Bush, The Liberal (That Liberals Love to Hate)
Bush, The Liberal (That Liberals Love to Hate)
I don’t know why Liberals hate this guy – or why so many “conservatives” love him. The guy is President George W. Bush.
President Bush is NO conservative, as more and more (Conservative) commentators have been willing to point out of late. Nonetheless, Sean Hannity can be heard shilling for Bush daily for all he is worth, as though Bush is some sort of Conservative “messiah”, or something.
Bush does something REALLY Liberal almost every day. One of his latest moves is to “drop a hint” that – in order to pay due deference to “diversity” (a truly “liberal” term, if there ever was one), he will choose either woman or a minority for his next Supreme Court pick. (Hat tip: Drudge.)
I still remember cringing decades ago, when – in a similar “liberal” moment – Ronald Reagan declared (ceding a freebie to his enemies for no good reason), “I will nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.”
History shows that I was wise to cringe: Ms. O’Connor – although she has a new high school named after her here in San Antonio – has left a pretty dismal track record as a Supreme Court jurist.
Well, now BUSH (apparently under his wife’s influence) feels he must play the “diversity card” in the way he exercises his next Supreme Court choice.
It sickens me. First, I am chauvinist enough to admit that I would prefer a mediochre man to a good woman to the Court – because I don’t think women are well-suited to the role of a jurist. (My proof? O’Connor and Ginsburg.)
Most of all, before God, Bush’s obligation is to pick the man (yes, a male) who is BEST suited to the job in terms of having a truly gut-deep commitment to interpreting the Constitution the way Justice Scalia does: as a true “originalist”, meaning attempting to interpret law along the lines laid out by the Constitution – both as written AND as intended by the framers.
Well, Bush, for all the “Christian” talk that has surrounded his Presidency, seems so remarkably insouciant of any Divine mandate, and so very “seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeensitive” (emph. Michael Savage’s) to the “diversity” concerns of the Left that he has publicly indicated that he intends to let the diversity “tail” wag the Consitutionalist “dog” in his decision process prior to naming the next justice to the SCOTUS.
Why is it again that Liberals hate this guy? He is truly one of THEIR OWN!
It was we on the right who were snookered by Bush and the Republican machinery. (But that is nothing new!)
I don’t know why Liberals hate this guy – or why so many “conservatives” love him. The guy is President George W. Bush.
President Bush is NO conservative, as more and more (Conservative) commentators have been willing to point out of late. Nonetheless, Sean Hannity can be heard shilling for Bush daily for all he is worth, as though Bush is some sort of Conservative “messiah”, or something.
Bush does something REALLY Liberal almost every day. One of his latest moves is to “drop a hint” that – in order to pay due deference to “diversity” (a truly “liberal” term, if there ever was one), he will choose either woman or a minority for his next Supreme Court pick. (Hat tip: Drudge.)
I still remember cringing decades ago, when – in a similar “liberal” moment – Ronald Reagan declared (ceding a freebie to his enemies for no good reason), “I will nominate a woman to the Supreme Court.”
History shows that I was wise to cringe: Ms. O’Connor – although she has a new high school named after her here in San Antonio – has left a pretty dismal track record as a Supreme Court jurist.
Well, now BUSH (apparently under his wife’s influence) feels he must play the “diversity card” in the way he exercises his next Supreme Court choice.
It sickens me. First, I am chauvinist enough to admit that I would prefer a mediochre man to a good woman to the Court – because I don’t think women are well-suited to the role of a jurist. (My proof? O’Connor and Ginsburg.)
Most of all, before God, Bush’s obligation is to pick the man (yes, a male) who is BEST suited to the job in terms of having a truly gut-deep commitment to interpreting the Constitution the way Justice Scalia does: as a true “originalist”, meaning attempting to interpret law along the lines laid out by the Constitution – both as written AND as intended by the framers.
Well, Bush, for all the “Christian” talk that has surrounded his Presidency, seems so remarkably insouciant of any Divine mandate, and so very “seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeensitive” (emph. Michael Savage’s) to the “diversity” concerns of the Left that he has publicly indicated that he intends to let the diversity “tail” wag the Consitutionalist “dog” in his decision process prior to naming the next justice to the SCOTUS.
Why is it again that Liberals hate this guy? He is truly one of THEIR OWN!
It was we on the right who were snookered by Bush and the Republican machinery. (But that is nothing new!)
posted by GunJam at 5:12 PM
4 Comments:
Yea, I am feeling snookerd. So is some of our military.
Good morning! Well based on my past comments you know I don't feel snookered. I think we got exactly what he told us we would get, but once again most failed to listen. Anybody who honestly looked at his record knew he was overly 'compassionate' on social programs. I will say that he has always been tough on crime (other than illegal immigration)which is where alot of libs hate him and he's anti abortion. Other than that, he's definitely more moderate than conservative as is everyone in his family.
Hi, mil mom! Thank you for the post. I guess we need to keep letting Bush know how we feel! (But is anyone listening?) -- gunjam
Hi, sk! I think you have better-than-average political insight to have seen through Bush as well as you did so early on in the game.
Wow! How RIGHT you are about Bush's failure to enforce illegal immigration.
I am glad that he is pro-life! Hallelujah for that.
You are gracious to call him a moderate. -- gunjam
Post a Comment
<< Home