George and Laura: Are they stealth democrats?

Photo of author
Written By Jeff Adams

Well, the poop has really been hitting the ol’ wind agitator. GWB went and picked ANOTHER ‘stealth’ candidate for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers. For many conservatives that have doggedly, blindly supported the Republicans, and Bush in particular, this appears to be the straw that has broken the camel’s back. Mind you, this good old boy’s back was broken when Republicans didn’t follow up on their ‘revolution’ of 1994 and instead started acting like establishment Democrats.

I’ve been wondering how long ‘conservatives,’ especially those of the evangelical stripe, would continue to back Bush (mind you, I’m an evangelical conservative myself, I just haven’t sold out to the Republicans, and I take time to use my brain rather than march in lock-step, like a drone, with an establishment political party). After all, this is the guy who’s never seen a spending bill he thought outrageous enough to veto. Outside of cutting taxes, everything that Bush has done while in office would have brought howls from Republicans if these same actions had been taken by Bill Clinton (or, heaven forbid, Al Gore or John Kerry). Right now, the Republicans reek of hypocrisy concerning their ‘conservative’ credentials.

What is most annoying about Bush nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is not that he actually nominated her, but that he is standing by this selection as blindly and doggedly as so many conservatives have ignorantly followed him, thus rebuffing the very people who elected him to office. Bush’s defense of Miers has consisted of two things:

First, he keeps saying she’s a Christian, as if this is all it will take to shut up those in his base that put so much emphasis on their faith influencing their politics. Quite frankly, that’s the defense of a simpleton. It goes hand in hand with his ‘argument’ of ‘trust me.’ George Bush has proven he’s untrustworthy, so only a fool would buy that line.

This is not about Harriet Miers’ religious credentials, although a person of strong Christian faith is best suited to understand the intentions of the Christian men who wrote our Constitution, it is about her take on the Constitution. Is she an ‘originalist;’ a strict constructionist? Besides, if I was to take at face value that Ms. Miers is a Christian, remember the Bible says ‘by their fruits you shall know them’ (Matthew, Chapter 7). Harriet Miers has spent much of her time and treasure supporting liberal democrats and causes not in the conservative column. By Ms. Miers’ fruits, I see she’ll be another liberal, activist judge.

The second aspect of Bush’s defense of his choice to fill the seat being opened by Justice O’Connor retiring is to follow the Democratic handbook on debate: Don’t explain or justify your position, just attack those who question your actions and accuse them of being bigots. Yes, Bush has gone ‘totally Democrat’ on us. Not only is he a big-spending, expansive-government politician, but he’s also a name-calling, dodge-the-facts politician.

Granted, Bush did attempt to list things he believes qualify Ms. Miers for the highest court in the land, but I really don’t think that helping with ‘Meals on Wheels’ is a selling point. If that really had to be added to her list of qualifications, I think we are grasping at straws here. That’s not a selling point, that’s a red flag that Bush is really reaching to find material to promote his candidate.

Now, the other morning I was up early getting ready for the day and had the news on TV. There were George and Laura on the tube, talking to a reporter. When Laura Bush was asked if she thought sexism might be at the root of some conservatives questioning Georgie’s choice for a Supreme Court Justice, she didn’t hesitate to say, ‘Yes.’ Imagine that! George stood quietly by while his wife followed the Democrat’s playbook! What is wrong with these people?

Would it ever cross their minds that so many people are questioning Bush’s choice for sound reasons? Are they so arrogant that it hasn’t struck them to ask why so many of their supporters oppose this choice, and that they might want to revisit the decision to choose Miers? Here are some of the reasons people oppose Harriet Miers: She has no judicial experience (which I don’t necessarily see as a requirement); her legal background is in corporate law, not constitutional law; she has a tarnished reputation due to her ties to the Texas Lottery during a time when the state lottery was in a huge financial mess; her silence, or at least her lack of a record holding any strong position, on almost every big issue over the last 30 years leave a huge question mark (perhaps she’s like her buddy the president and doesn’t bother reading anything, thus never developing deep thoughts on serious matters); and she is seen as a political crony of Bush’s, not a serious deliberator of Constitutional issues.

The attempt by Bush and wife to boil down opposition to their candidate as being simply about the gender of their candidate shows either gross ignorance or blind arrogance. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Conservatives have given a good list of alternative candidates Bush could have picked from, and it included women, white and black. Why did Bush pick a Honda when he could have chosen a Ferrari?

I’ve heard all the talk about how Laura was leaning on her husband pretty hard for him to pick a woman. She’s even been quoted as saying it had to be a woman. Let’s get something straight here. There shouldn’t be any quotas for our courts. To take that route is idiotic and totally contrary to the ideals this country was built on (in other words, it’s the kind of idea we’d expect Democrats to come up with). I suspect that ‘Miss Laura’ had a big hand in choosing who the nominee was this time. She clearly admits she didn’t get who or what she wanted the last time with John Roberts, so Georgie had to follow his wife’s advise this time.

While the objections to Harriet Miers are clearly NOT based on sexism, the fact that Laura Bush agrees with the liberal’s charges of sexism on the part of conservatives tells me she doesn’t like people questioning what is clearly HER choice for the Supreme Court. News flash! Just like Hillary, no one voted for the President’s wife! George Bush made promises concerning Supreme Court selections conservatives actually thought he’d keep.

Now, I would hope our president (any president, not just Bush) has a good relationship with his wife, and therefore the ‘first couple’ naturally would talk about official matters, and the spouse would clearly be able to influence the president to some degree. I have no problem with this. However, this particular pick for the Supreme Court has a strong whiff of a ‘Hillary-style’ factor to it. I admit I made a rather nasty comment when I saw Laura Bush voice the sexism charge on TV. The knee-jerk response I blurted out was, “Good grief! The President is pussy-whipped!” I’m just glad the kids were still asleep and my wife wasn’t in the room when I said it. She may agree with my take on things, but she doesn’t approve of my using such language.

I’m sure Harriet Miers will not disappoint George and Laura if she gets on the bench. But I doubt she will satisfy any true conservative. Based on their actions over the last five years, I think George and Laura Bush are stealth Democrats. Southern Democrats at best, but I doubt they are even that; they are neo-cons.

If you are a conservative and still a supporter of the Republican Party, it’s time to reassess your loyalties. Is your loyalty to a political party, a person, or to your ideals. George, Laura, and the Republican Party as a whole do not have the best interests of conservatives, or the republic, at heart.

 



Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Leave a Comment