« Coalition of the Illin' | Main | No, Hugh, It Wasn't Because She Turned in my Papers Late »



"And when it becomes plainly obvious that after a protracted period of time, our principles are simply not going to be advanced - well, then, we have families and jobs and churches and whatnot that would be grateful for the extra time."

That's the problem I have with the Miers nomination.

From the beginning my support for Bush has been based to a large extent on these SCOTUS nominations. It is in the courts that the left is getting their agenda enacted, since they cannot get it done at the polls. You name it, whether it is barring religious displays, abortion, the gay agenda, handing out condoms in schools, you name it - the courts are where the left gets their agenda enacted.

Its high time for all our sake's that the left be forced to make the case for their agenda in the public arena and have it tested at the voting booth.

Even if Miers turns out to be a conservative voice on the court she's 60 years old. This nomination is wasted for that reason alone.

Let's face it, the POTUS has little to no impact on my life. Judges - changing the basic culture of our country through judicial fiat - affect us directly every day. If we aren't going to nominate conservatives to the courts to get some corrections to this course I see no reason for me to bother with politics at all.



An appeal from the Dark Side.

So another Republican President has failed in his implicit commitment to overturn Roe. Is Bush simply being timid? I doubt it. Is he addicted to cronyism? Maybe, but he could have picked a more pro-life crony. A third more devious motive seems more plausible at the moment.

What if this
NYTimes Op-Ed

and Thomas Frank ("What's the matter with Kansas")are actually right? What if the leadership simply wants power for the sake of power, and is not interested in provoking a pro-Roe backlash?

The Democratic party will never overturn Roe, of course. It doesn't mean we can't be on the side of the angels.

While we can't agree on abortion being murder, we have common ground in wanting to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I'm assuming your pro-life views don't extend to outlawing contraception.

I personally have no problem with teaching abstinence, as long as it doesn't exclude safety nets like condoms and the morning-after pill. I'd be for some sort of compulsory counseling, because abortion is, after all, a traumatic experience. Not notification, though. A parent who's daughter gets pregnant is likely not doing a good job of parenting in the first place. Not to mention the possibility of abuse.

What if a Democratic plan could reduce the number of abortions from a million to a hundred thousand? I saw someone post a plan for this on Kos.

And it's not like the other planks of the Republican platform are all that strong either. Smaller governement? Free trade? Few conservative principles are left to be sacrificed to the quest for power.

We Dems are more likely to have learned the lesson of our overspending porky ways. We have some pro-lifers like Casey and Reid. We found common ground on welfare reform and free trade under Clinton. We could focus on domestic programs that help encourage self-sufficiency and break the cycle of dependance. Dems don't like bloated Medicare rolls much more than you do.

Don't take your marbles and go home. Take them and switch teams! C'mon, you've got little left to lose.

The comments to this entry are closed.