Bush the Conservative?

First of all, we don't really know how she'll decide cases. The word is that she's a moderate, but that doesn't necessarily translate into her decisions. Justice Souter was allegedly a conservative in his personal life, but rarely sides with the right on big cases. I think it's too early to make any sweeping judgments about her.

Secondly, I'm surprised that people are shocked that Bush is not as conservative as they thought. Just because he opposes taxes, that makes him a conservative? Not hardly. A lot of moderate Democrats oppose taxes as well. Remember when conservatives thought Bush 41 would be just like Reagan? Didn't happen. Bush has used the conservative base to get elected and to apply pressure on legislators when he needs to. Why do you think Bush doesn't say jack about a Federal Marriage Amendment anymore? He already got the millions of evangelicals that didn't vote in 2000 to vote for him in 2004.

Perhaps conservative Senators will have more luck discovering her views than Democrats had with Roberts. If they don't like her, they can vote no.

I didn't really mean that they would grill her. Obviously she's going to pretty much fly right through. I'm just amazed that conservatives are so surprised. Bush picks a close friend. Film at 11. What else is new?

Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General under Bush 41 and had been nominated to the Court of Appeals by Bush. He may not have been a close friend, but he was an insider with ties to the Bush family.

Perhaps a deal to get Roberts throught as Chief Justice without a filibuster? Interesting how nearly all of the Democrats who voted for Roberts were part of the leadership, but the rank-and-file largely opposed him.....

I have no idea why Reid voted against Roberts. I'm sure he has his own other-worldly reasons.

I must admit that this pick surprises me to no end. Bush's strategy is usually to go with the most divisive decision possible, get Democrats all riled-up and shouting blue murder, and then use the GOP majority to make them look like crazed, out-of-touch loons (which they're not, obviously). Bush just loves to stir stuff up and watch it brew. Why he didn't do it this time is beyond me.

My guess would have been that he'd have picked Janice Rogers Brown (a woman and a minority), and then superficially used any objection to her as a cry of racism and sexism. Speaking of which, I find it quite odd that when Democrats used to do this, they were decried by Republicans, and it was nearly suggested that racism and sexism were quaint notions of the past. Now, Republicans seem to use it as their go-to measure, all the while chiding others for "playing the race card." Can't have it both ways.

(btw, Janice Rogers Brown would have been an awful choice.)

The GOP doesn't really think the Dems are racist, but bringing up the issue is a nice way to quiet them down.

"Most divisive decision possible" - like the Education bill, like the prescription drug giveaway, like the caving to the farmers and steel companies - oh how I wish he would come down on a conservative principle no matter how divisive!

Heck, he even sought the middle ground on embryonic stem cells, and gave Congress one last chance to approve the military action in Iraq.

"The GOP doesn't really think the Dems are racist, but bringing up the issue is a nice way to quiet them down."

So, you think it's false and, perhaps, wrong to play the race card, but you're all for setting morals aside when it comes to playing dirty in politics?

Interesting to know...

I am not all for it, Matt, but I do think that is what is happening. It is dirty, and I wish the GOP would be above it.

So lets turn it around, do you really think the GOP is racist?

I think this decision just underscores the dramatic difference between conservatives and Republicans. When are conservatives going to waks up and realize that for Bush & Co., it's all about making money for the old boy network, and nothing else? Rove riled up the Christian right and true conservatives with fearmongering over stock issues like gay marriage and abortion, taxation and immigration. But after the election, it's "Mission Accomplished." So long, and thanks for all the pork.

Matt,

If the Democrats have used the race card over and over, ad nauseam, then it would have been perfectly acceptable to use it against them. Like it or not politics is a dirty game.

IP, you said you would only continue supporting Bush because of "successes" in the "War on Terror, including in Iraq." Are you kidding?

First of all, Bush has not captured Osama bin Laden (remember him?) in four years since 9/11. In fact, he let him get away in Tora Bora because he was afraid of losing ground forces to ferret him out. Moreover, the government's pathetic response to the hurricane gives the lie to the idea that Bush has made this nation any more able to respond to disasters, terrorist or otherwise.

You apparently have also bought the absurd claim that "we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home." That is a flagrant distortion of what actually happened there. Our invasion and bungled occupation created a terrorist haven where none existed before. And, as you recall, the whole affair was touched off by make-believe WMD supposedly possessed by someone who had no hand in 9/11. After some 2,000 soldiers have already died for a lie, those remaining fight on so that Islamic Shari'a law can be enshrined in the new Iraqi constitution.

If you call these successes, I'd hate to see failure.

IP asked, "Do you know anyone fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan?"

My boyfriend is shipping out for his second deployment to Iraq with the Marines in February.

Regarding the War on Terror, terrorists have swarmed to Iraq because that's where the fighting is. We're not creating new terrorists, just fighting ones from surrounding countries that don't want the war to come to them. It's funny how most of the terrorists are not Iraqi but Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Iranian, and Yemeni.

As for bin Laden, you're right. One man isn't worth the lives of hundreds of elite soldiers. Instead we've marginalized him. How many of our buildings has he successfully flown airplanes into since 9/11? How many military ships has he blown holes into? It would be great to capture and execute him for his crimes, but preventing him from carrying out more attacks is an acceptable consolation prize.

We're not responsible for internal security measures in London or Madrid.

Also, bin Laden is not the only member of al Qaeda. Nor is he the only strategist. He is a figurehead and an inspirational (religious possibly) figure to many terrorists, but I have yet to hear that bin Laden planned those attacks. al Qaeda doesn't operate like a country with one person giving the go-ahead on attacks.

He joined up for a term of 5 years shortly after high school in 2002, before the war on Iraq, because he felt called to duty by 9/11 and because he comes from a corner of creation where it's expected of young men to enlist after high school. He has not re-enlisted but continues to the discharge the duty to which he committed himself. I understand your dismay at the notion of dissent among the few and the proud, and you're probable unease upon hearing of a gay man choosing to serve a country which spurns him, but I assure you, there are plenty of each.

IP seems so incredulous at the idea of a gay marine questioning the war even while fighting it.

It's probably too late for a response to this, but I would be interested in the conservative response to the failures in luring the Sunnis into the consitutional process. Do you folks think the looting and general lawlessness after the completion of the invasion had something to do with this? For example, if we had maintained strict martial law in Baghdad, and given the Sunnis some real power right from the start, is it possible Iraq would be a more stable place right now? If not, what could we have done to better engage the Sunnis?

There's also the issue of Falluja, and the way our actions there turned the local Iraqis against us. Any regrets there?

Since 9/11 there have been thousands of terrorist attacks in the world, including the major incidents in London, Madrid, Bali, Bali, Casablanca, etc. It is now believed that Bin Laden does not even have control of the terrorist network, that incidents like the London bombing (indie) will become the norm. The chance of controlling the enemy gets further and further away every day.

There are unquestionably more terrorists in the world today spreading terror attacks throughout the globe. Bin Laden's aim from the start was to draw us out of our "hole" and into the open where he and his legions could attack us. The fact that 2000 of our soldiers are now dead in Iraq shows that his strategy is working. We have played into his hands.

If you want to believe we are winning this war, go right ahead. But if you have an argument about why we are winning this war, I would love to hear it. This is a global War on Terror. If you are "comfortable" with people dying on the tube, then that's your perogative. But it doesn't mean we are winning anything.

Face it. Conservatives got punked when it comes to Bush being the savior who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

At a news conference in Iowa in 2000, he was asked whether he would counsel a friend or relative who had been raped to have an abortion. He answered, "It would be up to her.''

First Lady Laura Bush went even further. When asked on NBC's Today show in 2001 whether she thought Roe should be overturned, she said, "No, I don't think it should be overturned.'' Could she have been any clearer?

The political costs of actually appointing a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade are too great for Rove to sign off on it. The Republicans can't afford to lose pro-life voters who are Democrats on every other issue and they can't afford to lose suburban, moderate pro-choice Republicans either.

I don't agree with Buchanan on much but when it comes to this we see eye to eye.

The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

The political costs of actually appointing a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade are too great for Rove to sign off on it. The Republicans can't afford to lose pro-life voters who are Democrats on every other issue and they can't afford to lose suburban, moderate pro-choice Republicans either.

Exactly. These people are interested in maintaining the populist balance they have worked so hard to create. It's not easy convincing blue collar folk to vote Republican. It took a LOT of lies, and clever campaign commercials. No sense in antagonizing them into remembering they support the right to choose after all.

The problem is that they'll get away with it.

Two more democracies/republics in the Middle East than were there on 9/10/2001.

Barely. Give Iraq another month and we'll see. We're not kicking the crap out of Ramadi right now for no reason. Your people are very nervous about the consitution and I've heard the situation is a hair away from civil war. But I'll give you this one, the goal is a good one, though I'm not convinced that our brand of corporate-owned democracy is what the region needs right now. There is a ton of buy-in that still needs to happen. As long as Bechtel is one of the most powerful companies in Iraq, that buy-in will wait.

Of course the deaths by themselves don't mean we're winning anything. But having stable democracies as the norm in the middle east rather than the exception will do more to curtail terrorism than anything else that's been tried in the last 60 years.

I actually meant the Tube as in the London Underground, but I get your point. I would suggest that another possible answer might be to withdraw completely from the region. There is no evidence to suggest that the terrorists have any interest in attacking us if we are not forcing our will on their nations. Bin Laden was very specific about 9/11 - it was the troops in Saudi Arabia. They're now in Iraq.

When we get to that tipping point in Iraq, we'll have completely “won,” but the Iraqis will have won more.

I think you have too much faith in the "power" of democracy. Either that, or you underestimate the determination of people willing to die for their cause. But I hope you're right. I really do.

I'm quite comfortable with our efforts regarding OBL. And I'm quite comfortable with the Federal response to Katrina.

If you're quite comfortable with the fact that the president chose to gin up an excuse to invade Iraq in lieu of committing sufficient resources to hunt down OBL, and if you're quite comfortable with the fact that the president packed DHS with unqualified cronies in lieu of competent professionals, I feel quite comfortable in suspecting that you've lost all capability for rational thought.

It's not surprising at all that the troops you've spoken to have said that progress is being made. What else are they going to say? Bit-by-bit, man by man, I'm sure each of our troops correctly believes that they are making a positive difference in their own way. Unfortunately, they have a commander in chief so clueless that he once believed assertions that 15,000 troops would be sufficient to lead Ahmad Chalabi through throngs of flower-throwing Iraqis to George W. Bush Square. He persists in believing that the current troop commitment is sufficient to keep Iraq from sliding into civil war. Are our troops making a positive difference? You're damn right they are. Unfortunately they're being hung out to dry by an unqualified chickenhawk of a commander in chief, and an administration that cares far more about the welfare of their political careers and the financial condition of their donors than the welfare of the men who are risking their lives in Iraq on their behalf.

Any soldier in Iraq who isn't committed to the mission has no business being there. It's the duty of a soldier to do what his commander in chief requires. It's the duty of the citizenry to hold that commander in chief accountable. So far, 2,000 of America's finest men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. What has the president, or his cronies, or the beneficiaries of his policies, sacrificed lately?

Do you know anyone fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? Are they are pessimistic as you are?

More so. Every returned veteran I know thinks we shouldn't be there. Most of them were Republicans before they went overseas, and now are planning to vote Democratic until the Republican Party becomes sane. (My take is that the Republican Party hasn't been sane since the 1950s.)

Anon 1:39

Very interesting take. The war for oil was not to get more oil, it was to disrupt the flow so we would not be challenged by China. And it was to give the U.S. military a chance to inovate and show off. From where exactly is this new theory coming? This is 180 degrees out of phase with the initial conspiracy theory that Bush did it to avenge his father and get oil for America.

The theory comes from looking at the situation from the classic geopolitical perspective of how to achieve/maintain world dominance, as well as from the perspective of an energy CEO familiar with peak oil implications to global power.

There had to be little doubt that invading Iraq in the center of the Middle East with three sizeable ethnic groups would either provide us more oil (disrupting contracts with France, Russia, and China) if we got very lucky or rip the country/region/oil supply apart if it didn't work...win/win for US dominance. Saddam's attempted assination on Bush's father, probably just helped motivate his support if there was any doubt. There was also Iraq's shooting of the USS Stark in 1987 that called Reagan's Persian Gulf policy into question.

For the military, it prevented downsizing and potential geopolitical challenges and serves as good training for a new world of decentralized high tech warfare, while conveniently giving terrorists non-civilian targets.

The changes were evident before 9/11, as anti-globalization protests were rising dramatically, threatening the corporate power structure that undergirds government and is going global through the WTO. This movement resembled the populist rebellions of first America, then France, then the 3rd world for independence. The WOT brought a stop to that.

While the anti-globalization movement has died, the emergence of an anti-corporate movement is likely, as their grip on power tightens. The eventual turn will likely come from Republican politicians not wanting to be controlled and reflecting growing popular sentiment, just as it did at the turn of the last century...in a decade or two.

It was a bold move, executed by Bush, and it will probably ensure US dominance for several extra decades, along with our standard of living. His initiative to work with India will also help counterbalance China.

Michael,

If you don't think there's international competition for global dominance, you're wonderfully naive. While corporations are probably doing too well, the bottom line is we're in a long-term race with China and they've got tremendous potential to call the shots around the world to our material detriment.

While you've been distracted with a minor war, tidal shifts in geopolitics and global economics are setting a new direction with new allies and token enemies. Iraq and Afghanastan represent the ongoing challenge of China, now competing for oil to grow. The alternative is direct war and neither side wants that, especially the corporations. Witness our restraint on crossing into China from N. Korea and Vietnam, as well as Nixon in China.

And don't pretend corporations don't also influence dems, because corporations are non-partisan single issue organizations, which is fine as long as there's some checks and balances on their power. This is not a political issue, it's an economic one that will greatly impact our children's future standard of living.

The other major issue is nuclear weapons because just as Colt was an equalizer for people, so are nuclear weapons for nations. The more equals we have, the more competition for dominance, and the more likely someone will get trigger happy. We had two extremely close calls...Cuba blockade and another in 90's when a space launch was almost mistaken for a nuke launch. Do we trust every nation's leaders to act responsibly with the ultimate weapon under stress? How about unstable nations that might fall under a coup or rebellion?

Do you like driving your car, using your computers, and getting consumer goods cheap, or would you rather live like the majority of people in the world? Is it realistic to expect voters to give up the good life willingly?