fillibuster the judge's 'temperament' or that he is 'too extreme'.

They'll fillibuster and hold it up forever if they have to, rather than let the nomination process proceed, even if when the new court session begins it's down a judge. Let them carry that flag into the midterm elections. Let them explain to voters why they should vote for their candidates of obstruction. If they want to bring Congress to a screeching halt, let them do it, and answer to voters. It worked for Newt, right?

Hell, if they try to do that, their minority might even lose enough seats in the midterm elections to where they won't be able to play Congressional goalie anymore and the nominee gets through anyway.

Time to stop compromising and bowing to their hissy fits. Let them do as they will and answer to the public for it.