Hugh Hewitt's Challenge
Hugh Hewitt, still smarting apparently from the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination due to conservative pressure, not to mention the friendly fire he took during the imbroglio, asks,
History happens one way, from past to future.
The Miers nomination came after we'd all heard endlessly how important the judicial nomination process was---so important, in fact, that Hugh Hewitt and other jersey-waving Republicans advised conservatives to support Arlen Specter in his primary campaign against his "unelectable" conservative opponent. After all, we needed Snarlin' Arlen for the judicial battles to come.
And come they did, only not over the unabashedly conservative candidates we'd expected. Instead, we get stealthy John Roberts. "Trust me," Dubya said, and we did, trying to forget the time his father said the same thing and gave us David Souter, or when Reagan teed up the ever-growing Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.
Then he appointed Harriet Miers, who looked an awful lot like ol' Sandy. "Trust me," Dubya said, and we didn't. Well, some of us didn't. And that led Mr. Hewitt to spray some friendly fire of his own.
The President followed up by nominating Samuel Alito, another judge expected to be somewhere to the left of Scalia.
Now, Roberts and Alito may in time prove to be rock-ribbed judicial conservatives, but given the GOP track record in SCOTUS nominations, I don't think that's a slam-dunk. And why are we nominating judges who are to the left of Scalia? Reagan nominated Robert Bork, the leading conservative jurist of his generation, when he couldn't even count on a Senate majority. George "No Small Ball" Bush keeps nominating people we have to take on faith even with Snarlin' Arlen at the helm of a GOP Senate majority.
At the end of the day, where has throwing Pat Toomey over the side in favor of yet another RINO gotten us? Two SCOTUS nominees who are still unknown quantities. And a big pile of open slots in the judiciary, six years (!) after this Administration took office.
Why was the battle over the Miers nomination so important then, but conservatives could care less about the GOP Senate majority now?
Because back then we listened to establishment Republicans like Hugh Hewitt when they asked us to support the team even when it meant casting aside one of our own for people like Specter who never seem to be there when the game is getting close.
I, for one, am not listening to them anymore. I will vote for conservative candidates who seek to put in place conservative policies. If none are available, I won't vote. Poltical power only matters if its used. There is simply no upside to pulling the lever for a party which refuses to advance the conservative cause if you are a conservative. Your vote is simply taken for granted while these pols betray the base for the sake of chasing chimera votes far to your left.
If Hugh Hewitt and the GOP jersey-wavers want more votes, they can start by advancing popular conservative policies and stop splitting their own base. Immigration enforcement would be a good place to start.
And if you were a vocal opponent of Harriet Miers, please explain why that battle mattered so much, but the Senate majority/margin doesn't.
History happens one way, from past to future.
The Miers nomination came after we'd all heard endlessly how important the judicial nomination process was---so important, in fact, that Hugh Hewitt and other jersey-waving Republicans advised conservatives to support Arlen Specter in his primary campaign against his "unelectable" conservative opponent. After all, we needed Snarlin' Arlen for the judicial battles to come.
And come they did, only not over the unabashedly conservative candidates we'd expected. Instead, we get stealthy John Roberts. "Trust me," Dubya said, and we did, trying to forget the time his father said the same thing and gave us David Souter, or when Reagan teed up the ever-growing Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.
Then he appointed Harriet Miers, who looked an awful lot like ol' Sandy. "Trust me," Dubya said, and we didn't. Well, some of us didn't. And that led Mr. Hewitt to spray some friendly fire of his own.
The President followed up by nominating Samuel Alito, another judge expected to be somewhere to the left of Scalia.
Now, Roberts and Alito may in time prove to be rock-ribbed judicial conservatives, but given the GOP track record in SCOTUS nominations, I don't think that's a slam-dunk. And why are we nominating judges who are to the left of Scalia? Reagan nominated Robert Bork, the leading conservative jurist of his generation, when he couldn't even count on a Senate majority. George "No Small Ball" Bush keeps nominating people we have to take on faith even with Snarlin' Arlen at the helm of a GOP Senate majority.
At the end of the day, where has throwing Pat Toomey over the side in favor of yet another RINO gotten us? Two SCOTUS nominees who are still unknown quantities. And a big pile of open slots in the judiciary, six years (!) after this Administration took office.
Why was the battle over the Miers nomination so important then, but conservatives could care less about the GOP Senate majority now?
Because back then we listened to establishment Republicans like Hugh Hewitt when they asked us to support the team even when it meant casting aside one of our own for people like Specter who never seem to be there when the game is getting close.
I, for one, am not listening to them anymore. I will vote for conservative candidates who seek to put in place conservative policies. If none are available, I won't vote. Poltical power only matters if its used. There is simply no upside to pulling the lever for a party which refuses to advance the conservative cause if you are a conservative. Your vote is simply taken for granted while these pols betray the base for the sake of chasing chimera votes far to your left.
If Hugh Hewitt and the GOP jersey-wavers want more votes, they can start by advancing popular conservative policies and stop splitting their own base. Immigration enforcement would be a good place to start.
posted by Teflon at 5:13 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
I thought you'd get a kick outta the fact i just now figured out what the heck a RINO stands for. I couldn't figure it an ddidn't want to embarrass meself, but now i don't mind. Duh!!
Anyway, we had one up here in VT- name of Jeffords? I don't know how you can call W a RINO and at the same time see what a traitor Jeffords was- i can't classify W as that.
W reminds me of the saying, *Tread softly, but carry a big stick*. I don't know why, but he isn't what he seems, to me. He's smarter than he appears- i've always felt this- and he's humble while really carrying a lot of integrity. I believe he will do the right thing and i supported him w/Meirs- only to believe she was a ruse, really- for a greater game.
Up here, folks hate W. I got one woman so mad her eyes teared up and turned red- i thought she'd spin out and never talk to me again. She hates him and all the loss of $$$$ so much, but truly admires Clinton as a ~wonderful man~ because he never spent like THAT Bush.
I won't bore you with the details, and you know i'm no scholar, but W is a poker player and w/so many freaking unstable heads of governments these days- hotheads- i appreciate W's calm.
We'll get a barrier/fence/wall. We'll round up the scum and ship them out. BUT- if they have been here for over 30 yrs- we have natural-born citizens, regardless of their ancestry over the border. They have to stay. Being born here makes them legal- right?
All the crappy stuff seems to be on W's plate and i think that sucks.
Also, with his S-in-L being from Mexico- what kind of insight does this give W? Any?
Karen-
"Round up the scum" is a very poor choice of words. Some illegal immigrants are indeed thugs---the MS-13 gang members come to mind---but the vast majority are simply families seeking a better life. We shouldn't begrudge them that; however, obeying our laws (including our immigration laws) and assimilating into our culture seem like minimal requirements for becoming an American.
Birthright citizenship via geography ought to be rethought---when the Founders included that in the Constitution, it solved a vexing problem---who would be considered American citizens post-Revolutionary War?
I doubt the notion that large quantities of foreigners would willfully travel to the United States for the exclusive purpose of giving birth to American citizens would ever have occurred to them.
Wouldn't a better standard be birthright citizenship conferred upon those whose parents (at least one) were native-born or naturalized American citizens?
I agree that Dubya's a poker player; I just suspect his immigration speech was pure bluff.
I didn't mean to imply they were scum via their blood- i meant those that have criminal records, etc. Heck- i'm French Canadian- i wouldn't throw those stones :0). I know that by being illegal- they are all walking that line- i did mean gang members and thugs. Sorry for that. Heck, we can deport our *scum* along w/theirs.
Maybe his speech is bluff- we'll see, i guess. I just wat him to be who he really is, not who he's told to be- if that makes sense.
Do you ever check out All Things Beautiful. She's impressive.
Karen-
I knew you weren't referring to Mexican illegal immigrants en masse as "scum", but there are a lot of open-borders types who latch onto anything which might remotely be taken as racism. Such are the times we live in.
I have heard of All Things Beautiful, but haven't had a chance to check it out. WG and I will be freshening up our blogroll currently; thanks for the tip to check it out.
For over twenty-five years the citizens of this country, with few exceptions, have effectively been ignoring the problem. The weasels in Congress, in both parties, occasionally passed some ineffectual border and immigration legislation, and then pulled strings behind the scenes to undermine the implementation of their own laws. I'm speaking specifically of the Congressional pressures put on INS and the Border Patrol to "knock off" the pursuit of illegal workers in the packing industry of the midwest at the behest of their industry constituents. Do you suppose that was only an isolated instance? With an indifferent population and a government that was overtly winking at its own laws, what do you think the average Mexican seeking a better life north of the border thought about the ethics of sneaking in? In his place, I suspect I would have done the same. The self-righteous rightwing defenders of our national sovereignty who are suddenly now calling for draconian measures to deal with the "illegals" and putting down Bush's efforts as too little, too late ought to chill out and take a reality pill. The fence IS the place to start. And as for the rest of Bush's five points delivered in his speech, I agree with all of them to some extent. You have to start someplace. I credit GW with making a better effort in this regard than any other president in the last quarter century. The problems are serious. I'm not an open borders advocate, nor am I in favor of unconditional amnesty just because they're here and we're dealing with an overheated pressure cooker. A rational program for dealing with those already here, while sealing the borders to stop the inflow is what I have been hoping for. That's what I heard George Bush propose.
Post a Comment
<< Home