Scott Conklin
New member
Shrub's Last Chance
© 2005 Scott Conklin
With the Miers fiasco Bush finds himself with one last opportunity to salvage his presidency. I'll avoid making predictions on who he'll nominate this time and stick with WHY he should nominate a certain type of person. And why his presidency is effectively done and Repub control (and thus conservative ascendancy in DC) is over as well if he blows it.
Bush was elected, to some degree, in 2000 because of conservative concerns over future SCOTUS appointments. Guns, taxes, Dem corruption/Clinton burn-out and the SCOTUS issue, these things put Bush in office over Gore. And Bush paid off, somewhat, on each. The Ugly Gun Ban ended, we got a middling tax cut and we got a break from the constant drama of the Clinton Admin. Unexpectedly we also got an initially strong and competent leader in crisis after 9/11.
What we did NOT get was a chance at SCOTUS appointments. That fact is largely what pushed him over the top against Kerry in 2004 . Again, guns figured in the equation, as did terrorism, but I heard the voicing of SCOTUS concerns more than any other single item as reason for supporting the uninspiring Bush.
This time around it looked like a payoff on the efforts conservatives put forth to re-elect a man who had shown himself to be only nominally conservative. First one appointment opportunity, then another. A third looks promising...
And up first we got Roberts. He's potentially decent but he's weak on Roe and very scary on property rights, especially in light of the recent abomination known as the Kelo Decision. His arguments for land theft at Lake Tahoe makes supporting him an uncomfortable choice for a real conservative. Still, when weighed in full he's not an affront to the reasoning conservatives had for Bush's re-election.
Then comes Miers...
http://www.americasparty.us/forum/thread.php?threadid=547&sid=46ad35ac8e80e3293416f08336dffa90
© 2005 Scott Conklin
With the Miers fiasco Bush finds himself with one last opportunity to salvage his presidency. I'll avoid making predictions on who he'll nominate this time and stick with WHY he should nominate a certain type of person. And why his presidency is effectively done and Repub control (and thus conservative ascendancy in DC) is over as well if he blows it.
Bush was elected, to some degree, in 2000 because of conservative concerns over future SCOTUS appointments. Guns, taxes, Dem corruption/Clinton burn-out and the SCOTUS issue, these things put Bush in office over Gore. And Bush paid off, somewhat, on each. The Ugly Gun Ban ended, we got a middling tax cut and we got a break from the constant drama of the Clinton Admin. Unexpectedly we also got an initially strong and competent leader in crisis after 9/11.
What we did NOT get was a chance at SCOTUS appointments. That fact is largely what pushed him over the top against Kerry in 2004 . Again, guns figured in the equation, as did terrorism, but I heard the voicing of SCOTUS concerns more than any other single item as reason for supporting the uninspiring Bush.
This time around it looked like a payoff on the efforts conservatives put forth to re-elect a man who had shown himself to be only nominally conservative. First one appointment opportunity, then another. A third looks promising...
And up first we got Roberts. He's potentially decent but he's weak on Roe and very scary on property rights, especially in light of the recent abomination known as the Kelo Decision. His arguments for land theft at Lake Tahoe makes supporting him an uncomfortable choice for a real conservative. Still, when weighed in full he's not an affront to the reasoning conservatives had for Bush's re-election.
Then comes Miers...
http://www.americasparty.us/forum/thread.php?threadid=547&sid=46ad35ac8e80e3293416f08336dffa90
document. Otherwise your firearms and your property rights are going to be forfeit in fairly short order.
