The Conservative Revolt

[Adam's Apple]

I hear what you're all saying as well. I just think it was wrong to not go through the hearing process for Miers when Republicans had made such a big deal about nominees having a right to the up or down vote. When rules/procedures are in place, they should be followed; especially when Republicans are the ones making such a big deal about rules/procedures not being followed (and rightly so). I don't think Miers would have survived the hearings, but I was hoping to try to form some opinion as to why Bush nominated her. It was just not like him to err with regard to judicial appointments. Guess I will just have to accept the published theories, for we'll never know for sure until the book is written. Anyway, it's a done deal--on to other matters......

 

[Annie]

I hear what you're all saying as well. I just think it was wrong to not go through the hearing process for Miers when Republicans had made such a big deal about nominees having a right to the up or down vote. When rules/procedures are in place, they should be followed; especially when Republicans are the ones making such a big deal about rules/procedures not being followed (and rightly so). I don't think Miers would have survived the hearings, but I was hoping to try to form some opinion as to why Bush nominated her. It was just not like him to err with regard to judicial appointments. Guess I will just have to accept the published theories, for we'll never know for sure until the book is written. Anyway, it's a done deal--on to other matters......

Well the argument for 'an up or down vote' is misunderstood to some degree I think. ALL nominees will get an 'up or down' once they leave committee with the recommendation or no recommendation, (meaning the committee: 1. We endorse. 2. We do not endorse or 3. We are not saying 'good' or 'bad.'

The Miers problem was that in all likelihood, she would have gotten a no. 2, mostly by republicans. Then she would have been shot down in the up or down by republicans again. Not good for a Republican President's nominee. He was right to accept her withdrawal.

I don't think her a bad person, GW seems to have made a mistake, which he has now rectified.

 

[Bonnie]

Well the argument for 'an up or down vote' is misunderstood to some degree I think. ALL nominees will get an 'up or down' once they leave committee with the recommendation or no recommendation, (meaning the committee: 1. We endorse. 2. We do not endorse or 3. We are not saying 'good' or 'bad.'

The Miers problem was that in all likelihood, she would have gotten a no. 2, mostly by republicans. Then she would have been shot down in the up or down by republicans again. Not good for a Republican President's nominee. He was right to accept her withdrawal.

I don't think her a bad person, GW seems to have made a mistake, which he has now rectified.

Ill say

 

[Annie]

Ill say

In a big way! From Michael Barone:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_051031.htm

10/31/05

Why Democrats won't want to oppose Samuel Alito

George W. Bush has nominated Judge Samuel Alito of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito has a strong record academically and in government. He was U.S. attorney for New Jersey, a high-pressure job in a state where corruption is—how shall we say this?—not unknown. To be confirmed for that position, Alito would have to have been approved by New Jersey's two Democratic senators at the time, Bill Bradley and Frank Lautenberg, the latter of whom is again serving in the Senate. From my knowledge of those two men, I believe they would not have approved Alito unless they were convinced that he was (a) highly competent, (b) completely honest, and (c) not likely to use his power as a prosecutor for political purposes. They certainly understood the importance of the job and would not, I think, have given their approval lightly. Here's what Lautenberg and Bradley said about Alito's appointment as U.S. attorney.

...

As for the Democrats, they're in a mood to fight and, if possible, to filibuster...and from the American people." ...Nothing here on Alito's sterling credentials, even though Schumer was careful to show respect for John G. Roberts's sterling credentials when his nomination was announced.

On this appointment the Democrats are caught between two constituencies. On one side is the feminist left. They have to oppose Alito if they want the people on their direct-mail lists ever to send in money again. The reason is that Alito wrote a dissent in 1991 upholding the Pennsylvania abortion law challenged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey...

...

...if they filibuster, they risk alienating another constituency, Italian-Americans. To understand the risk, consider the number of votes cast against the confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986. That number was zero. Democrats knew Scalia was a judicial conservative—he had a paper trail as an academic—but they also knew that Italian-Americans very much wanted to see a fellow Italian-American on the Supreme Court. For many years I have attended events sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, an organization established in the 1970s in large part to dispel the Mafia stereotype. NIAF has been proud to seat the director of the FBI at the head table as its annual dinner. It was proud that in 1984 the four Democratic and Republican nominees for president and vice president (including Geraldine Ferraro, remember) attended its dinner—the only time in American history, I believe, that four nominees attended a single event.

... Italian-Americans are less defensive today and probably less ethnically conscious. The political risks of opposing an Italian-American are therefore probably less than in 1983. But they're not zero. I wonder whether Tom Carper of Delaware (where 7 percent of the population in the 2000 census said they were of Italian ancestry), Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (14 percent), Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (11 percent), Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (14 percent), and Jack Reed of Rhode Island (14 percent) really want to go to the length of supporting a filibuster against an Italian-American judge with sterling credentials and majority support in the Senate. I'm pretty sure that Lincoln Chafee, facing a conservative opponent in the Republican primary in Rhode Island, the state with the nation's highest percentage of Italian-Americans, doesn't want to oppose Alito. If I were giving him political advice, I would certainly advise him not to do so. As much as one quarter of Republican primary voters there will have Italian names or Italian ancestors. And what about Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who is of Italian descent (on his mother's side) as well? He's often been given a place of honor at NIAF dinners. I'm not sure he'd want to attend if he opposed Alito. The audience there is, to judge from responses at the dinners I've attended, about half Republican and half Democratic. But I'll bet they'll be close to 100 percent for Alito.

 

[Bonnie]

In a big way! From Michael Barone:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/columns/barone_051031.htm

10/31/05

The way Dianne Feinstein was acting this morning I expected her to slash her wrists on live TV.. The Dems should never underestimate George

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you crazy? We have a Republican executive branch. Both houses of Congress have Republican majorities and the Supreme court will have more conservative justices on it than liberal or moderate ones after Bush's next appointment. Where in the federal government aren't conservatives in control? Social conservatism is the rule right now buddy. Have you been under a rock for the last five years?

Your error is in equating republicans with conservatives. Not all repubs are conservatives. Many are more moderate. Now, about that rock.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

If you were a person “who was better than Hillary AND Bush”, would you want to be the candidate of a party that you could not count on to support your decisions as President? I think actions like this cause qualified people to have serious second thoughts about even making the run. The quality of person you have in mind would not want to serve as a “puppet president” to a segment of the Republican Party. The President serves all the people—Democrats, liberals, far left, etc., and he has to deal with that fact. The opposition doesn’t just lie down and play dead during a President’s term. For the past two elections, the Republican Party has been able to get its man in the White House by the barest of margins (51% does not a mandate make), so conservatives should not get too puffed up by the power they think they have. The ideological war has not yet been won. The pendulum can swing back quickly to the other side. Beware lest conservatives have a hand in making that happen.



I don’t think the correct words are “given up” but rather “don’t take the time” to converse with those in power. Without taking that step, the result will be as you say. If people would bombard their elected representatives with mail about how they feel on important issues, I doubt that many elected politicians would stray from the espoused principles that got them elected. And we might not have such things as journalists—liberal or conservative--trying to deny elected Presidents their constitutional rights.



We have just sacrificed one of the major (and correct) arguments directed at the obstructionists: the President has the right to select nominees to the Supreme Court, with advice and consent of the Senate, and that these nominees have a right to an up or down vote. Now the conservatives cannot use this argument again with a straight face without the “hypocrite” label being rightly slung their way. Didn’t conservative journalists just circumvent the legitimate process to keep Miers from getting a fair hearing? Aren't these the same kind of tactics the Democrats use when they don’t like a Supreme Court nominee?

Actually, the nails that sealed Meirs coffin were her interviews with senators. She just didnt do too well, and the people who tipped the scale were the ones who knew of this, and knew she wouldnt pass the mustard on senate confirmation hearings. The writing was on the wall, all of them didnt circumvent the process to get what they wanted, they used that method to prevent the embarrasment of her not passing the senate.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why in the world would someone worry about the democrats gaining power when the biggest spending increases in the history of the world have occurred under Bush and the republicans? Personally, I think the US government is going to implode, on a scale nearly on par with the collapse of the USSR.

Since the economy is also the biggest in history, its not unusual for the spending to increase. In terms of percentage of the GDP, Bush has NOT INCREASED spending.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'd like to see the hammer you dropped. Link?

Link to what? He quit responding in a thread where he was making statements with no facts to back em up, when I called him on it, he still didnt provide anything, other than his opinion. Which thread was it? I dont remember.

 

[Annie]

They will be studying this for years:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_2_05_TB.html

Last week, the conservative movement had its Rosa Parks moment -- we refused to give up our seat on the bus even for a Republican president. Regarding that event, liberals, mainstream mediacrities as well as conservative movementistas all shared a common impression: Something important happened last week for conservatism -- and thus for the broader political scene.

The successful opposition to Miss Miers was not a triumph for just some faction of the conservative movement. If it used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer, then it also could be said that the conservative opposition to Miers was the entire conservative movement on the hunt -- at full regimental strength.

From the market-oriented Wall St. Journal to my own Washington Times' classic Reaganite conservatism, to the social conservative opposition of Phyllis Shlafly and so many others on the social and Christian right, to the neoconservative opposition of The Weekly Standard and Charles Krauthammer, to the paleo-conservatism of Pat Buchanan, to the high Toryism of George Will, to the popular talk radio titans Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their legions of regional voices, to the lawyer-turned-hip radioist Laura Ingraham, to the iconoclastics Michael Savage and Ann Coulter to most of the conservative blogdom (with the prominent exception of the always magnificent Hugh Hewitt who rode heroically and almost alone with the fox rather than us hounds) -- this was a never before seen moment of comprehensive conservative opposition to a Republican initiative.

Of course, conservatism has often stood almost equally united in support of a Republican or conservative issue (e.g. Reagan, anti-abortion) or in opposition to a Democrat or liberal issue (e.g. Clinton, raising taxes).

But such broad, shoulder-to-shoulder conspicuous conservative opposition to a Republican president advocating a not liberal nomination or position is, I think, without precedent.

Of course, elements of conservatism have often been disgruntled with the actions of conservative presidents. When Reagan first reached out to Gorbachev, national security conservatives muttered deep concern. When G.H.W. Bush raised taxes, the House conservatives rebelled and beat his proposal on the floor, initially. But those were responses of only factions within the conservative firmament. Other factions may not have liked such initiatives, but they didn't move into loud, direct, public opposition.

Whenever a seminal political event such as this happens, politicians and activists rush in to try to publicly explain and exploit it in a manner useful to their political objectives.

The first to arrive at the scene of the fire with cans of gasoline were the ever politically resourceful (if substantively barren) Democrats and their dutiful echoes in the mainstream media.

From the unctuous, faux-humble, faux-everyman Sen. Harry Reid, to the ever clever, ever-striving Sen. Charles Schumer, to their automaton stenographers in the mainstream media, this event was characterized as the triumph of the hard-right, extreme, radical, fundamentalist Christian, anti-abortion, doctrinaire, out-of-the-mainstream right wingers.

Now, I will concede that they may well be sincere in making such characterizations. These days, the Democratic Party spokesmen and spokeswomen tend to see anyone much to the right of Joe Biden as falling into the category of out of the mainstream right wingers, if not actual lumpen proto-fascists.

Poor old Joe Lieberman -- a classic moderate from the unconservative state of Connecticut -- could barely get 7 percent of the Democratic Party vote for president.

But in fact, the conservative coalition that defeated Miss Miers' nomination last week is the same broad based movement that has elected its candidate president in five of the last seven elections, elected 28 currently sitting governors and a Republican congress for the last decade.

Today, 34 percent of Americans are self-described conservatives, while only 19 percent are self-described liberals. When one adds only the most conservative third of the remaining 47 percent of self-identified moderates to the self-proclaimed conservatives, one has a voting majority in an American election.

So when they say we are out of the mainstream, they are using words in a manner inconsistent with reality.

If there was a uniting theme to the conservative opposition, it wasn't anti-abortion, or any particular substantive issue.

Rather, conservatives respect the law. We have deeply resented its misuse for the last 70 years by clever and willful liberals who would usurp the law for their own policy purposes. We want its rectification, so the true constitution can return from its exile (somewhere in the Wyoming Rockies, along with John Galt, I think).

This was a revolt for excellence. It was a revolt for a faithful scholar of the law. It was a moment of high faith in reason, and in the blessings that will flow from a fair and wise reading of our founding document

.

 

[nosarcasm]

the conservatives should split with Bush over this:

Employer Sanctions Collapse Even Further in 2004
Last year I reported the Bush Administration’s extraordinary abandonment of the effort to punish employers for using illegal aliens. Worksite arrests had fallen by a factor of some 97 percent since 1997.

Another year’s data is now in, and the Bush Administration’s response has been remarkable: worksite arrests have fallen by a further two-thirds.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush Administration just plain doesn’t intend to enforce the law against illegal immigration.

But, although it may be hard to remember now, the primary purpose of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was to end illegal immigration. IRCA imposed fines of up to $10,000 for every illegal alien hired by U.S. employers. It stipulated that repeat offenders could be jailed. These tough measures reflected the belief that employer sanctions were the only way to stem the tide of illegals.

That was the plan. Rarely can the gap between policy and performance have been greater.

Today, the INS/Homeland Security’s employer-sanctions program has all but disappeared. Here are the key indicators: [Table 1.]

Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:


1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159 !!!!!

Pathetic. my friend and his team who works for the federal employment
office in Germany put 150 out of business alone in a month in their
province.


from http://www.vdare.com/

Even in cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has evidence implicating employers, the agency tends to back off if the employer pleads ignorance or fights the fine. That’s why of the 3,064 workforce investigations closed last year, fines were imposed in just 3 (three!) of them – one out of one thousand. . By contrast, fines were imposed in about 11 percent of closed investigations in 1997.

Notices of intent to fine employers:


1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3

Law and Order now, or revolution. Well its not my country, just
suggesting.

 

[Annie]

the conservatives should split with Bush over this:

Employer Sanctions Collapse Even Further in 2004
Last year I reported the Bush Administration’s extraordinary abandonment of the effort to punish employers for using illegal aliens. Worksite arrests had fallen by a factor of some 97 percent since 1997.

Another year’s data is now in, and the Bush Administration’s response has been remarkable: worksite arrests have fallen by a further two-thirds.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush Administration just plain doesn’t intend to enforce the law against illegal immigration.

But, although it may be hard to remember now, the primary purpose of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was to end illegal immigration. IRCA imposed fines of up to $10,000 for every illegal alien hired by U.S. employers. It stipulated that repeat offenders could be jailed. These tough measures reflected the belief that employer sanctions were the only way to stem the tide of illegals.

That was the plan. Rarely can the gap between policy and performance have been greater.

Today, the INS/Homeland Security’s employer-sanctions program has all but disappeared. Here are the key indicators: [Table 1.]

Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:


1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159 !!!!!

Pathetic. my friend and his team who works for the federal employment
office in Germany put 150 out of business alone in a month in their
province.


from http://www.vdare.com/

Even in cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has evidence implicating employers, the agency tends to back off if the employer pleads ignorance or fights the fine. That’s why of the 3,064 workforce investigations closed last year, fines were imposed in just 3 (three!) of them – one out of one thousand. . By contrast, fines were imposed in about 11 percent of closed investigations in 1997.

Notices of intent to fine employers:


1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3

Law and Order now, or revolution. Well its not my country, just
suggesting.

I think that battle is coming. Last week the new 'reform on immigration' was put out by the admin, but was lost in the SCOTUS and Libby news. I have noticed that it DID NOT include increased penalties against employers that hire illegals.

I noted too that it still contains amnesty for those here, but of course it's not called that. After 6 years these people are supposed to 'voluntarily' come and tell the government they are still here.

 

[Annie]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...114,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

With Alito nod, Bush already is ahead
James P. Pinkerton

November 1, 2005

There's a paradox in George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. The coming fight might not be good for Alito, but it's going to be great for Bush.

To get anywhere in politics, you need a base. Of course, you also need a majority, but first you need strong supporters - only then can you build toward 50 percent plus one. The base was what Bush was in danger of losing, thanks to government overspending and the disastrously failed nomination of Harriet Miers. By appointing Alito, Bush has taken a big step toward reclaiming his base. With his momentum regained, he can worry about getting his choice confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

An analogy can be made to Bush's favorite president, Ronald Reagan. In November 1986 the Iran-Contra scandal broke. Reagan's approval rating plunged 20 points, but just as seriously, the confidence of his core supporters was shaken. How could The Gipper have been dealing with the ayatollahs in Tehran? Had the 40th president lost his ideological bearings - or his intellectual marbles?

After months of drift, in March 1987 Reagan vetoed a big-spending highway bill. The veto was overridden, but Reagan had reconnected with his limited-government base. (As a footnote, the highway bill Reagan vetoed was objectionable to him and his supportersbecause of its 121 pork-barrel "earmarks"; the highway bill that George W. Bush signed in 2005 had 6,371.)

A few months later, Reagan picked another Good Right Fight. He nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. After a clamorous senatorial debate, Bork was voted down.

But along the way, a funny thing happened. Reagan's approval rating crept back up. He proved that by presiding over eight years of peace and prosperity - as he tried to steer the judiciary in a more conservative direction - he could claim steady majority support, defined as a solid base plus a good chunk of moderate "swing" voters. While Reagan lost many battles, including the highway bill and Bork's nomination, he won the war.

The greatest proof of Reagan's political triumph came in 1988, when he was able to bequeath, in effect, the White House to his vice president, George H.W. Bush. Winning a third straight presidential term for a party is a rare feat. The '88 election was the first such "triple play" in four decades - and it hasn't happened since.

So now Alito, Bush's base- rebuilder: Reaction among conservatives, who know him well, has been thunderously positive.

But what about getting Alito, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals judge, confirmed in the Senate? Well, that's no sure thing. "Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade," proclaimed a headline atop an e-mail circulated within hours by the liberal American Progress Action Fund. On the specific issue of abortion rights, public opinion bolsters Alito-opposing Democrats. According to a Gallup poll released yesterday, 32 percent of Americans think it's a good idea to have a new Supreme Court justice who supports overturning the 1973 Roe decision - but 42 percent think it's a bad idea.

At the same time, neither side, pro-life or pro-choice, can claim a majority. So the Battle of Alito begins, as the right-wing base and the left-wing forces compete to win the middle ground.

Moving beyond abortion, to issues such as gay marriage and the public display of religious symbols, there's considerable evidence that a growing number of Americans embrace conservative judicial views. But don't take my word for it: Take the American Bar Association's word for it. On Sept. 30, the ABA's E-Journal published the results of a nationwide poll indicating that 56 percent of Americans agree that "Judicial activism ... seems to have reached a crisis," as "judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality."

That's more than a conservative base, that's a conservative majority. If Bush can lay claim to that majority, he's in good shape politically. Who knows? Maybe Alito will get confirmed, too.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

the conservatives should split with Bush over this:

Employer Sanctions Collapse Even Further in 2004
Last year I reported the Bush Administration’s extraordinary abandonment of the effort to punish employers for using illegal aliens. Worksite arrests had fallen by a factor of some 97 percent since 1997.

Another year’s data is now in, and the Bush Administration’s response has been remarkable: worksite arrests have fallen by a further two-thirds.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Bush Administration just plain doesn’t intend to enforce the law against illegal immigration.

But, although it may be hard to remember now, the primary purpose of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was to end illegal immigration. IRCA imposed fines of up to $10,000 for every illegal alien hired by U.S. employers. It stipulated that repeat offenders could be jailed. These tough measures reflected the belief that employer sanctions were the only way to stem the tide of illegals.

That was the plan. Rarely can the gap between policy and performance have been greater.

Today, the INS/Homeland Security’s employer-sanctions program has all but disappeared. Here are the key indicators: [Table 1.]

Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:


1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159 !!!!!

Pathetic. my friend and his team who works for the federal employment
office in Germany put 150 out of business alone in a month in their
province.


from http://www.vdare.com/

Even in cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has evidence implicating employers, the agency tends to back off if the employer pleads ignorance or fights the fine. That’s why of the 3,064 workforce investigations closed last year, fines were imposed in just 3 (three!) of them – one out of one thousand. . By contrast, fines were imposed in about 11 percent of closed investigations in 1997.

Notices of intent to fine employers:


1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3

Law and Order now, or revolution. Well its not my country, just
suggesting.

The ONLY difference was Clinton wanted to make it APPEAR he was doing something to please the right, but let the left know they would just go and release those illegals anyways to go right back to work, at least BUSH isnt putting on pretenses about it.