Conservatives Confront Bush Aides - Anger boils over


PDA






rick_reno
October 6, 2005, 11:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502200_pf.html

The conservative uprising against President Bush escalated yesterday as Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president's envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.

A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin résumé and that her selection -- Bush called her "the best person I could find" -- was a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but "was talking more broadly" about criticism of Miers.

The tenor of the two meetings suggested that Bush has yet to rally his own party behind Miers and underscores that he risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency. While conservatives at times have assailed some Bush policy decisions, rarely have they been so openly distrustful of the president himself.

Leaders of such groups as Paul M. Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation and the Eagle Forum yesterday declared they could not support Miers at this point, while columnist George Will decried the choice as a diversity pick without any evidence that Miers has the expertise and intellectual firepower necessary for the high court.

As the nominee continued to work the halls of the Senate, the White House took comfort from the more measured response of the Senate Republican caucus and remained confident that most if not all of its members ultimately will support her. Yet even some GOP senators continued to voice skepticism of Miers, including Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who pronounced himself "not comfortable."

"Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is 'no,' " Lott said on MSNBC's "Hardball," contradicting Bush's assertion. "There are a lot more people -- men, women and minorities -- that are more qualified, in my opinion, by their experience than she is. Now, that doesn't mean she's not qualified, but you have to weigh that. And then you have to also look at what has been her level of decisiveness and competence, and I don't have enough information on that yet."

The persistent criticism has put the White House on the defensive ever since Bush announced Monday his decision to nominate Miers to succeed the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. While Miers has a long career as a commercial lawyer, Texas political figure and personal attorney to Bush before joining him at the White House, she has never been a judge or dealt extensively with the sorts of constitutional issues that occupy the Supreme Court.

Bush tried to defuse the smoldering conservative revolt with a Rose Garden news conference Tuesday, and the White House followed up yesterday by dispatching Gillespie, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and presidential aide Tim Goeglein to meetings that regularly bring together the city's most influential fiscal, religious and business conservatives.

"The message of the meetings was the president consulted with 80 United States senators but didn't consult with the people who elected him," said Manuel A. Miranda, a former nominations counsel for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who attended both private meetings.

Weyrich, who hosted one of the meetings, said afterward that he had rarely seen the level of passion at one of his weekly sessions. "This kind of emotional thing will not happen" often, Weyrich said. But he feared the White House advisers did not really grasp the seriousness of the conservative grievance. "I don't know if they got the message. I didn't sense that they really understand where people were coming from."

Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and host of the other meeting, declined to comment on the discussion because of its presumption of confidentiality but said there is widespread concern given the experience with the nomination of Justice David H. Souter, who proved more liberal once on the bench. "There's a great deal of frustration because of the Souter experience," Norquist said. "The problem is there's no fixing, there's no allaying those fears. For the president to say 'Trust me,' it's what he needs to say and has to say, but it doesn't calm the waters."

In interviews afterward, Gillespie and Mehlman acknowledged they faced skeptical questions but assured their usual allies that Miers would earn their respect. "People have questions," said Gillespie, who bore the brunt of the criticism at the Norquist meeting. "If you don't know Harriet and don't know her background, it's understandable that people have questions."

While much of the consternation was voiced by social conservatives, the White House has trumpeted the support of such prominent figures as James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, and the National Right to Life Committee. And in the end, White House advisers emphasized, only the Senate gets a vote. "This is about getting senators, both Republicans and Democrats, to support her," said one administration ally working on the confirmation effort. "There's no real concern about Republican senators now."

The main complaints cited at the Norquist and Weyrich sessions yesterday, according to several accounts, centered on Miers's lack of track record and the charge of cronyism. "It was very tough and people were very unhappy," said one person who attended. Another said much of the anger resulted from the fact that "everyone prepared to go to the mat" to support a strong, controversial nominee and Miers was a letdown. As a result, a third attendee observed, Gillespie and Mehlman came in for rough treatment: "They got pummeled. I've never seen anything like it."

The 90-minute Norquist session, where Gillespie appeared before 100 activists, was the more fiery encounter, according to participants. Among those speaking out was Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, founded by Phyllis Schlafly. Although she declined to give a full account later because of the meeting ground rules, Echard said in an interview that her group could not for now support Miers: "We feel this is a disappointment in President Bush. If it's going to be a woman, we expected an equal heavyweight to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal stance, and we did not get that in Miss Miers."

Another conservative captured the mood, according to a witness, by scorning Miers. "She's the president's nominee," he said. "She's not ours."

At Weyrich's two-hour luncheon featuring Mehlman and Goeglein addressing 85 activists, the host opened the discussion by rejecting Bush's call to trust him. "I told Mehlman that I had had five 'trust-mes' in my long history here . . . and I said, 'I'm sorry, but the president saying he knows her heart is insufficient," Weyrich said, referring to Republican court appointments that resulted in disappointment for conservatives.

In a later interview, Mehlman said he retorted that Bush's decade-long friendship with Miers set this nomination apart: "What's different about this trust-me moment as opposed to the other ones is this president's knowledge of this nominee."

Staff writer Thomas B. Edsall contributed to this report

If you enjoyed reading about "Conservatives Confront Bush Aides - Anger boils over" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RealGun
October 6, 2005, 11:53 PM
I have yet to read or hear a good reason why Harriet Miers shouldn't serve on the Court. The argument about qualifications is kind of comical, because those with such hotshot resumes have collectively made the wrong decisions. I am not remotely qualified in the normal sense nor are most critics of the Court's decisions, yet we all know where the problems lie and what needs to be fixed. Harriet Miers is obviously a competent attorney. Getting up to speed on Constitutional law is not rocket science if stare decisis is not approached as a sacred house of cards. That's a bit like having to work hard to be consistent with a trail of lies. Objectively viewing the case before the Court with a copy of the Constitution in front of you can't be that tough.

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 12:04 AM
This is about a lot more than Miers. It's been fermenting for a while, and for reasons familiar to many of us on this board. A lot of people just said, "Basta!"

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 7, 2005, 12:13 AM
Huh...

Maybe there's hope yet. Would it be possible for the conservative base to sink this nomination?

Standing Wolf
October 7, 2005, 12:14 AM
A lot of people just said, "Basta!"

Yep, although some of us said it quite awhile ago.

RealGun
October 7, 2005, 12:18 AM
Basta! No comprende.

You are being just as indirect as the riled up conservatives. I don't hear many being straightforward about what is really on their minds. I could guess but would dare them to say so.

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 12:19 AM
That's right, about the same time we said "More Chianti!" :D

CAnnoneer
October 7, 2005, 12:20 AM
At least, it is becoming more and more clear to everyone whom the Bushahidin really serve...

Nehemiah Scudder
October 7, 2005, 12:20 AM
I'm totally shocked that conservatives are angry.




:D

davec
October 7, 2005, 12:26 AM
Because we all know what happens when a Bush says "trust me" and appoints a person no-one has ever heard of and with no significant legal track record...

Remarks Announcing the Nomination of David H. Souter To Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and a Question-and-Answer Session With Reporters
July 23, 1990

The President. My oath to the Constitution charges me to faithfully execute the Office of President and, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Few duties are more important in discharging that obligation than my responsibility, under article II, section 2 of our Constitution, to select from among all possible choices one nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The task of narrowing the selection to one highly qualified jurist, committed to the rule of law and faithful to the Constitution, could never be easy; but I have found it enormously satisfying. My choice will serve the Court and the Constitution well.

I am most pleased to announce that I will nominate as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court a remarkable judge of keen intellect and the highest ability, one whose scholarly commitment to the law and whose wealth of experience mark him of first rank: Judge David Souter of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Judge Souter, I believe with all my heart, will prove a most worthy member of the Court. His tenure as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire, as Attorney General of that State, and more recently as a Federal appeals judge unquestionably demonstrates his ability, his integrity, and his dedication to public service. And he has a keen appreciation of the proper judicial role rooted in fundamental belief in separation of powers and the democratic principles underlying our great system of government.

Let me pay tribute, too, to the Justice whose retirement from the Court created the vacancy: Justice William Brennan. His powerful intellect, his winning personality and, importantly, his commitment to civil discourse on emotional issues that, at times, tempt uncivil voices have made him one of the greatest figures of our age. No one can question his dedication to the Nation and the energy that he has brought to his high office. His retirement is marked by the dignity and honor that characterized his 34 years of service on the bench. And I told him the other day when I talked to him of the respect that Mrs. Bush and I have for him, for his wonderful service. In choosing to nominate Judge Souter -- who, like Justice Brennan, is largely a product of the State court system -- I have looked for the same dedication to public service and strength of intellect exemplified by Justice Brennan.

My selection process was not geared simply to any legal issue. It is not appropriate in choosing a Supreme Court Justice to use any litmus test. And I want a Justice who will ably and fairly interpret the law across the range of issues the Court faces. Our country serves as a model for the world at a time of special significance, and I stress within the White House and to the Attorney General that our process could not be dominated by politics or special interests. And I believe that we've set a good example of selecting a fair arbiter of the law.

Judge Souter will bring to the Court a wealth of judicial experience on the Supreme Court of his State, and before that as a State trial court judge. Prior to his appointment to the State bench, he was Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire. Judge Souter is a graduate of the Harvard Law School, Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard College. He was also a Rhodes scholar.

My respect for his outstanding record led me earlier this year to nominate him to his present position on the court of appeals. The Senate unanimously confirmed him to that position because of his exceptional qualities and his experience. His opinions reflect a keen intellect as well as wise balance between the theoretical and practical aspects of the law. Judge Souter, committed to interpreting, not making the law -- he recognizes the proper role of judges in upholding the democratic choices of the people through their elected representatives with constitutional constraints.

Judge Brennan's retirement took effect last Friday. The Court is now reduced to eight members. It is important to restore the bench to full strength by the first Monday in October, when the Court begins its 1990 term. I look forward to presenting Judge Souter's nomination to the Senate as quickly as possible, and I look forward, as well, to a fair and expeditious confirmation process.

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90072302.html

longeyes
October 7, 2005, 12:29 AM
Non capisci?

Conservatives have figured out that Bush isn't a conservative, he's a globalist-corporatist who bounces between commercialism and compassion. He never saw a spending bill he didn't like. He sat back and let McCain-Feingold shred the First Amendment. His vision of America is, well, Mexamerica, with himself or one of his clan as Moctezuma Redux. His war strategy looks befogged, compromised by unfathomable inhibitions. As for the High Court, the bases are loaded, he's thrown a fat one down the middle of the plate--and he bunts.

That's why.

Desertdog
October 7, 2005, 12:36 AM
I'm totally shocked that conservatives are angry.
Don't be shocked. Look at the SCOTUS and see how many activist judges were appointed by Republicans that had no good conservative paper trail on their judicial philosophy. Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner and others. They were palmed off as conservative judges and look at what they have done to this country.

Hawkmoon
October 7, 2005, 12:36 AM
Actually, what we really need is someone who isn't an attorney but who can read the Constitution and decide cases based on what the Constitution says.

Might not hurt if that person also read the Federalist Papers as well.

Nehemiah Scudder
October 7, 2005, 12:40 AM
Don't be shocked. Look at the SCOTUS and see how many activist judges were appointed by Republicans that had no good conservative paper trail on their judicial philosophy. Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner and others. They were palmed off as conservative judges and look at what they have done to this country.

Actually, that was a joke. I'm not a conservative. However, to really respond seriously. I think that the job has a lot of pressure that forces justices to move to the center. To be honest, I'm content to have moderates on the bench.

Desertdog
October 7, 2005, 12:52 AM
I think that the job has a lot of pressure that forces justices to move to the center.
That is why they have lifetime appointments, so nobody can put pressure on them.

If a moderate rules by the constitution, fine. If a conservative doesn't rule by the constitution, time for him to go.

Kurush
October 7, 2005, 12:56 AM
Because we all know what happens when a Bush says "trust me" and appoints a person no-one has ever heard of and with no significant legal track record...Bush is a much better judge of character than his father though, I mean remember how W looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw that he was a man of faith who embraced freedom? :rolleyes:

I trust Bush on this just like I trust him that Saddam Hussein "is addicted to weapons of mass destruction", that the Iraqi people would shower us with flowers, that the war would cost only 1 billion dollars, that "Brownie is doing a heck of a job"... I'd go on but it's making me ill :barf:

FireBreather01
October 7, 2005, 01:29 AM
The crux of the problem is that Bush was elected, in large part, because of his promise to appoint Supremes in the mold of "Scalia & Thomas". I didn't vote for him so that I could wait 10 years to decide if his picks were good. Meiers MAY be a very pro-constitution justice but I KNOW that Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, or Pricilla Owen are very conservative judges that are ardent supporters of the constitution and do not legislate from the bench.

Add to that that the liberals are just on the verge of imploding and a strong nominee may have provoked a fight that would have pushed them over the edge and you have conservatives that are, IMO, justifiably upset. It would have been fun to watch fat, old, liberal, misogynist Teddy K trying to explain how Janice Rogers Brown isn't fit to serve on the SC.

The republicans control every branch of government and Bush was elected to represent the conservatives that put him in office. That power is to be used to forcefully represent the views of those that put you in power. That is why this is a slap in the face. The conservative movement has waited 25 years for this moment - to return the Supreme Court to it's intended role of upholding, not interpreting, the constitution, and now many feel that a giant opportunity has been p*ssed away.

Republicans acquiesced when Clinton nominated a left-wing nut, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because he was the president, faithfully elected by the voters - albeit with a plurality. In this case, Bush was elected with a majority, has control of the Senate, the support of the people, the dems can't do a thing about it, and he blinked.

rick_reno
October 7, 2005, 02:37 AM
Realgun,

I'm sure she is qualified to serve on the court. But is she really the "best" ychoice? Not even you can possibly believe that crap.

davec
October 7, 2005, 05:31 AM
In this case, Bush [has] the support of the people

Well, 37% of them...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml

Kurush
October 7, 2005, 05:52 AM
and he blinked.He didn't blink, he just doesn't care. Bush values his desire to appoint people personally loyal to him so far above anything else that he didn't give a second thought to picking a former lottery commissioner over the field of qualified candidates. He was completely taken off guard by all the criticism because he either can't comprehend or finds boring the long term effects of his choice of nominee.

RealGun
October 7, 2005, 08:36 AM
But is she really the "best" choice?

The best choice to do what? What are the criteria? There is a desired result here that folks seem to want to guarantee but they are not being forthcoming in articulating exactly what their objections to Miers are. Conservatives who are upset are not forthcoming about what their beef is. "Betrayed" in what respect?

She is likely to have personal sentiments against the idea of abortion. Not what I would want, but "conservatives" may be better off than they think. Any nominee who would guarantee their voting position on abortion is not what I would call one of "judicial temperament".

She is likely to be state oriented on questions about interstate commerce.

She is not one-of-them, a child of the federal court system, inclined to be protective of how they operate, decide cases, and defend prior rulings. If I wanted an agent for change, it wouldn't be someone from the Court of Appeals with lots of issues to make coonfirmation a circus. It wouldn't be someone who had a hard time being confirmed previously unless there was a commitment to make the Senate rule change (nuclear option). Either dribble or slam dunk. The problem is, the slam dunk is not good for "harmony". Shying from that was probably a bad call. This probably won't be over until we see another nominee and the nuclear option.

Let's also look at why "the best" of nominees don't get votes from obstructionist Democrats (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, et al). Anyone nominated by Bush must be bad. No chance of a smooth confirmation. The best is never good enough.

Many seem to have decided that there are rigid criteria for SCOTUS justices, but show me where it says that.

Walt Rauch
October 7, 2005, 08:57 AM
What everyone is missing is that Ms. Miers has practical experience; something sorely lacking in the other judges. She will be the little peasant boy who points out the emperor has no clothes.

In other words, rather than joining in and being part of the debate of the perceived nuances of words she is well equipped, based on real courtroom applications as well as back room negotiations regarding the law, to explain real world consequences of their sophistry.

BigG
October 7, 2005, 11:33 AM
I think Lion in Winter has a good point. I also wonder how somebody who posts here can say why did they pick Miers when there are a whole list of qualified candidates to choose from and then name 3 women/minorities. Are those qualifications to you?

The constitution just says they are to be of good behavior. All the other criteria are what people have read into those simple words. [shakes head] :rolleyes:

GunGoBoom
October 7, 2005, 11:42 AM
Well said, Longeyes! You are quite the wordsmith.

seeker_two
October 7, 2005, 12:13 PM
...White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism."

Now THAT'S the response I'd expect from a liberal administration. Too bad Bush didn't nominate Judge Brown. Gillespie could have called conservatives "racist", too... :banghead:


...and the President who signed Campaign Finance Reform, Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefits, The Patriot Act, every liberal spending bill that reached his desk, and promised to sign a new Assault Weapons Ban wants us to trust him to find a CONSERVATIVE for SCOTUS?.... :scrutiny:


Bush just put a shotgun to the head of the Republican's election chances in 2006 & 2008 and pulled the trigger...

...and his next three years will consist of keeping the seat warm for President Hillary's arrival. :cuss:

Dave Markowitz
October 7, 2005, 12:40 PM
Now THAT'S the response I'd expect from a liberal administration.

We have a liberal administration.

Let's see, under W, we've had a major power grab by the Federal gov. after 9/11, heretofore unseen levels of Federal spending, and increased Federal meddling in state affairs like education.

Anybody who believes Bush is a conservative has his eyes closed.

woerm
October 7, 2005, 01:07 PM
Janice Rogers Brown,

Kozinski (9th circuit dissent to Silveira)

Priscella(?) Owens

that's my short list sex and race begone I just want the best of the best

ie people who interpret the constution not make up stuff as they go.

r

RealGun
October 7, 2005, 01:21 PM
...White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism."

Now THAT'S the response I'd expect from a liberal administration. Too bad Bush didn't nominate Judge Brown. Gillespie could have called conservatives "racist", too...

Never mind that Gillespie may be dead accurate.


...and the President who signed Campaign Finance Reform, Medicaid Prescription Drug Benefits, The Patriot Act, every liberal spending bill that reached his desk, and promised to sign a new Assault Weapons Ban wants us to trust him to find a CONSERVATIVE for SCOTUS?....

Libertarians don't participate in real government, so why should he care? If a Congress with a GOP majority sends him a bill, don't be surprised if he signs it.

Bush just put a shotgun to the head of the Republican's election chances in 2006 & 2008 and pulled the trigger...

No he didn't. If in effect he did, the Republicans deserve to lose, standing for the wrong issues and not moderate enough to sustain dominance of the government.

...and his next three years will consist of keeping the seat warm for President Hillary's arrival.

Especially with your help and lack of support.

Dan from MI
October 7, 2005, 01:25 PM
I have a wait and see attitude on Miers. I've seen good (carries a gun) and bad (likes that jackass Warren "fraud" Burger) so far.

I'll wait till the hearings before I make a judgement.

Justin
October 7, 2005, 01:39 PM
What everyone is missing is that Ms. Miers has practical experience; something sorely lacking in the other judges. She will be the little peasant boy who points out the emperor has no clothes.

Really? Like what? Has she started a business? Worked as a consultant for a high-tech firm? Held a crappy Joe Job working on a factory line or as a night auditor at a motel? Changed the oil in her car? Actually used Google, Napster, email, or an instant message chat program? Does she even know what blog, forum, and p2p mean? Run a TIG welder? Ridden horses? Recite the conservation of momentum principle? Have at least a layman's understanding of The Scientific Method? Purchased a firearm at Ye Locale Gonne Shoppe? Watched a recent movie, or God forbid, the nightly news?

One of the things that continually causes me to look askance at the Supreme Court, and judges in general, is that they seem to have a serious disconnect from reality because their perception of it seems to be 100% through the lens of legal texts and precedents, without the life experience to perceive the places where the law as written on paper bears zero resemblance to reality.

bountyhunter
October 7, 2005, 01:44 PM
I have yet to read or hear a good reason why Harriet Miers shouldn't serve on the Court.

And that's the problem.... not being able to find a paper trail proving she is not qualified is NOT a qualification......

How about a standard that a sane man would find logical: where is any reason she WOULD be a good justice?

I think Letterman said it best: Donald Trump has higher selection standards on the "Intern" show than the GOP senate has for supreme court justices.... :eek:

AirForceShooter
October 7, 2005, 01:47 PM
Agrees with HawkMoon big time

AFS

BigG
October 7, 2005, 01:56 PM
One of the things that continually causes me to look askance at the Supreme Court, and judges in general, is that they seem to have a serious disconnect from reality because their perception of it seems to be 100% through the lens of legal texts and precedents, without the life experience to perceive the places where the law as written on paper bears zero resemblance to reality.

Your point, Justin, with a few minor changes could also apply to legislators.

RealGun
October 7, 2005, 02:05 PM
I checked the biographies on the Supreme Court website and found Clarence Thomas to be the closest match to the legal background of Harriet Miers.

Thomas had been a judge for barely a year before taking a seat on the SCOTUS.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Thomas has become the touted model of what is expected from a Supreme Court Justice.

Souter had been a state judge for several years but was a US District Judge for only about 6 weeks when nominated to SCOTUS.

All the rest are legal all stars, but remember that they are notorious for collectively doing the wrong thing.

Gannet
October 7, 2005, 02:10 PM
Conservatives have figured out that Bush isn't a conservative, he's a globalist-corporatist who bounces between commercialism and compassion. He never saw a spending bill he didn't like. He sat back and let McCain-Feingold shred the First Amendment. His vision of America is, well, Mexamerica, with himself or one of his clan as Moctezuma Redux. His war strategy looks befogged, compromised by unfathomable inhibitions. As for the High Court, the bases are loaded, he's thrown a fat one down the middle of the plate--and he bunts.
+1

Basta!

Waitone
October 7, 2005, 02:17 PM
Evidently Thomas is the one justice that goes out of his way staying exposed to the Great Fed Up. Seems he loads up the RV and does the tourist thingy during summer recess.

kentucky_smith
October 7, 2005, 09:50 PM
We have a liberal administration.

Let's see, under W, we've had a major power grab by the Federal gov. after 9/11, heretofore unseen levels of Federal spending, and increased Federal meddling in state affairs like education.

Anybody who believes Bush is a conservative has his eyes closed.


What's the old Vulcan saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" :p

bjbarron
October 7, 2005, 10:43 PM
Bush just put a shotgun to the head of the Republican's election chances in 2006 & 2008 and pulled the trigger...
...and his next three years will consist of keeping the seat warm for President Hillary's arrival.

Maybe, maybe not. The Dims still have to come up with some ideas that appeal to more people than moveon.org. That ain't happenin' soon.

We on this forum like to have gentlemanly (and gentlewomanly) arguments on the relative worths of various political screeds.

The great majority of Americans are not that involved, but still know what they want. I doubt they would run en mass to any Dim just because Bush wasn't as pure a conservative as they wanted...if they even wanted one.

A recent report (by Dims) says they are still losing demographically and need to come up with some real programs instead of always dumping on Bush. Bush dump does not a program make.

Personally I have been very disappointed with some (not all) of what this President has done, but I don't have to vote for him again...none of us do. The real question is...

Who's next?

You know, we might look back on this and see Bush as the (barely conservative) link between a half century of Democratic rule, and a half century of Conservative. From these pages to God's ear.

If you enjoyed reading about "Conservatives Confront Bush Aides - Anger boils over" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!