Alito and pandering
November 1st, 2005 ~ Political circusI knew that the liberals would be mightily indignant over any nominee to the court that wasn’t liberal, but it still seems unbelievably hypocritical to call Bush’s response to conservative reaction “pandering to the extreme right.”. Last time I looked, that whole Red State, Blue State thing was still indicating to anyone who wasn’t color blind that the country is not all blue. So if the president acts in the accordance with that percentage of the people, why is that pandering? Wouldn’t it be called “democracy?”
Well, we know the answer really. Using accurate words isn’t what’s important now. Liberals haven’t been able to win what they wanted at the ballot box. And they may be losing the lock they’ve had in the courts.
So it turns out that democracy is really a pretty scary thing after all.
Or, as Wall St. Journal’s Best of the Web put it:
The New York Times actually calls the Alito pick “yet another occasion to bemoan lost opportunities,” and opines: “Mr. Bush could have signaled that he was prepared to move on to a more expansive presidency by nominating a qualified moderate who could have garnered a nearly unanimous Senate vote rather than another party-line standoff.” In other words, Bush should have betrayed those who voted for him by appointing a justice who would have pleased those who voted against him.
Contents available under a
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:57 pm
As a liberal, I totally agree with you, Grace. I’d not expect anything other than a conservative appointee from a conservative president.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Hooray for cooler heads! I try to think if I’d be losing it under similar circumstances if it were a conservative loss. I might. I’ve kind of blown my stack here a couple times. But I hope I work at perspective, even if I lose sometimes.
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:18 pm
Well, I’m not happy, but it’s what one should expect, don’t you think?
November 5th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Grace:
Spot on, as usual. I’m not sure what the Democrats expect. The White House is Republican; the Senate is Republican-majority; the House is Republican-majority. It follows, I would think, that a Supreme Court nominee would fall somewhere in line with, oh, the Republicans. There is a great piece today (5 November) on PowerLine (www.powerlineblog.com) which says that the Democrats don’t want the inconvenience of actually winning elections. True. I actually agree with a few things the Democrats stand for; this present method, however, is undemocratic, to say the least.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Hey, Parson!
I didn’t realize you were up and running again. Looks like I’ve got lots of back entires to catch up on.
Thanks for pointing me off to Powerline. They are a great asset to the blogosphere, but I don’t always remember to go check them out.
November 6th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Michelle,
There’s a lot to be said for managing your expectations. I feel like I’m about due for a reality check on the fact that in both parties you have politicians who can’t help but be interested in their own continuance. I blame liberals for taking their agenda to elected officials, but I do the same thing. The democratic process can seem like the best way to solve these cultural things once and for all, but really that represents a laziness and a kind of idiocy among Christians. Christianity is not about winning a popularity contest. I hate that I get so fired up sometimes that I forget that.