As part of its $700,000 national anti-Borking campaign, a national conservative group called Progress For America is paying for a new ad hoc coalition called "WA For Judge Roberts.com." Two big-name Washington Republicans have lent their names to the Web storefront organization backing President George W. Bush's U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts: former Senator Slade Gorton, and Attorney General Rob McKenna.
The coalition has been formed to ensure that Judge John G. Roberts receives genuine consideration for the Supreme Court Associate Justice vacancy, not baseless attacks. President Bush has nominated a man who is experienced, ethical, and eminently qualified. Judge Roberts deserves an “Up or Down” vote. The American people deserve a Judiciary that is able to function at full strength. A fair and timely vote on the Supreme Court nomination is the Coalition's goal.
The WA group's Web page (3rd link above) links to Progress For America's Judge Roberts.com, where you can: donate to help pay for TV ads and more; contact federal legislators; sign a petition; and recruit friends.
Glad to see W took my advice and chose a moderate.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at August 10, 2005 10:58 AM | Email ThisI'm now on the petition and made my donation. I encourage others to do the same.
Posted by: Coop on August 10, 2005 11:43 AMIn running for President, Bush promised to the American people that if they elected him he would appoint "strict Constructionists" such as Thomas and Scalia. Apperently, those were merely words spoken to acheive power, not a sacred trust entered into with the American people.
Bush is the candidate of the Republican establishment who achieved power by soliciting support from the right after McCain kicked his butt in New Hampshire. The establishment has calculated that if abortion remains legal, pro-choice Democratic-leaning women will abort at a much greater rate than pro-life Republican-leaning women resulting in a more Republican leaning electorate in eighteen years, while if abortion is criminalized, the demographic gain would be neutralized and the pro-abortion political movement energized. The Republican establishment wants to lose the abortion battle and is perfectly willing to let "stealth pro-life," judicial nominees do their dirty work.
In 1976, Gerald Ford was impressed by the campaign skills of Ronald Reagan and wanted to nominate him as his running-mate. His two closest political advisors convinced him to reject Reagan. They were Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. In 2004, George W Bush selected Dick Cheney as a "conservative" to "balance" the ticket. Dick Cheney's only disagreement with Bush was in his advocating leaving the issue of gay marriage to the Courts. Apperently, pseudo-constructionalist judges aren't the only duplicitity perpetrated by the establishment.
It is interesting to see how conservatives react to the future Court decision, apperently with the support of John Roberts, that will impose homosexual marriage on all fifty states. Will the establishment have the "gay marriage" issue to energize and turn-out conservative voters for the next thirty years as the pro-life issue has energized them for the last thirty years, or will conservative voters realize they are being manipulated and used and punish those who have betrayed them?
The pathetic part is that Roberts is part of some sick deal with the right-wing devil. "Those people" will be appeased by the appointment of Roberts, as part of a "trade" for the appointment of Alberto Gonzales, who will be another O'Conner, at best.
The right has to wake-up and draw the line. It should state unequivocibly, if it does not receive at least one of the two first appointments
they will work to see that the establisment never acheives power again, even if that means a string of Democratic Presidents.
Bob; you sound very biter. You may be partially right, but 'to see that the establisment never acheives power again, even if that means a string of Democratic Presidents'? I prefer a lesser evil.
Would you really walk precincts, donate money, or make phone calls for a candidate you considered "a lesser evil?"
Posted by: Bob on August 11, 2005 12:19 AMNo, I wouldn't go that far, but in order to not let the 'greater evil' win I would VOTE for the 'lesser evil'.
As they say in my old country 'better simple bird in your hand than a dove on the roof'.
I agree with you that 'the establishment' (whichever party you pick)is corrupted. What can we do to change that? How can an everage Joe win against milionares like John Kerry?
Posted by: EW on August 11, 2005 11:50 AM
The real question is "how can conservatives prevail against 'moderates' in the primary?" Once the 'moderates" realize they cannot win the primary, it they, not I, who must ask "Who is the lesser evil?"
Posted by: Bob on August 11, 2005 10:21 PM