Alito and pandering

  • I knew that the lib­er­als would be might­ily indig­nant over any nom­i­nee to the court that wasn’t lib­eral, but it still seems unbe­liev­ably hyp­o­crit­i­cal to call Bush’s response to con­ser­v­a­tive reac­tion “pan­der­ing to the extreme right.”. Last time I looked, that whole Red State, Blue State thing was still indi­cat­ing to any­one who wasn’t color blind that the coun­try is not all blue. So if the pres­i­dent acts in the accor­dance with that per­cent­age of the peo­ple, why is that pan­der­ing? Wouldn’t it be called “democ­racy?”

    Well, we know the answer really. Using accu­rate words isn’t what’s impor­tant now. Lib­er­als haven’t been able to win what they wanted at the bal­lot box. And they may be los­ing the lock they’ve had in the courts.

    So it turns out that democ­racy is really a pretty scary thing after all.

    Or, as Wall St. Journal’s Best of the Web put it:

    The New York Times actu­ally calls the Alito pick “yet another occa­sion to bemoan lost oppor­tu­ni­ties,” and opines: “Mr. Bush could have sig­naled that he was pre­pared to move on to a more expan­sive pres­i­dency by nom­i­nat­ing a qual­i­fied mod­er­ate who could have gar­nered a nearly unan­i­mous Sen­ate vote rather than another party-line stand­off.” In other words, Bush should have betrayed those who voted for him by appoint­ing a jus­tice who would have pleased those who voted against him.


    Related posts:

    1. More on Miers
    2. And the win­ner of the blame game is …
    3. Bush nom­i­nated … who now?
    4. Cou­ple Mon­day observations
    5. Are hur­ri­canes racist?

    November 1st, 2005 | Grace | 6 Comments |

6 Responses and Counting...

  • Michelle 11.01.2005

    As a lib­eral, I totally agree with you, Grace. I’d not expect any­thing other than a con­ser­v­a­tive appointee from a con­ser­v­a­tive president.

  • Grace

    Hooray for cooler heads! I try to think if I’d be los­ing it under sim­i­lar cir­cum­stances if it were a con­ser­v­a­tive loss. I might. I’ve kind of blown my stack here a cou­ple times. But I hope I work at per­spec­tive, even if I lose sometimes.

  • Michelle

    Well, I’m not happy, but it’s what one should expect, don’t you think?

  • The Par­son

    Grace:

    Spot on, as usual. I’m not sure what the Democ­rats expect. The White House is Repub­li­can; the Sen­ate is Republican-majority; the House is Republican-majority. It fol­lows, I would think, that a Supreme Court nom­i­nee would fall some­where in line with, oh, the Repub­li­cans. There is a great piece today (5 Novem­ber) on Pow­er­Line (www.powerlineblog.com) which says that the Democ­rats don’t want the incon­ve­nience of actu­ally win­ning elec­tions. True. I actu­ally agree with a few things the Democ­rats stand for; this present method, how­ever, is unde­mo­c­ra­tic, to say the least.

  • Grace

    Hey, Par­son!

    I didn’t real­ize you were up and run­ning again. Looks like I’ve got lots of back entires to catch up on.

    Thanks for point­ing me off to Pow­er­line. They are a great asset to the blo­gos­phere, but I don’t always remem­ber to go check them out.

  • Grace

    Michelle,
    There’s a lot to be said for man­ag­ing your expec­ta­tions. I feel like I’m about due for a real­ity check on the fact that in both par­ties you have politi­cians who can’t help but be inter­ested in their own con­tin­u­ance. I blame lib­er­als for tak­ing their agenda to elected offi­cials, but I do the same thing. The demo­c­ra­tic process can seem like the best way to solve these cul­tural things once and for all, but really that rep­re­sents a lazi­ness and a kind of idiocy among Chris­tians. Chris­tian­ity is not about win­ning a pop­u­lar­ity con­test. I hate that I get so fired up some­times that I for­get that.

Leave a Reply

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required