Bush is liberal.

[Gustaf]

I think a lot of Republicans are making the mistake of thinking that the 'center' should be defined as some sort of median or mean point of the American electorate. I don't think it should, it should be made with the idelogical pronciples of the 2 sides as a strating point. This means that Republicans are clearly more extreme since they seem much closer to their ideal society, both in real life and in their rethorics. Dems are further from it, thus less extreme.

[Ben.]

 

All judges in my view should be moderates in the mould of the likes of Earl Warren... Warren Christopher would have been an ace Supreme court judge! the thing is Bush just appoints arch-conservatives to the bench and that upsets the balance... did Clinton actually appoint any real liberals to the bench? I would see Kerry appointing Moderates as even with a dem senate and congress moderate dems would only allow moderates while in the likely scenario of both houses being GOP there’s no way any body except moderates will get appointed... could Breaux be a contender?

Earl Warren was working for the Republican party. Didn't you see the Oliver Stone movie "JFK"? He covered it up when the Republicans had Kennedy assassinated.

I take it your taking the piss... sorry been in the uk too long!... ignore Stone his movies flawed... but entertaining... JFK was a somebody shot by a no body and some people think its shocking that someone so consequential could be shot and killed by some one so inconsequential... sad really... but no Earl Warren was arguably the greatest chief justice in US history... and model that many in the justice system would do well to emulate and of course Attikus Finch or Gregory Peck which ever…

[Gustaf]

All judges in my view should be moderates in the mould of the likes of Earl Warren... Warren Christopher would have been an ace Supreme court judge! the thing is Bush just appoints arch-conservatives to the bench and that upsets the balance... did Clinton actually appoint any real liberals to the bench? I would see Kerry appointing Moderates as even with a dem senate and congress moderate dems would only allow moderates while in the likely scenario of both houses being GOP there’s no way any body except moderates will get appointed... could Breaux be a contender?

Earl Warren was working for the Republican party. Didn't you see the Oliver Stone movie "JFK"? He covered it up when the Republicans had Kennedy assassinated.

I take it your taking the piss... sorry been in the uk too long!... ignore Stone his movies flawed... but entertaining... JFK was a somebody shot by a no body and some people think its shocking that someone so consequential could be shot and killed by some one so inconsequential... sad really... but no Earl Warren was arguably the greatest chief justice in US history... and model that many in the justice system would do well to emulate and of course Attikus Finch or Gregory Peck which ever…

I agree with that sentiment. One of the key reasons for conspiracy theories is the need for meaning behind events that humans have in a secular society. It used to be the punishment of God, now it's a big conspiracy.

[angus]

I think a lot of Republicans are making the mistake of thinking that the 'center' should be defined as some sort of median or mean point of the American electorate. I don't think it should, it should be made with the idelogical pronciples of the 2 sides as a strating point. This means that Republicans are clearly more extreme since they seem much closer to their ideal society, both in real life and in their rethorics. Dems are further from it, thus less extreme.

No.  The center is in your head.  You can put it anywhere you want.  I always do.  And besides, that misses the entire point of the debate.  It is not one of intensity, or magnitude, or placement of a fulcrum along an arbitrary scale.  The debate is about what arbitrary scale to use.  

Bush is a liberal (as is Kerry) by virtue of the fact that they're big spenders.  That's all.  This isn't complicated.

[angus]

I'll try again.  You buy a car.  It's expensive, so you buy comprehensive and collision insurance along with the state-mandated 40/20 PIP.  okay.  You wreck the car.  Dammit.  You have a 500 dollar deductible and the car has about 1700 dollars worth of damage.  So you ask for a 2200 dollar estimate from the body shop.  See how that works?  You see where I'm going with this.  You wanted a liberal estimate.  Or maybe  you want to apply sunlotion liberally on your back if you burn easily.  Or maybe you'd like a liberal amount of peanut butter on your bread (Bush likes JIF, by the way).  Conversely, if you're trying to sell your plan to install cable TV and carpeting in the state pen (after all, it's probably boring and lonely in there sometimes) you go to the voters with an underestimate hoping that, once they say yes, you can hit 'em with the real bill later.  Or if you want your wife (or mom or slut-of-the-month or whatever) to buy you something pretty, you give them a conservative estimate of the cost.  

Liberal, in this case meaning free or out-of-control, was implied by the question and by the link.  Any of you bother to look?  Conservative, then, finds it definition by contrast.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Wakie]

htmldon, point by point here's my reply.

Gay Marriage -- Shouldn't the appropriate action of the government be to challenge it in the courts?  If necessary escalating it up to the Supreme Court?  And then, and only then, pushing for a Constituitional Amendment if it is defeated in the Supreme Court.

Affirmative Action, Abstinence Only, Stem Cell Research -- He takes up firm conservative positions on these.  You say some feel he isn't "conservative enough" but realistically no matter what the issue there will always be someone who says everyone who isn't as extreme as them is no good.

Death Penalty -- What "mental patients" are you claiming Clinton had executed?  If I remember correctly the only federal executions during the 90's were the Oklahoma City bombers.  Bush, on the other hand, executed a mentally retarded man in Texas.

Faith Based Charities -- While I personally am ok with the funding of these, I know that some people are uneasy with it.  But, to contradict what you said, there are several non-religious high profile charities ... March of Dimes, Ronald McDonald House, The United Way, etc.

Bush's Judges -- Well, personally I dislike the process the Democrats have used to block the nominations.  And I dislike Bush's use of recess appointments.  But sadly these are the games our politicians play.

I can live with the William Pryor appointment.  I disagree with him, but I can live with it.  Pickering, on the other hand, should not be elevated so high.

As a law student in 1959, Pickering wrote an article suggesting a way for Mississippi to strengthen its law against interracial marriage.  Soon after his law school graduation, he formed a three-person law partnership with a man who ran for governor as a "total segregationist."  Later, as a legislator serving in the all-white Mississippi state Senate, he voted against several measures intended to expand electoral opportunities for African- Americans.  He also voted to continue funding for the Sovereignty Commission, a notorious state-funded agency founded to fight desegregation in Mississippi and to spy on civil rights and union activists.

Another Bush nominee, Priscilla Owen shouldn't even be on the bench.  But we can get into her later.

As for your statement that "white southerners need not apply for judgeships" ... that is pure nonsense.  Explain how SC's Dennis Shedd, NC's Allyson Duncan, KY's Michael McConnell, TX's Ed Prado, and AL's William Steele all were confirmed then?

[Gustaf]

I'll try again.  You buy a car.  It's expensive, so you buy comprehensive and collision insurance along with the state-mandated 40/20 PIP.  okay.  You wreck the car.  Dammit.  You have a 500 dollar deductible and the car has about 1700 dollars worth of damage.  So you ask for a 2200 dollar estimate from the body shop.  See how that works?  You see where I'm going with this.  You wanted a liberal estimate.  Or maybe  you want to apply sunlotion liberally on your back if you burn easily.  Or maybe you'd like a liberal amount of peanut butter on your bread (Bush likes JIF, by the way).  Conversely, if you're trying to sell your plan to install cable TV and carpeting in the state pen (after all, it's probably boring and lonely in there sometimes) you go to the voters with an underestimate hoping that, once they say yes, you can hit 'em with the real bill later.  Or if you want your wife (or mom or slut-of-the-month or whatever) to buy you something pretty, you give them a conservative estimate of the cost.  

Liberal, in this case meaning free or out-of-control, was implied by the question and by the link.  Any of you bother to look?  Conservative, then, finds it definition by contrast.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

OK, but that's not really idelogical terms, but fair enough. I was really making another point though...

[angus]

I know.  Just being an asshole.  

[Gustaf]

I know.  Just being an asshole.  

I recognized the pattern.

[A18]

All judges in my view should be moderates in the mould of the likes of Earl Warren...

Warren?! A moderate? WTF?

He's the model of everything wrong with the United States judiciary!

[Beet]

Bush's Judges -- Well, personally I dislike the process the Democrats have used to block the nominations.  And I dislike Bush's use of recess appointments.  But sadly these are the games our politicians play.

I can live with the William Pryor appointment.  I disagree with him, but I can live with it.  Pickering, on the other hand, should not be elevated so high.

As a law student in 1959, Pickering wrote an article suggesting a way for Mississippi to strengthen its law against interracial marriage.  Soon after his law school graduation, he formed a three-person law partnership with a man who ran for governor as a "total segregationist."  Later, as a legislator serving in the all-white Mississippi state Senate, he voted against several measures intended to expand electoral opportunities for African- Americans.  He also voted to continue funding for the Sovereignty Commission, a notorious state-funded agency founded to fight desegregation in Mississippi and to spy on civil rights and union activists.

Another Bush nominee, Priscilla Owen shouldn't even be on the bench.  But we can get into her later.

As for your statement that "white southerners need not apply for judgeships" ... that is pure nonsense.  Explain how SC's Dennis Shedd, NC's Allyson Duncan, KY's Michael McConnell, TX's Ed Prado, and AL's William Steele all were confirmed then?

Why is it that 99.999% of the country, basically anyone who does not work in the Senate, has no clue why these judicial nominees are being blocked? All people know is that 1) they include an oversample of women and minorities and 2) they were chosen by president Bush. This is exactly what the GOP wants the country to know, there hasn't been an argument coming from the other side- and the vote is next week.

The Democrats have screwed up once again. They should have run ads inserting the details of the nominees' past into the public spotlight. That would at least make the nation aware of the issues at hand. Instead, they've allowed the GOP senators to toe the line with absolutely no pressure at all.

[Gabu]

There's a lot more to being liberal or conservative than just spending.  Even if he is 'liberal' to those of us who are truly right-wing, he's a lot better than the alternative.

So, how about that Bush guy, opebo?

[Rob]

Too bad RightWingNut is gone. I agree with him on most things.

[Democratic Hawk]

I wouldn't call Bush a liberal.  Socially he's extremely conservative.  Economically he's irresponsible.  He cuts taxes and raises the budget.  That is just plain irresponsible.

That's about the sum of it

Dave