Tuesday, October 04, 2005

The Camel's back is Broken

It breaks my heart that you Mr. President, are the the straw that did it. I relentlessly crave President Ronald Reagan.

The juicy debate over Miers is in the comments.

Mr. President, you made a vapid, limp wristed appointment to SCOTUS, just when we needed a powerful victory message. We are all supposed to think it was some sort of super-secret, pull-the-wool-over-the-liberal's eyes move. I don't buy it. I paid for red meat. I want a double portion, extra rare. As much as I relish the thrill of mystery and wonderment over Harriet Mier's philosophical and legal credentials, I would have preferred someone not so eagerly endorsed by the Trotsky committee. I oppose the Miers nomination.

Mr. President, you are presiding over a total failure to enforce immigration law and border security. Those are two violations of your constitutional oath of office. Illegal aliens are pouring over the border. You are doing nothing about it. Any number of terrorists could walk across that border with suitcases full of WMD. Your federal government thinks it is better to prosecute American citizens, seize their property, while you treat Vicente Fox to dinner at the White house. I hate that pompous turd Fox almost as much as I hate Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac. Build a thirty foot concrete wall on the entire US perimeter. It is a project far less challenging than the Panama Canal or the Hoover Dam.

Mr. President, you are leaving our bank account open without accountability. You decided 40 billion dollars of debt relief to Africa was a great idea. Social Security payments may be offered to Mexican citizens; What are you doing about it? Unrestrained pork is bursting all over Washington faster than those juicy sausages on my gas grill. You did not bother asking us for our approval. Reagan was a big spender too, but he had direction and purpose. I hope and pray to see something soon. Who needs to worry about identity theft, when taxpayer theft is legal and easy. And when are the Iraqis going to pay that surgery bill for painful, rotten dictator extraction? We will take oil vouchers.

Mr. President, you practically french kissed the Clintons at their library dedication. You showered George Tenet with praise and a juicy pension, instead of having him arrested for gross negligence. Your dedicated hard working base do not like to openly see the kind of Washington back slapping, which exposes the DC political culture for the stupid game we all know it is. Many of us endured union fax bully's, tire slashing vandals, and eco-terrorist psycopaths, skilled in the art of weed killer lawn swastikas, for your re-election, mr. President. The former administration's gross inept failures facilitated the terrorist homicide of three thousand of your fellow citizens.

The well of my patience and RNC donations has run dry. I will not wait for the death of a thousand cuts. My vote will remain Republican, as long as the Democrats remain the greater of the two evils. If I donate anything, it will be toward strict conservatives, and conservative organizations. I am a conservative libertarian first, a Republican second.

The eagle has some hard news for you Mr. President.
Listen to him.

  • The Washington Democrats are never going to like you.
  • The MSM is never going to like you.
  • The academic liberal elites are never going to like you.
  • The European snobs are never going to like you.
We love welfare reform, tax cuts, social security reform, military strength and many of the conservative legal reforms we have seen over the last few years. We love you, but it's a tough love. They are pathetic losers. Stop sucking up to them and start throwing some punches. You are a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt. So am I. TR loved to box. He loved a good fight. He kicked a$$ and so should you! Take the advice of Zell Miller. He would have still kicked Saddam's a$$, then he would have wound up his foot and kicked Chris Matthew's a$$ for added pleasure. Zell would start cutting the heads off snakes with his shovel of justice.

Now that I have reminded myself, stop using the term 'bring them to justice' . It stinks. Use the term 'bring them to Jesus' instead. It will piss off the Atheists. Tell them you are sending out 50 caliber invitations to every unshaved rotten melon draped with a rag.

Do you want to keep your Sustaining Members? Start sustaining your members. We love the tax cuts. I know you guys like money. I might be able to offset those rocketing natural gas prices this winter, by burning RNC donor solicitations.

I feel enraged, disappointed, used and abused. Please RNC, help me get it 'back together' for 2006. Someone, anyone, give me a good compelling reason to withdraw this post.


Tyler D. said...

I love the visuals. I know that I will NEVER vote for him again.

Fitch said...

Someone, anyone, give me a good compelling reason to withdraw this post. No help coming from this direction. I say keep it. Well said.

Steve the Pirate said...

Why do I get the feeling that the man we rallied behind and pushed to victory has betrayed us?

Peakah said...

Nice work,

It's time for a Nationalist Party, one that has the platform that the republo-crats *USED* to have.

The inside the beltway mental illness that seems to affect pretty much everybody who enters that sphere needs to be irradicated. Unfortunately I don't see it ever happening.

I recently wrote a nice little love letter that accompanied a Policy Questionaire the republican party sent me that ran along the same lines as your post.

I told them that pretending or campaigning on a platform isn't nearly as important as advancing your platform after you have achieved the power you asked for and that we gave you. Schmucks...

The Conservative UAW Guy said...

Compelling reason...

Compelling reason...

Compelling reason...

I'm going to have to get back to you on that one.

Great post.
Most Republicans are by far the lesser of two evils, but we need another choice.

a4g said...

We all wanted the fight, Insolublog.

The question is whether the fight would have got us anything beyond the (undeniable) satisfaction. Would it have advanced the conservative agenda? Would it have drawn a stark contrast between the ravings of the left and the 'grown-up' leadership of the Republicans?

Keep in mind that even Instapundit's readership is optimistically .04% of the American people-- while we all say "Harriet who?"-- the vast majority of this nation would say "Janice Rogers who?" just as easily.

It is only important that Miers is a solid vote for the constitution. There is no special magic required beyond that. No "perfect" candidate.

Remember, our knowledge or ignorance of her "judicial philosophy" has no bearing on its objective reality. It exists-- whatever it is-- outside of our comfort or anxiety.

Maybe its because every day I am bombarded by unsolvable arguments from five kids full of righteous anger-- I have a certain tolerance of the President's decision not to declare nuclear war in the Senate.

I'm thinking-- and I sincerely hope the President is too-- not about tommorrow's Drudge headline, but the history books my grandchildren will be reading.

Insolublog said...

tylerd - I don't think anyone can vote for him again. So why is he being so conciliatory?

fitch - I don't like having to do it, but, for now, it stays.

steve - "Trust your feelings luke." - Obi Wan Kenobi

peakah - I wish it could work.

Sadly, TR (apparently a big favorite around here) tried the Bull Moose Party. If it couldn't work for him... well my optimism on the third rail is poor. I said I would do this in the comments of your love letter.

CUG - I say we choose to push the RNC toward stronger conservatism. Use that green cabbage lever. It works well.

a4g -

I understand your position. I really do. I thought long and hard, about this single issue, as well. Do you take the high ground, in the name of civility? Or do you wave the big TR stick?

People are still going to say 'Harriet Who?', after the confirmation. We will all be saying it for years, as we watch her rulings unfold. It just makes me uncomfortable. When the opposition waves around the crony flag, how can I say they are wrong? That is what it looks like. The eagerness of Reid et al. also makes me queasy. It has the stench of a rollover compromise.

You are right; In the long view, it is only important that Miers support the constitution. I hope and pray this is true. We were all convinced O'Connor would be this way. I will not be holding my breath.

'Janice Rogers who?', is a question that would have been shoved down the uninformed public's throat by the Democrat's and the MSM, not us. It would be another petty display of personal destruction. I think fights like these hurt the liberals far more than they hurt conservatives. I would rather see the MSM given a rawhide bone to chew on, instead of my leg. Those people are worse when they have free time on their hands (Cough.. Cindy Sheehan)

a4g said...

Insolublog - While we're being so collegial, I don't know if I properly expressed how much I am tempted toward your position. There is no real reason for any of us to support Miers-- however, I would note that our support is not a Contitutional role. The actors here are the President and the Senate (both of whom in the ORIGINAL version of the contitution were well protected from direct election).

I guess my frustration is with the talk of "betrayal" when the great likelyhood is that this is is a largely a strategic decision-- not a question of giving up on the originalist push on the courts.

I would have gone for the fight-- but I won't abandon ship just because I'm grumbling over the captain's orders (besides, as I posted the other day on Point Five, my Presidency would last about three days with the world in smoking, glowing ruins.)

We would all like the thrill of another TR-- but given the choice between the ACTUAL Bush debit/ credit sheet vs. TR (or even Reagan, for that matter-- I remember those years clearly, and there was just as much frustration and disappointment with Ronaldus Magnus at the time), I'll take Bush's legacy and accomplishments and live with the horrible suffering of holding back the hounds.

Wyatt Earp said...

HOLY CRAP! Insol is back with a vengeance!

Insolublog said...


I do not think we could be anything but collegial, since both of us have a great deal of respect for each other.

Of course no one among us has any direct constitutional role or authority, in the course of this process. We will not directly affect the outcome. If we do have any effect, it will occur through pressure on the Senate. Since the Senate has a constitutional role, I am not sure how it can be argued that our opinions and actions are not part of that process. The founders put the consent authority in the hands of the Senate, knowing who and what they were.

President Bush has his right to nominate. The Senate has its right to accept or reject by vote. A possible filibuster is another issue, which I do not support, since it places Senate institutional procedure over constitutional mandate. Senators are politicians with political pressures. We can apply that pressure without going outside the venue of the constitutional process.

What is the purpose of this strategy we are talking about?

Republican's own the house. They own the White house. Removing the filibuster of Presidential nominees would make the Senate decisive, one way or the other. The fact that the filibuster is a constant looming threat indicates to me that the Republicans own the upper hand; if this were not true, a vote would be forthcoming. So, in effect, we own the Senate too. We do not need a covert strategy for putting in a stealth candidate. President Bush could have nominated a known, solid candidate, defend his choice in the court of public opinion and emerge the winner.

On the note of betrayal, I would not have spoken in terms implying betrayal, if the issue was the singular one we are discussing here. My post is a litany of frustrations. My frustrations are not transmitted homogeneously across the entire Republican political slab. Since I am, or was, a paying contributing participant, operating above my civic duty as a voter, I reserve the right to vent that frustration. Who will be there to ring the alarm, if it is not a member of the family? It is always your best friend who takes you aside for the intervention, before you get fired. I believe the DC crowd is horribly disconnected from the rest of us.

I remember the Reagan years clearly as well. Many of the frustrations piled on him were from an MSM fully armed and unrestrained in their ability to mold public opinion. I always wonder how much of the garbage heaped on the Gipper, was the Dan Rather or Pinch Sulzberger style eye candy, so often discredited these days. I think a great deal of the political fear in Washington is still polluted by unnecessary duck and cover mentality.

Wyatt – I hope I did not piss off too many readers with my vengeance!

a4g said...

Insolublog - I suppose I'm reacting as much through frustration as you are, although from a slightly different angle.

My musings were a bit unfocused-- I suppose I was responding to a dearth of posts on other blogs as much as I was responding to yours. But you get the "honor" because yours was the most compelling.

I didn't mean to imply that it was our job as citizens to STFU while our overlords handed down pronouncements from above-- but rather point out that the selection of justices was originally intended to be quite hands-off from the public, especially when sent before the state-legislature-elected senate of yore. However, the steady politicization of the courts by the left has probably meant that the days when the Supreme Court was a near-afterthought in American politics will never return.

As to your sounding of the alarm-- hell, that's why I'm a regular reader! I think the role of us "kook fringers" (and we are kook fringers whether we would like to believe it or not) is to keep the party honestly anchored to its philosophical moorings.

That having been said, I consider the Miers nomination in a different class from the host of other ills and excesses of the slop-trough Republicans. I could be overly pessimistic, but I think its easy for us to overestimate the tolerance of the average uninterested person for Washington meltdowns. Yes, I think the Dems always come out looking like fools, but does that translate to real-world votes?

Maybe, maybe not-- but now we're talking strategy-- not core principles.

I don't personally care one whit about Bush's BS "approval rating"-- but is that true of the congress, who devote a good portion of their resources to slavishly following the polls?

I wanted JRB or Estrada or Ann Coulter like you can't believe (forget the court-- I had tons of satire ready to go that is totally useless now). But politics is a long series of crushing disappointments that, if you're lucky, ends in success.

I don't know if Harriet Miers is a good thing or not. I do think we've whipped ourselves into a frenzy as if THIS fight has to be the one to forever crush the Dems and drive them into the sea.

But that kind of thinking got us just the opposite of what we wanted with Clinton, and-- I suspect-- George W. thinks the same thing here.

Can't say that I agree with him-- but it doesn't make me respect him any less.

Insolublog said...


Thank you for the clarification on your meaning behind the hands-off appointment process.

I always thought the founding of the modern court, in Marbury vs. Madison, was a good move, assuming that the courts power would remain confined to constitutional interpretation, which we all know is the Scalia/Thomas style conservative position. I also think your observation that politicization has been of cumulative detriment, is right on the money.

As to President Bush's approval ratings, I don't care about that either. As I said, I love the President as a moral leader and a person of character. I may be very angry about all those things I posted, but President Bush would always be invited to my dinner table, while Clinton would not.

My main concern in this area is that President Bush should not care about those ratings either. He should never let second guessing and concerns over legacy cloud his judgment. Some of his peripheral behavior, in the wake of Katrina, international affairs etc. give me cause to be concerned. In his first term, he seemed to do what he thought was right, not popular. He should continue this line of thinking.

Is the Washington meltdown a real problem here? Is there a strong compulsion to reclassify the Miers nomination as a special case? If I adopted the pure pessimistic theory of public intolerance, now would be the best time to cry out Caesar's 'Alea iacta est!', and bring on a defining battle. Bush's polls are already down. We all know the short term public memory is very short in its term. There is really nothing to lose.

We may be 'kook fringers' in the realm of blog statistics, but we have a great deal of unfiled, unrecorded influence in our daily social discourse. I am talking about that 'water cooler' phenomenon. I find the digestion, as well as creation of blog content, makes my regular conversations all the sweeter. How much of that has any effect out there? Who knows? Living on a coast, in moonbat central, restricts my powers of observation to the anecdotal and the empirical.

I don't see this fight as any crowning capstone to the Republican pyramid of Luxor. I see it as one message out of many, to the Democrats, that Republicans were given the trifecta mandate to rule this government. If the Dems don't like it, they should be compelled to step up to the plate with political debate and solutions, instead of burning our constitution in the lobby of the SCOTUS.

I sure would like to make some wine by fermenting all those crushed disappointments. As the increasing politicization of the court was moving along, Clarence Thomas squeaked in at 52 to 48. Clinton gave us Ginsberg and Breyer. He had no fear or scruples in the act of putting his own extremists on the bench. What did my Republican brethren do? They gave them to him for 96-3 and 87-9. THAT was the kind of thinking that got us the opposite of what we wanted.

BTW, Bush can't have Ann Coulter, she's mine. Go ask Gunnut ;)


Tyler D. said...

I forgot to turn sarcasm off. Hold on.

Okay it's off.

a4g said...

Well, Insolublog, you said "Someone, anyone, give me a good compelling reason to withdraw this post."

I took up the mantle with great trepidation, but like all rock-ribbed conservatives, accepted the mission-- though there was little chance of success and I faced almost certain death.

Having made it to Round 3, I'll take my Rocky- style triumph, lose on points, but get to kiss Talia Shire...

Wait a minute-- that sucks!

GunnNutt said...

Gosh darnit! You posted this two days ago? I coulda sworn I checked here just yesterday and now I'm at work and don't have time to absorb all the comments. Will get back...

Great rant!

Insolublog said...

Tyler D.-

"Nothing is more discouraging than unappreciated sarcasm." - Anonymous

I am sorry I did not appreciate yours.


You did triumph in Rocky Style fashion. You got me to re-think the issue and defend my position. I think the debate makes the subject matter more valuable.

My title promises to separate when shaken. Nobody is forced to make their blog a democracy, but we can be benevolent dictators. I have the votes of fitch, steve, peakah, jimmyb (I think), tyler d.(I think). If my regular readers issue their votes, and withdrawal is the winner, I will send this post to the bit bucket.

One thing I failed to mention in the post were my feelings on Commander in Chief Bush. I support the President in all things military. He made the tough decision to bring the war to the enemy. None of the DC liberals have any of that real courage. He also has the compassion and courage to talk to the families of the fallen, which is a job that few of us envy. (Yes, Cindy. He met with you too.)

Gunnnut - Yeah, I slumped a bit. I hope you have fully recovered from the flue.

GunnNutt said...

It figures, I'm always the last one to the dance. I loved the rant, Insol. I loved the debate between you and a4g, and I'm going to throw in with the latter.

I, too, have been miserably disappointed with Bush on steel tarrifs, border control, drug entitlements, etc. I have been overjoyed with his prosecution of the GWOT and tax cuts. I think a weaker leader would have given rise to even more RINOism in the party.

The President has made some very good nominations not just to the various Fed. benches, but within his cabinet (i.e. Condi) and I'm inclined to trust him on Miers.

You can keep Ann. I think a worthy substitute might be Mark Levin. Can you imagine the questions he would put to litigators? HAHAHAHAHA!

Uber said...

I'll give you my vote as well, Insolu. When first read I'll admit that I found the imagery harsh but by the second read I understood this to be necessary and exactly how you meant it. I did voice my agreement days ago, albeit silently by emiling this to the RNC. Hope you don't mind. *g*

Bush will never ever be "popular" among his enemies but his present actions and inactions alike will affect the Republican Party for a considerable time.

When donating time and money, working hard for the RNC in general, so many conservatives will rethink the extent in which they will again work and give long after Bush is gone from the White House after receiving a hotdog instead of the anticipated steak.

Winning elections takes more than simply voting.

Better to keep your supporters supporting than it is to appease your enemies for nothing, I would think.

I'm not sure how this knowledge makes me a fringe kook...but...I do own several pairs of daisy dukes, a shot gun, and two bibles. haha

Insolublog said...

gunnnut - I suppose I can be glad that Bush is not the Republican equivalent of Jimmy Carter. I think that is largely due to the demands of his base, and the scandal fatigue over Bill Clinton. It looks like that fatigue is still with us, with recent events.

I wish Levin was the pick.

uber - I don't mind you e-mailing it. I might have gotten around to it myself. Do we still play footsie with the Dems, hoping that the midterms will not be a Republican disaster, or do what we know is right, while we can.

By playing it soft, we lose to ourselves as we slowly die from our own dose of hemlock. Is Miers part of that brew? I hope not. I know the immigration issue is pure national security. I know the budget issue is pure pork and against our traditional fiscal position. The lack of discipline makes us looks like hypocrites.

Don't give up the bibles, the daisy's or the shotgun. They are Uber's national security!

miriam said...

I think Bush knows this woman through and through and trusts her to uphold her convictions. She is probably a good pick.

That said, I loved your rant. I personally am tired of the Religion of Peace and Racial Profiling crap from this administration.

Insolublog said...

miriam - Thanks for stopping by. As I have said to others, I hope you are right. I am normally an optimistic person. Living in MA has hardened me on political dissapointment. If I am wrong, my relief will be doubled; trust in President Bush and satisfaction with Harriet Miers.

David said...

The short term financial assistance that payday lenders offer, often are one of the fastest and safest ways out of a sticky financial situation if used responsibly. Unfortunately, people of somewhat political importance don’t see it this way, probably because they have never been in a situation that would require a little help from the payday loan industry. These bipartisan efforts to outlaw the entire industry just go to show how detached they are from real Americans. Get educated on the facts today and exercise your right to financial freedom on November 4th.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html

Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/