It’s interesting, as this Washington Post article points out, that George Bush’s judicial appointments as governor of Texas brought the state’s conservative Supreme Court closer to the center.
“George Bush’s judicial appointments as governor — before he made his pact with the far right — were generally pro-business conservatives who tended to be moderate on some of the social issues,” said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, which opposes a strongly conservative appointment. “The problem as we see it today is that he later made irrevocable promises to the right to get elected that he would give them the courts.”
When Bush catered to the far right in the Terri Schiavo case, it backfired with the general public. Now the question on everyone’s mind is: Will he keep his pact with the far right this time?
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
17 Comments
Ralph Neas thinks anyone to the right of Ralph Nader is “far right.” Have some fun one day and do a Nexis search on how many times members of the media like Ms. Cooley refer to members of the “far left.” George W Bush is a mainstream conservative demonstrated by his two elections to the presidency. He will nominate a conservative for the court, which is his right and what a majority of the nation voted for. Yet Ralph and Melissa will still refer to the “far right” and never to the “far left.”
I rest my case, no further questions.
Some quick examples gleaned from the Washington Post file on Nexis:
left wing (and variants) in titles and lead paragraphs since 1/1/1996 368
right wing, same place and time etc. 848
far right since 1/1/1996 over 1,000; too many to count
far left since 1/1/1996 670
far right since 1/1/00 402
far left since 1/1/00 169
Republican within 5 words of (hard line! or far right or radical right or right wing!) after 1/1/1996 355
Democrat/ic (same as above) 116
I still dont see how it was the “far right” who Bush was “catering” too with the whole Terri Schiavo case.
I guess this is just another example of how you have to wade through about 4 sentences of garbage in something from the WE editorial staff to finally get to whatever point it is they are trying to make…
Pro-life = Far right. See how easy it is?
Liberal = Treason. Whew !That was easy.
Do a Nexis search and back up your half-baked point with some facts.
Pro-life = Majority
Moonbat Liberal = Looser
Wow! walking into this blog was like walking into an old episode of the Twilight Zone. Nathan, if not the far right, who do you think the pres was playing to? How many times in, oh, say the last hundred years has a sitting president involved himself in a thing like the Terri Shiavo case? I heard a huge sucking sound, and it wasn’t BUsh sucking up to the center, not according to the polls anyway.And Bisoni…If I disagree with your opinions, I’m a trator? Get out of here!
“Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no intelligent life here.”
Dagett,
I dont think the President is “playing” to anybody.
I think the President has a set of ideals which happens to be supported by many people in this country and that he acts on them and does what he feels is in our nations best interest.
Perhaps you liberals are so used to a President (Clinton) that does nothing more than the polls are saying with no real convictions or principles that you dont understand what to do when we have a president that does act on principles.
Nathan, I think the whole Shiavo mess was a mis-step on the part of the President. It was blown out of proportion by the Fundie hard right wing of the GOP, and Bush jumped on the bandwagon. If that’s not it, why did he pick the Shiavo case? Why not any of hundreds of other cases in this country? Considering the law in Texas (signed by Bush, I think) allows you to be unplugged if you can’t afford medical care, I think it’s a little 2-faced of Bush to get involved in Shiavo.And Nathan, get a grip. Clinton isn’t president anymore. You conservatives need to stop wetting yourselves every time his name is mentioned. I know Clinton was a terrible president. Peace, prosperity, jobs, a booming economy, and a budget surplus were BAD for the country.War and huge deficits are so much better.
My dear Dagett, learn how to read the blog, before you start calling people out. I didn’t post that if you were a liberal you were some sort of traitor, Jimmy did. It’s OK though, I’m used to libs like you getting their facts all wrong :-)
Deepest apoligy Bisoni, My bad.
I dont think Bush just picked the Shaivo case.
It seemed to land there all on its own due to the circumstances.
You do know what circumstances and context are?
This case just happened to be in the spotlight.
“It seemed to land there all on its own due to the circumstances”?Yeah, right.I know what “circumstances and context” are.Do you know what “Kowtowing and Pandering” is? Seems a little strange that Bush would get so worked up over this particular case when people in his home state of Texas can be unplugged for non-payment. Sure didn’t seem to ruffle his feathers when he was the Gov of Texas. The usual Republican “selective outrage”.
Well, inserting himself into the Schiavo case was consistent with w’s whole “culture of life”, just like 152 executions while w was governor of texas.
We’re still debating the Schiavo case? I was under the impression that the autopsy pretty much determined there was nobody home there!As far as Bush inserting himself, he saw an issue he thought he could capitalize on. He’s a politician! That’s what they do! Unfortunately, he took the public’s temperature rectally, through Randall and Falwell, etc., and his reading was way off!Too bad! I hope he remembers that.
Bush is emphatically not a Christian, nor is he a true Conservative! Bush is a statist hack whose mantra is “what’s good for Israel and Wall Street is good for America”!
Bush is no different from Clinton in that they are the mortal enemies of working and middle class White, Christian Americans!
Pat Buchanan is a real Christian and a real Conservative, Bush is not!