Redstate

n/t

Allen will get the nomination.

AS far as Brownback not being liked by the establishment -- well, it is the establishment that does the nominating -- remember Bob Dull.

That's not confirmable of course - he's still saying that he's thinking about it - but I personally do not believe he will.  BUT, if he does, he'll be in the "Too Liberal" category anyway.  He makes McCain look like Tom Coburn on social issues.

The establishment, post-Bush and with this field, is going to be rather split, don't you think?  Their perceived darlings aren't running or are all DOA.

Allen will have a lot of questions to answer first if he hopes to win.

But is "liberal" now synonymous with hailing from the state of Massachusetts? I'll be the first to concede the liabilities of a prospective Romney presidential run-not the least of them being the legacy of his father, in addition to the unspoken uneasiness with which many Americans view individuals from the Church of LDS-but I find it astounding how swiftly some purported conservatives and Republicans will bash Romney, and attempt to discredit his candidacy, for the most seemingly innocuous of reasons.  

As recently as 2000, he was completely in the pro-choice category by his own testimony.  He doesn't support overturning Roe.  He's hardly a leading friend of the free market.  South Carolina, which almost always turns out to be the turning point in the race, will consider Romney too liberal.  And if you can't get Americans for Tax Reform OR Focus on the Family to back you, you'll have a hard time getting conservative support.

Romney is a loyal Republican, but is he more conservative than any of the other candidates mentioned?  Perhaps Giuliani.

You mention that Allen's abortion views will disqualify him, but how do his views and Brownback's views substantially differ?  

While the Conservative base may go ga-ga over Brownback he would turn off a lot of middle of the road voters.  

I dont think he was a supporter, but I could be mistaken (there were multiple votes on different amendments).

..with the exceptions of Pawlenty, Barbour and Bush.

He's not anti-Roe? That's funny, but I don't believe our current president is anti-Roe either, somehow that didn't prevent him from capturing the Republican nomination on two consecutive occasions.

Mitt Romney is not any less conservative than his sister, who was routinely labeled a right-wing extremist when she ran against Senator Carl Levin a few election cycles back.

My problem with the Romney critics is that they feel compelled to invent reasons to be opposed to him, because there aren't enough reasons present as it is.

Yes, in a race between him, Allen and Brownback he would probably be the dark horse, but I don't see why that should prevent him from exploring a possible presidential run, especially when the rest of the field is so manifestly underwhelming.

that as a fiscal conservative (but not SoCon) I would never vote for Brownback.  

As George Allen has said on multiple occasions (in 1997, and again in his Senate debates in 2000), he favors a right to abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother... AND a blanket allowance for abortion on demand in the first trimester.  

This position makes him more liberal on the issue than Brownback and even than Bob Dole, who used to be the standard.  Unfortunately, this position is not even coherent.  As Ed Lynch explains:

Second, and perhaps more important, Allen has to clarify his position on abortion. During his run for the Senate in 2000, I twice heard Allen attempt to explain his stand on this issue. Neither attempt was very successful. Allen said that he would not restrict abortion during the first trimester, since at that early point in the pregnancy, it is not certain that there is another person involved.

The bad news about a position like this is it can alienate both sides of the abortion debate. The good news is, once Allen learns more about the latest scientific findings on fetal development, he'll learn that there is more and more reason to believe that human life starts at conception. Either way, Republican primary voters, even if they do not demand strict pro-life positions, will demand clarity on this issue.

Because last time I checked, Mitt Romney signed a gun ban.

Which, you know, is kinda liberal.  And earned him a negative rating from the NRA.

Actually, Bush claims he IS Anti-Roe - he just maintains the country isn't ready for a constitutional ban.  Romney can't even make that claim.  Nor can he claim that his "conversion" to being pro-life after an entire career of being pro-choice is anything but baldfaced pandering.

Finally we are having it out between true conservatives and "compassionate" conservatives.

The only Senator on this list better on spending/size of government is McCain.

It doesn't matter where Brownback voted on these amendments when he's going to get wall to wall coverage as he opposes Miers.

Brownback's candidacy is not far fetched.  He can bus supporters up to Iowa from Kansas and come in the top 3.  Assuming he has money, he can focus most of his resources on conservative South Carolina where he could win or finish 2nd.  That makes him a Republican John Edwards and probably forces the establishment candidate (I too think it's Allen's to lose, primarily because he's going to stockpile a $5-10 million head start during his non-race in 2006 and never shut down his operation going into 2008) to shore up the base.  Don't think this isn't what Brownback is ultimately shooting for.  He's young and could afford to wait 8 years to be the presumptive nominee for President in 2016.

...for journalists, that is.

Of course, it's sponsored in the Senate by his fellow Hoosier, Richard Lugar.  

The question is "why?"

I won't back him.

I also have some trouble with his support of the Parents' Television Council, which has gone beyond informing to misusing the FCC's complaint process.

Which is why we nominated McCain in 2000.

Wait...

But I doubt it seriously.

He could be Majority Leader, though.

Rice, Giuliani, Sanford, Jeb, and other big names aren't running. McCain, Hagel, Pataki, and Romney are too liberal.

Rice and Giuliani less liberal than McCain, Hagel, and Romney?

Allen, McCain, Hagel... all are questioning on Miers.  If they vote against, will you oppose them?

But why would you have a problem with his opposition to the confirmation of Harriet Miers?

They just aren't running.  If they WERE running, they'd totally be more liberal.

any Senator or House member is going to have a very tough time selling themselves as a fiscal conservative after what they have done to our budget.  I see a governor as our best shot at keeping the WH is 08.

Or maybe Giuliani at that point.

The borking of Harriet Miers has me that ticked off.

Mike Pence is great, probably one of the best at articulating a Reagan Republican vision, but he seems to be on House Leadership track or Senator of Indiana, which is what he'd need to build a national profile and more importantly a real fundraising base.  He too is young and can afford to wait for the right opportunity.

I think she has been borked by the Corner and the others opposing her nomination.

But McCain and Brownback have broken with leadership on multiple occasions to oppose high spending.  I think they could both make that argument.

As a rule, though, you're absolutely right.  I think Pawlenty will stick to that argument.

Or, by your definition, he's a rabid participant.

Was not challenging you, was just looking for additional information, which you provided.  

Thanks for the edification.

Happy to help.

Or, actually, not really happy - I like Allen a lot, and if he were better on this and a couple other issues, I think he'd be a slam dunk.

...in Fiscal Conservatism 101.  Several Senators passed.

Brownback was not one of them.

...which already existed.

If the worst thing that can be said about a conservative Republican-from Mass., no less-is that he supports some gun control measures...

Robert Bork was a brilliant constitutional mind.  Harriet Miers is nice and accomplished, but she's no Robert Bork.  Bork was Borked because Democrats were afraid of him.  

I don't think Republicans should attack their President's nominee either, but to put it mildly, this wasn't the best choice.

In the primaries, no one cares.

It just translates to: where do the gun votes go?  Not to a guy who didn't have the stones to oppose a bad and possibly unconstitutional gun law.

Same with the abortion votes.  They don't go to the guy who "discovered" two years ago that he's no longer a total pro-choicer.

Same with the tax votes, the legal conservative votes, the free market votes... you get the idea.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't the last senator to be elected President Kennedy? It's a hard sell with such a public voting record.

But he's been good on several other bills.

of Hagel, Allen, Romney, and Huckabee.  Huckabee in particular seems to have shown that he knows how to govern.  Still, I suppose the arguments for them are not that much stronger than the arguments for Brownback, from a conservative POV of course.

He had a great line in response to a question someone asked him about whether he thought Harriet Miers was getting "Borked." He said, in effect, "No, the stuff they were saying about me wasn't true."

If you can point to a more conservative governor from a more liberal state, then be my guest. Perhaps Linda Lingle, but I'm honestly not familiar enough with how she's governed thus far to come to a definitive judgment. My point is that there is a case that can be made against Romney, but the "he's not conservative enough" argument won't fly. The NRA will huff and puff, but after a few meetings with Romney, and a few speeches, they'll realize that he's not a gun-grabber. As for abortion, he's tried to do the best he can in a state where the overwhelming majority of the populace is vehemently opposed to even modest restrictions on that abhorrent practice.

How can you NOT dismiss Hagel and Romney?

Just more nanny-state, big government, do-gooder conservatism, which makes my skin crawl. I've had enough of that. If you were repulsed by the rehabilitation project of Slick Willie undertaken by the Bushies, then I don't think you'll enjoy a potential Huckabee administration. I know that I wouldn't.

There was an ABA document that was misreported on by Ryan Lizza that a lot of folks just piled on over.

And yes, I do think Robert Bork has been a participant the in borking of Harriet Miers.

Giuliani is going to run. And will be a strong candidate given the national security issues America faces.

Brownback was on Fox news last night and it seems if Miers proves she is a conservative in her hearings then he will support her. He basically wants to see her views on Roe and personal rights.  If she answers the questions similar to Roberts then he will support her.

He also said she had the mental capacity to be a justice.

I'd love to see a Giuliani/Brownback candidacy.

It's one thing to be upset with those of us that are raising questions about the qualifications that Miers has for the Supreme Court, especially if you don't like the tone or tenor of our complaints.  I can accept that you are tired of those of us running around with pointy sticks.  We feel betrayed and we're often intemperate with our language.

But no GOP Senator has yet to declare themselves unalterably opposed to Miers using the same type of heated rhetoric that the Senator from Chappaquiddick used on the Senate floor to condemn Judge Bork.  So far, they've just said that they have concerns that need to be addressed and want to learn more about Miers and that she has a lot to prove to earn their vote.  Oh the horrors, get out the smelling salts.

Is it so unacceptable to you to have them do their jobs and make sure that a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is acceptable to them?  The whole argument on judges, to this point, has been that they all deserve a fair up or down vote, not that anyone nominated by POTUS MUST be confirmed.  Just because Bush says that she's qualified means that there can be no discussion, no debate, no queries into her qualifications from the Senate?  They should just schedule the rubber stamp vote now?  Why even wait, just have Bush make the announcement in the am and the confirmation vote in the pm?

Okay, I'm on a slight tangent.  But I think it is very unfair to any of the senators, at this point,  to accuse them of character assassination.

(I only WISH that they would Bork her, but we obviously disagree on that...)

Boy are some people going to be shocked by a certain news conference held by "Hizzoner" held shortly after Nov. 7th 2006 in that case...

should be on the Court is made painful every time he speaks or publishes something.  Aaaarrrrgghh!

Pawlenty

Were not even remotely based on fact.

Souter was a complete unknown in 1990 - the President back then did not know him.  The same goes for the person she is replacing.  President Bush has known her for at least a decade.

Let's not get to the hysterical claims that she backed gay adoption, either...

There have been some folks who have gotten their facts wrong when they have attacked Miers.  I guess their decision was Miers delenda est, and let's not let facts get in the way.

It looks like a borking to me.  And I would appreciate you not insulting me by claiming that I'm not seeing what my eyes tell me they are seeing.

We see through your transparent attempts to smear Rudy.

And I would appreciate you not insulting me by claiming that I'm not seeing what my eyes tell me they are seeing.

It is in fact possible that everything said about Harriet Miers on this site or elsewhere might not be a personal insult to you, or even have anything to do with you.

Posts about, say, Robert Bork and a statement he made would probably fall into that region of the applicable Venn Diagram.

Just something for you to consider.

This is Schumerism in reverse.  Schumer's been properly taken to task for trying to ask similar questions of judicial nominees and for trying to block them on ideological grounds.

If this report about Brownback is true, then he's no better than Schumer in my book.

At least from what I have seen.

I didn't like it when liberals did it - why should I give conservatives a pass for the same sort of behavior?

Bush ran to the middle in 2000.  What do you think compassionate conservatism was all about?

I'm all for a Brownback nomination.  It would pretty much ensure a Democratic Presidency in 2008.  

His views on pro-choice people are pretty hostile.  

How me quoting a Bork humorism is personally insulting to you.

You know, it's been about three weeks, and this is getting to be the only note I hear you playing around here.

P. S. Bork was a brilliant and established constitutional and legal scholar, who was attacked with malicious lies about his personal character because the Donks full well knew who he was and were terrified of having him on the court.

Other than the fact that some things that have been said about Miers have been untrue or possible mischaracterizations, there is absolutely no similarity between what happened to Bork and what is happening to Miers. You'd be better served to say that she is getting "Fortased".

But the folks at NR (Frum in particular) were jumping right out of the gate and didn't even wait for the hearings.

It looks like a borking and a high-tech lynching to me.  And I don't like it.

I can read, and see for myself what the critics have been saying.

at John Robert's confirmation hearing that he was proud to be from Kansas, the home of the Brown v. Board of Ed decision that ended racial segregation in the schools.  Ummm, the board of Ed, a government entity of Kansas (well Topeka) was on the wrong side of that one.  Isn't Brownback also the one who fretted that Kansas was being overrun by Lesbians?

Is make a connection between what the "critics have been saying" and how what I said was personally insulting to you, as you claimed that it was.

I didn't think you could, I was just wondering if I was officially allowed to cease being impressed by your cries of persecution or not.

that Rudy, if he runs, isn't going to need any help smearing himself.  As well suited as he may have been to politics in New York, I just can't see him playing well in Peoria.

Just so you know... I think I'll stop giving your Roe delendia est any credibility in my mind.

That was Tom Coburn.

And his poll numbers went UP after he said that.

We like him a lot.

Or at least, is generally understood as such, your threat is a strange one, indeed.

Heh.

When Michael Barone changed his mind about that, so did I.

If Miers is defeated, it's a fair bet in my mind that O'Connor votes to throw out parental notification laws and the federal partial-birth abortion ban (the latter is definite - we know Kennedy is already there).

The first steps towards destroying Roe v. Wade... if the rulings go the right way.

That's why I'm gonna have a hard time buying your perjorative directed at Roe if this succeeds.

...as we can all see. These candidates all have flaws, which could do them in. The question is which ones can and will rise above it.

Guliani doesn't have a legislative personality - he's an executive personality all the way.  Thus, no more Senate runs for him.  Polls showed him with a solid lead over Spitzer for Gov. of New York, but he let it pass.  You would think Gov. would be the best political job available (for him) in the Empire State.  Why would he let it go?  The reason has to be that he is looking beyond New York, and that means the Presidency (unless he just doesn't want to run for office again, but I haven't heard anything to suggest that).  He's at or near the top of the early polls, and Hurricane Katrina clearly has people placing high value on "crisis management" skills - his calling card.  I'd say he has a greater chance of winning the GOP nomination than any other person, and if he wins the nomination he'd be a heavy favorite to win the general against just about anyone the Dems put up.  I've been wrong before, but I would just be shocked if Guliani didn't run.  What were we talking about again?    

Is founded upon the belief that Miers would vote substantially different from O'Connor. Everything I have seen about her indicates that she would vote in an almost identical matter.

Also, the present PBA case is much weaker than the one at issue in Stenberg because of federalism issues. Stenberg involved (properly) a state statute, whereas the one at issue currently is federal. I think we will lose Kennedy due to that, and his continued "growth," which has grown markedly worse since 2000.

Second, neither of the decisions you mention are steps toward destroying Roe v. Wade, in a legal sense. They would hopefully reduce the overall numbers of abortions, but the central holdings of Roe and Casey would be no weaker for them.

ANd all of this is again founded on the presumption that Miers is some sort of arch-conservative, which is something I'm a long way from accepting at this point. In fact, you may have guessed that a large part of my animus towards her is that I don't think she's particularly conservative whatsoever, and I have very little or no confidence that she would actually be an anti-Roe vote - or (most importantly) that even if she is one now, she would still be one fifteen years from now.

And, about the "perjorative" - it's considered pejorative to say to someone, "carthago delenda est," because you are implying about them that they are too single-minded in their politics. So, when you say that you aren't going to take it seriously, it's not something that particularly saddens me.

Anyway, there is a difference between political ideology, which Shumer argues disqualifies a candidate, and judicial philosophy, which should be grounds to support or oppose a nominee. Shumer's argument is only viable if the Senate were voting for people to rewrite the constitution, whereas Brownback presumably wants a judge to give a fair meaning to the text of the Constitution we already have. Thus, the GOP position should be that any nominee who is a "living constitutionalist" should be voted down. Only originalists should be confirmed. All should have votes.

Also, Shumer argues that political ideology is sufficient to deny a Senate vote on qaulified nominees who are supported by a majority of the Senate. Brownback is not doing that. These are distinctions between the two pols which ought to be noted before you start swinging that broad brush.

Sen. Brownback wants to make sure that Miers will adhere to the Constitution.  Schumer wants to make sure she'll ignore it.

As recently as 2000, he was completely in the pro-choice category by his
own testimony. He doesn't support overturning Roe.

In an interview on the local cable system, the interviewer Jim Braude looked
Mitt in the eye and asked him if he favored overturning Roe v. Wade.
At first Mitt looked like he was going to dodge the question and then he said
that he thinks Roe should be overturned and it should be up to the
states to decide. He was very clear that he favored the overturning of Roe.
He restated his campaign promise as governor that he would not touch abortion
law in Massachusetts. He still hasn't decided as of this writing if he will
run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts.

You would vote against a republican senator in a Presidential primary because you didn't like things that were said by folks at the National Review?  Interesting.

It's also useful to remember what "Borking" really entailed.  Sen. Kennedy was on the Senate Floor giving the speech that included the following quote within about an hour of the nomination:  "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."

Mrs. Miers' hasn't had an easy road so far, but she most certainly has not been "Borked."    

But right now my patience with the United States Senate is as low as its ever been.

Somebody remind me again why it was apparently absolutely vital that the 17th Amendment be passed?

Is federalism actually at issue?  I didn't think Commerce Clause-type arguments were even made in the lower courts.

So human life begins at conception except in cases of rape, incest, or it threatens the life of the mother?  So are there other exceptions to the  beginning of human life?  What if the parents are under age?  Or poor?

So, if you are the product of rape or incest, you are not fully human, is that right?  So does that mean one could kill such an individual without violating the law against killing a human person.  Sounds a lot like Bothwaysville situation ethics.

Is this really conservative, to yield up power to the government which for all of civilization has been in the hands of the individuals, except for the last tiny slice of history?  I'm getting really confused here on what is conservative and what is liberal or just authoritarian.

Mitt Romney's "sister" is actually his ex-sister-in-law, who kept the name after her divorce since it's good politics.  I think she was pretty right-wing, but I don't think his political views have anything at all to do with hers.  It's just an ex-in-law.

I imagine Allen and his handlers are trying to figure out a way to tack toward the base on abortion over the next couple of years. He seems pretty serious about his Presidential run - I can't imagine he'll let this issue torpedo his candidacy.

Didn't he sign a cigarette tax, after campaigning on No new taxes?

I think Brownback is very underrated, and I think Giuliani is overrated.

I'm not sure I'd be happy if Giuliani ran, just because I could be wrong about how well he'll play outside of the Northeast.  (Right now, when people in Middle America think of him, I feel they're thinking of a heroic caricature.)

But I wouldn't be at all happy if Brownback became a prominent national figure, even though some liberals tend to assume he's too far to the right to get anywhere.  He strikes me as articulate and formidable.

As an Arkie Liberal, I don't dislike our governor. Not that I voted for him or anything.

Probably for reasons that for most Redstaters will not support him for President--he's a pragmatist more than he's a conservative, despite having been a Baptist Preacher. About the only tough (for Arkansas) stance he's taken on social issues is his opposition to any form of gambling, including a lotter. But even here he's gone a bit wobbly.

He's done two things that I think basically will prevent him from mounting a serious campaign for the GOP nomination--he's raised taxes (for good reasons, in my opinion) and even more damaging he commuted the sentence of Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist who then went on to commit a murder in Missouri. Can you say Willie Horton?

He evidently didn't have the personality or political acumen to overcome his negatives.

Lots of people have said that Governors are more easily elected President than Senators. But Republicans don't have much in the way of big-state governors right now.

Schwarzenegger (CA) can't run because he's Austrian. Perry (TX), not enough experience, not very well-known. Pataki (NY) is too liberal. Jeb Bush (FL) is well-known, conservative, and could certainly win FL, but would people elect three Presidents from the same family in 20 years? Most of the other big-state governors are Democrats.  

George Allen (VA) was a governor, so experience as both a governor and Senator could be very useful. Another governor to watch would be Owens of Colorado, but he might not want to run (people tried to persuade him to run for Senate last year to replace retiring Senator Ben Campbell, and he declined).

It's true that governors usually win the Presidency more often than Senators, but in 2008 the Dem nominee will almost certainly be Senator Hillary Clinton. So, possibly in 2008, running a Senator against a Senator would not put the GOP at a disadvantage.

should have been on the Court because he is one of the foremost originalist legal scholars of his generation.  I don't believe that jurists should be selected for their charming personalities or skills at politicking, especially when such qualities are supposed to be deployed against the sort of farcical, paranoid nonsense used to sink his nomination.

On this issue, but most aren't.

McCain will never get past South Carolina.  Never.

If he runs, he'll run without conservative backing.  Should he win without conservatives, his tenure in office will be miserable.  

As for a candidate from New England, don't even bother to come South.  We Southerners view New England as a "Whole Other Country.  A "socialist" country, at that, and we'll have none of it.

Allen's views on abortion more nearly reflect those of the Southerner. He may, however, have some 'splainin to do.  

As a native South Carolnian, and a 40 (plus) year resident of North Carolina, I see no prospective candidate, at this point,  stirring the blood of Southerners... at all.

Now, if Zell Miller.......

"Longstreet"

Because one TV appearance sums up a person.

I think this "nt" stands for "no thoughts."

otherwise Nixon.

Good guy. I'd vote for him. But he has 2 percent name ID across the country, if that. Same with Mark Sanford.

Newt has made some surprising comments recently about a potential '08 bid. He is an across-the-board fiscal and social conservative with the record to prove it. And he can articulate an inspiring vision better than any other Republican.  

 

The guy had zero charisma. Bob Dole the early years. As for some thoughts, I think Miers is going to get confirmed inspite of a bunch of spineless R's in the Senate, like Brownback, and I think you guys trying to Bork her are going to marginalized and "Rightly" so.

guaranteed by intellect or expertise, both of which Bork possesses in spades. A reality that Bush understands and some of you don't.

(1) he overtly mocked Roe v Wade as bad law, and was willing and able to defend his point of view.

(2) the Reagan administration had no idea that the Dems and the press would go full-court screaming banshee, and was not prepared to defend him against outrageous lies.

And with all due respect, TBone, that is one low-class, crappy thing to say about the only nominee in our lifetimes, or possibly ever, that can run circles around Roberts with his Constitutional and intellectual 'acumen'.  There has never been a nominee who was more suited or deserving of confirmation to SCOTUS.

Owens was seperated from his wife in the '04 election, so he didn't have a shot. They are back together now, but I'm not sure he is up for running for President or any other office. The media have certainly been playing him up here since he was first elected governor, but that kind of became a joke when his wife left. Even though she's back now, no one knows why the split, but there have been all sorts of rumors.

Even if people forgave him now that he was back together with his wife, he has a very steep hill to climb to be President. He wins kudos for his staunch opposition to abortion, but he has signed gun laws even in a very gun-friendly state, and has supported spending and tax increases, including referendum C & D this election. I wouldn't put him in with the pork lovers of Washington, but he'll have some explaining to do. On top of all that, Bill Frist has more gravitas and leadership capabilities than Owens. If no pro-life person runs (even Allen would have to be out of this) then sure, Owens could be President, but short of that scenario, I don't see it happening.

With a capital B.

Yeah he's pretty smart, but there were a lot of reasons why he was kicked out of the speakership. None of them are arguments for making him President.  He's got zero appeal to the moderates who decide elections and while folks may reminisce about the good old days when he was Speaker, he made lots of enemies who will be more than happy to remind us of all his foibles.

He is a good thinker, a bad 'do-er' and he was a horrid executive.

McCain did quite well in 2000 against Bush (53 to 41) and this time around McCain will have the backing of the Sanford and Graham machines (minus the hard core conservatives who hate McCain).

So I'm not sure sure McCain couldnt get past South Carolina.

Brownback would be a good person to follow in the Bush footsteps.  Solid on social issues but they take priority over fiscal ones.  He's not taken any leadership on any major fiscal issue and he's definitely not taken on Republican leadership on them.

Heck even McCain votes against leadership on fiscal issues like the Transportation Pork Bill.

Brownback voted for the "bridge to nowhere."  I'd expect that on an ad if he runs for President in the primary and general election (heck for any Senator who voted for it).

He's the ultimate insider, Senatorial, Bob Dole-esque choice.  I think his stock will rise and fall and I'd put a pretty penny on the fact that he won't be President.

unfortunately

is confirmability. All the others come from the lists of the elites.

Are GOV Sanford, GOV Pawlenty, and several others who stomp almost any Senator on the issue (except McCain and Coburn).

......the baggage issue gets cancelled out to some extent.

There is no one in the GOP who better articulates what conservatives stand for.

You heard from him recently? He's not the same old Newt who left the speakership in 1998. His comments about Katrina relief efforts, national defense, social security, and health care are spot on.

is the ideal candidate from a political perspective: Catholic, Hispanic family, popular GOV of the biggest swing state, known conservative on key issues like vouchers, right to life, and fiscal conservatism.

But he's not running.  And he means it.

GOV Pawlenty, GOV Sanford, GOV Barbour, and GOV Perry are all serious contenders although Sanford will pass if McCain runs.

with Justice Ginsburg, I trust?

Can you cite/link to some areas or votes where Brownback fought and voting against leadership on fiscal issues.  That would definitely help him in my eyes.  Otherwise, he's another Senator with all the baggage of playing the insider game.

I expect primary ads about his vote for "the bridge to nowhere" instead of the "bridge to NOLA."

Please pass on any info on the Senator's fiscal record.

because there really is no doubt that Ginsberg is qualified.

However, she doesn't meet a standard of conservative thinking that Rebublicans can get giddy about.

Conservatives who oppose Miers under the argument of 'qualification' need to just come right out and say that they reject her because of concern over her judicial philosophy (or lack, thereof) and indeterminable conservative bent.

one of the few politicians from both party that I truly respect.  I am willing to go to the mat for him, and I think he'll be right for the country.

when Bush announced the Miers nomination, it was Brownback the first Senator I contacted asking him to display a sense of leadership in the matter (I bowed not to contact my own senators unless it is to curse both of them....Schumer and Clinton...yeah, it's that bad).

I am hoping the Miers nomination becomes his platform to the national spotlight....one more thing, I think it was human events had him ranked #5 among all the Senators.

And in what city has Rudy not been welcomed?  At what fund raiser has he not

been cheered? Republicans in the deepest south have fawned over him at local

events.  Who were they trying to fool if they didn't feel that way?  

And the Presidential landscape is littered with failed runs by Senators.  Too

much talk, too little do.

I think people are severely underestimating McCain's chances.  If Bush's poll numbers are under 50 during the 08 race people will be looking to move away from the admin.  McCain is in the sweet spot there.  Also the fact that fiscal issues are moving to the forefront helps him since his record their appeals to conservatives and moderates (and Dems for that matter).  In a lot of ways, he's the anti-Bush Republican.  If that's what people are looking for he will do well.

He also already has a national following (although many are Is, not Rs) and a national fundraising racket.

Finally, he'll skip IA again because he's against the ethanol pork that is required to win there.  He fits NH better than any other candidate.  And with Graham and Sanford in his corner in SC, he has a much better chance than last time when he got 43% (assuming your numbers are right).

That's a pretty strong spot to be in and it's not like the media is going to try to stop him or anything.

I'd put McCain's odds at 3-1 and Brownbacks at 15-1 right now.

was qualified but not conservative; Miers may be neither. They're two separate issues. I don't intend to take up a cudgel about her qualifications or lack thereof here; others have been doing that elsewhere with more skill than I could bring to the table.

My point was that under Tbone's solipsistic criterion, it doesn't really matter which party's president is doing the appointing, since Ginsburg is indistinguishable from Scalia under his rubric.

what solipsistic means, but, per the Constitution, Miers is qualified.

Though, perhaps not by a Conservative standard.

I think that's what he meant.

This is not about the type of person I want on the court, it is about whether a person can get on the court. I'ld take 9 Borks in a heartbeat. Immaterial. He couldn't get confirmed. Instead we get Ginsburgs. There are only two requirements for serving on the Court. 1. Get nominated by a President and, 2. Get confirmed by the Senate.

The nomination of Harriet Miers seriously damaged Bush's credibility with his base. Come 2006 and 2008, we wont be the ones marginalized, it will be the establishment RINO's like Frist and the rest of the GOP Congressional leadership.

First, Bush isn't running for re-election.

Second, he's no RINO.

Frankly, the Miers' nomination, IMHO, has solidified the conservative base enough to push even harder for unequivocal conservative candidates in 06 and 08.

I just pointed out his proven lack of confirmability.  You can't blame the other team for giving you a whipping. That's their job.

"and a White House too arrogant and convinced of their own rightness to see social and legal conservatives as more than an irritating nuisance or a useless demographic group - and you end up with this."

With statements like this, who is really the one who is arrogant?

Sorry to tell you. Think or yourself more like the molding around the edge of the base. There, but not supportive.

Actually, abiding by the "theory  that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states," according to Webster's New World.

I think the point is that you Bush Bots are living in a parallel universe, where the only thoughts you are able to digest are those generated within your own little cloister.

and "Bush Bots" will get you ejected the next time it is used.

one less magnanamous as myself would jab you back with that stick.

I was being facetious.

Look that up.

Your tinfoil hat must have deflected reception of the true point.

Bush Bot, indeed.

He is not perfect on the issues, but it is probably who I would support based on what he accomplished with NYC... not a trivial matter. I don't think he would get 5 years into the job without vetoing a single bill.

...why I would never consider voting for him in a Republican primary. The preaching background is yet another debit in my column, and helps to explain the zealotry of his anti-obesity crusade. It's not too difficult for me to envision a President Huckabee-cringe-signing into law McCain-Feingold II, which abolishes the 1st Amendment altogether. Considering the lackluster judicial nominees of Bush it's also not very hard to imagine a court ratifying it.

No way!

I already know the definition of facetious. I also know how to spell the word "magnanimous" correctly.

And your point that Miers is an acceptable nominee, simply because she barely meets the minimum threshold for holding the office, doesn't impress me.

Firstly, I wasn't referring to Bush but since you went there, I'll follow. Spending has increased more under Bush than under Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, or Carter. Bush hasnt had the backbone to veto even ONE pork laden-spending bill. He has accomplished exactly NONE of his second term goals, specifically real tax reform and real social security reform. After making a brilliant Supreme Court choice in John Roberts, he folllows it with a moronic choice in Harriet Miers. The base is not united on this, many of them are in fact pissed off that he cowered away from a fight.

Under Frist's leadership, the Republican agenda has gone nowhere, he apparently is too scared to stand up to Harry Reid. He is a pathetic excuse for a Republican, he is less than half the man of Tom Coburn, a Republican if there ever was one.

do you equate being a preacher with 'zealotry of [an] anti-obesity crusade'?

...plain and simple. I don't want someone in the Oval Office who feels the compulsion to sign legislation "for our own good." That was one of the motivations for Gov. Riley's support of massive tax hikes in Alabama, which he managed to cloak in the veneer of religion. The last thing we need in this country is bigger, more intrusive government coming in under the guise of the bible belt.

You weren't refering to Bush?

The nomination of Harriet Miers seriously damaged Bush's credibility with his base.

You sure about that?

As far as Miers being a 'moronic choice', well, that's your opinion.

I agree with you about the future marginalization of senate RINOs, though, I would say it is speculation.  Please re-read my comment.  

If you care to back up your other statements with anything other than conjecture, I'm all ears.

I dont believe I ever said anything about Bush running for re-election in 2008, and I do believe that I directed my attack at the CONGRESSIONAL leadership, although Bush bears some responsibility for abandoning basic Republican principles.

Try LBJ.

Yup, Lyndon Baines Bush.

I voted for him in three consecutive elections-so it's not as if I'm completely averse to embracing his agenda-but the number of purported conservatives who are willing to abandon their principles simply in order to defend his indefensible record-especially with regard to domestic policy-never ceases to amaze me.

You're absolutely correct.

is the Bible a guise, or of the need to portray itself other than what it is?

Give me a break.

Perhaps you should re-read what the president's job is.  Unless, that is, you are aware of pending legislation to make obesity illegal or to deprive American's of their sugary treats.  

And if that's the case, I can't help you.

Thanks for the laugh.

I'm just illustrating his glaring weak spots. I'm not implying that he'll use the White House as a bully pulpit to harangue America's youngsters into a stricter diet regimen. My point is that his inclinations are all in the wrong direction. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is another big government "conservative" occupying the Oval Office, a la Bush.

I didn't mean to imply that Commerce Clause arguments were used in the lower courts - but the reason they weren't is because they're frankly not valid. My point was that the Nebraska statute at issue in Stenberg stood on much firmer footing because it was a state statute, whereas you'd be hard pressed to find a good argument justifying the federal one.

Given Kennedy's growth in office, it probably won't take much of an argument to get him to change his mind about this, too.

you sought to make your point by insulting the Bible and men of the cloth.

By the bye, methinks obesity statistics in America is something to be concerned about, though probably agree with you that personal responsibility is to blame, not lack of legislation.

Now I KNOW you're smoking something.

That sound you heard was every Texas Republican laughing.

The base does not like McCain at all. He has almost no support in the grassroots of the GOP, which is where you need it to win primaries. If Republicans weren't allowed to vote in their own primary he would be a shoe in, though.

I was denigrating the misuse of religious semiotics and symbology in order to further what I view as fundamentally unprincipled political goals. It's precisely the same reason I detest Jim Wallis, Shelby Spong, the Berrigan brothers, and other members of the religious left, who continually try to oppress their fellow Americans under the rubric of "faith."

Whenever I see a Republican attempt to marginalize free enterprise, or impose statist solutions upon the rest of us, that's when my bs detector goes off. Senator Coburn is as deeply religious as any public official you'll find, and yet he has never attempted to renounce his fiscal conservatism-or his commitment to the free market-because it would play well among a particularly leftist branch of Protestantism.

finally, we agree.

Though, I'm not as sure as you are that there is a significant leftist branch of Protestantism, so I'll take your word for it.

The main point of disagreement I have with you (and others) is the over-attribution of power you give to the President.

But by all means, we should, and must, hold our senators accountable.

-Cheers

concerning senators running for executive positions.

As regards Rudy, however, he is really, really good in the role of adored hero.  But when it comes down to an actual campaign he doesn't show as well.  Even during the last campaign, when he went to bat for the President claiming that the fault in not finding WMDs lay  with the troops you began to see "real Rudy" come out.  It isn't pretty.

When he gets "McCained" in South Carolina for shacking up with a couple of gay guys after he informed his wife  in a televised news conference that he was leaving her, his reaction, while likely forceful, will not be one that will endear him to the public.

What kind of a president would he make?  I really don't know.  But as a campaigner?  Feh.

If I were convinced that Bush made this nomination out of desperation-a justification used by some-or simply because he had a weak hand to play-due to the betrayal of the Gang of 14-then perhaps I would be more forgiving. However, when President Bush wants to stand up for principle he can, as was demonstrated by his threat to veto an appropriations bill that contained soft on terror provisions added at the behest of the U.S. Senate. This nomination was a conscious decision on the part of the president, which makes it all the more galling.

There is definitely alot of arrogance to go around the Bush loyalists and their conservative critics. Is it arrogant to be angry at an administration because they didn't consult your guys in making a nomination? Perhaps it is. However that does not relieve the Bush administration for making what many conservatives believe to be a stupid selection. Conservative doubters have EVERY right to raise questions about Miers qualifications to serve on the bench. They have every right to not just trust a president's word, especially when he hasn't been acting like much of a conservative. It is important not to villify doubters of this selection, because there are many serious questions that remained unanswered about this nominee, and no one should expect people to put blind faith in the Presidents pick.

and practical to others.

But something we conservatives can all agree on:  the best choice would have been a Reagan incarnate.

Then again, what's to say Miers isn't?

Were you stupid to vote for Bush or were you a flaming fool of drool and voted for Kerry?

Obviously I did not vote for Kerry, and of course I voted for Bush. However while I did infact vote for Bush, that vote is not a pledge of blind loyalty. If he does something that I feel betrays the principles on which he was elected, I will say so. Just because I am not an absolute Bush loyalist does not mean that I don't support his overall vision for America, infact it might be that I support it more than he does, seeing as how we have seen nothing on his two biggest second-term goals, those being real tax reform and real social security reform.

but when you voted for him you did give him irrevocable authority to make SCOTUS nominees on your behalf.

The Reagan administration and GOP's in the Senate failed to set the record straight on the lies that the Dems (+ Specter) were foisting on the public.  Easily dismissable lies.  And not meaning to be overly offendable, but your words and your tone absolutely sounded like you were dissing Bork in general.

You've made your point, such as it is, about the minimum Constitutional requirements.  It's an argument that seeks to downplay 'suitability' in any real-world sense, but not worth my time.  

But let me ask you again, what makes you think Bush has a firm grasp on confirmability?  The Miers nomination, to be charitable, is far from guaranteed.  Let's skip for the sake of brevity all the she will/she won't details.  If she does not implode it will be very, very close.   And by all accounts, Bush and the inner circle were in no way expecting the depth and breadth of the conservative revolt against this pick.  

Just an opinion here.  If confirmability were the highest consideration, he would have gone with Edith Clement or any of the similarly squishy-moderate judges on the top 25 list.  The Republicans would have bitched and moaned, but ultimately held their noses and backed her, probably all 55.  The Dems would also wail, but Clement being an obvious non-Luttig, they would ultimately not filibuster, and would in fact have a few peel-offs.  62-38, guaranteed to pass.  And not by any means satisfactory to true-red conservatives, but at least able, in a judicial sense, to find her bloody arse with both hands and a map.

try an not give them 4 turnovers inside Cowboy territory this time, and see how that works.

but when you voted for him you did give him irrevocable authority to make SCOTUS nominees on your behalf.

And we have the "irrevocable authority" to oppose him on bad choices, or choices we don't agree with.

It's right there in the First Amendment.

Maybe "tautologous" or "self-referential" would have been better. Tbone's argument seems to be that if they're appointed and confirmed, they're qualified; i.e., anyone who gets the job is ex officio qualified for it.

I don't think this is a meaningful position: it's like saying the mechanic at the garage is qualified for the job because he has it. Should the mechanic be the owner's no-account nephew and install your shocks upside-down, I don't think you'd find many people willing to call him "qualified".

Obviously, there's no completely objective standard of qualifications that everyone will agree too, just as you'll never have a complete consensus as to what parts of the federal budget are "pork" or unnecessary spending. That doesn't mean that it's not worth expressing our opinions on these topics (vehemently, if need be) to our elected officials.

Pawlenty signed a 75 cent cig tax increase after being forced into a brief government shutdown by the DFL legislature.

The year before he slashed and burned the state budget by 300 million, and the year before that -his election year- 500 million to balance budgets.

He was essentially the only politician in the entire state to say higher taxes weren't the solution to the budget problems.  Big fan of TABOR, made a big point of it in his state of the state speech last year.

He's anti-gay marriage, and signed the parental notification bill into law.

Very free trade too, I've never heard of a governor who's spent more time overseas for the purpose of expanding Minnesota Businesses in places like China (where he just completed a trip.)  I may be wrong about him doing this more so than other governors, but i just don't hear too much about others going overseas like that.

I'm biased... im a big Pawlenty fan, but I'm trying to stick to the facts here.

I'd say Arnold is the most.

Then yea, I agree with bdwalsh, Pawlenty goes next.

Then it gets tough, theres a big drop after those two.

I'd probably say Romney next, but essentially all of his conservative goals have been blocked by the liberal legislature, so he's almost a do-nothing governor over there.

Then Lingle, but for her its tougher.  She cut spending by 5% her first year: good, then raised spending the next year: bad.  But she seems like she's a good conservative.

Pataki's first term is legendary.  His other two were terrible, but I think he still deserves consideration.

Perry is a nice guy.  Photogenic even, but Presidential?  Might as well send Hillary the keys now.

And I'd argue that the nation can't afford any more President's from Texas.  There's something in the water in that state (no offense to our friends in Texas, well, not much offense...)

Indeed, when I voted for him, I also gave him the power to make a SCOTUS nominee of my behalf. I am not questioning his authority to make a SCOTUS nominee. However, just because he can choose anyone he wants doesn't mean I can't question his judgement in making a particular choice. This is a democracy that we live in, not some fascist regime where we have to pledge undying loyalty to the leader.

is semantic.

Qualifications for SC justices are, and should be, set forth in the Constitution.  And since the only qualification, per the constitution, is 'good behavior', we can say she is qualified.

Acceptability or suitability of a nominee is, and should be, determined by the president, and with advice and consent of the senate.

Miers may indeed be unsuitable by any number of  political, idealogical or practical criteria, however, one cannot use such to judge constitutional qualification.

He isn't on my shortlist.  But he got some great publicity with TX's response to Katrina.  The comparison to LA's incompetence was impossible to miss.

He's an R from a large state that's about to coast to re-election.  That makes him viable.  I don't think it makes him our best candidate.

Name me one other governor that reduced a deficit that was 15% of their state's overall budget by not raising taxes, then I'll quibble with you about whether it was a fee or a tax.  

Not exactly a valid comparison. Nixon was perceived as a former vice president more than he was a senator.

It had been 15 years since he served in the senate when he was elected in '68.

Maybe that will help you understand the concept. You can oppose all you want. However, when you do, you are no longer the base, you are the fringe and are assisting the other side in its goals. Doesn't matter that you are opposing for different reasons, you are still pulling on their end of the rope.

say your piece or state your opposition. March, whine, holler, vote for Hillary. Those are your rights. Stupid is as stupid does. Hope that when you finally get an outcome, it is one you agree with.

come from those wanting a High Noon showdown in the Senate. Well, like Gary Cooper in the church, Bush looked at the Senate Reps. and saw nothing but a bunch of cowards. So, how do you get an anti-roe vote on the Court with only half the Senate cojones required? For his thanks, he get a bunch of anklebiters, second guessers, conlaw elitists and a whole wagonload of Lloyd Bridges yelling over their shoulders that they are his base.

Bush isn't infallible.  Questioning or challenging what he does, nominations he makes, or anything else doesn't put anyone on the fringe or outside of the base of the party.

Every decision that Bush makes is not, inherently or automatically good for the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the nation, or the world.  It has a much higher propensity to be good for all those things, but he is fallible and can make mistakes.  

Suggesting that criticism makes any of us Democrats or liberals, or their allies, is just silly.

The President, and the party, can withstand criticism, it makes us a strong, vibrant party that continues to grow and improve.

If Bush did not want any of the "cowards" in the Senate or the "anklebiters, second guessers...etc." to which you refer to the rest of us, he should not have courted them as Senate candidates or us as voters in last year's election.  Quit trying to have it both ways.

Rudy is to the left of McCain, both on social issues and on economics; remember, this was the guy who backed Mario Cuomo over Pataki.

McCain's more of a maverick, but is actually reasonably conservative on  social issues and foreign policy; it's on economics that his moderate streak really shows.

I not only want it both ways, I want both ways to be my ways.

You're honest, I'll give you that.

You don't have to accommodating, understanding, accepting or even nice. It also really cuts down on the Christmas card list.

I like Brownback but the man could not be elected president.

It just won't happen.

There just aren't enough hardcore social conservatives in the electorate to put Brownback over the top.

Sorry, but it's true.

Brownback should be under consideration for the VP slot though

I don't know much about Pawlenty, but your assertion that neither Huckabee nor Barbour can command grassroots support outside their states shows that you know very little about either one of them.