Don't Ask if You Won't Like the Answer
Via SayUncle comes Roxanne:
It's Time for Moderate Republicans and Moderate Independents to Represent
I know you're out there, reading this blog. Never commenting because you don't want to incur the wrath. I can't say that I blame you.
But, please consider de-lurking today to let some good folks know how the Democratic Party can get your vote. Screeching from both ends of the spectrum discouraged. Let's try to have a serious discussion.
Now, I don't consider myself a moderate of any stripe-reactionary, or maybe counter-revolutionary (more on that coming soon)-but I left my input anyway. Uncle & I think a lot alike, you might notice:
What could they do to get my vote?
Repudiating the socialist legacies of FDR and LBJ would be a good place to start. But that's a pipe dream, since even the GOP won't challenge large chunks of that.
-If you're going to caterwaul about the deficit, how about actually proposing someplace to cut spending? And not the DoD, either. We're fighting a war.
-Get serious about immigration, and controlling the borders. Actually this goes for both parties. Get it through your head that it's not about race, it's about respecting the rule of law.
-No more gun control. None. Actually, proposing to repeal some laws would be great.
-Vocally oppose the Kelo v. New London decision. How about making property rights a 'litmus test' for Supreme Court nominees? Of course, standing up for property rights might cause you some problems with the Green wing...
-Embrace the notion that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers
A Candidate for the Budget Hawks, Perhaps?
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is well connected in national GOP circles, and he's a governor, which, to my mind, makes him a credible candidate. Now there's this tidbit I found, at Human Events Online:
"We had to get control of spending. Spending in our state had gotten out of control. The year I was elected governor, we had a $700 million structural deficit on a $3.6-general fund. We were spending 20% more than we were taking in, and we were covering it by taking money out of savings and diverting from other ways. It took us two years, but we got back to a structurally balanced budget with no tax increases by getting control of spending. So, I think my bona fides holds up."
Now, why can't President Bush do that?
This bothers me
In a news conference yesterday, speaking about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers, President Bush talked about "strict constructionalism" and "deference to the legislative branch."
Does anyone else have a problem with this? "Deference to the legislative branch" means, among other things, deference to things like McCain-Feingold, to head a long, long list of legislative actions that deserve no deference whatsoever.
Excuse me for saying so, Mr. President, but a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States owes judicial deference to nothing except the Constitution. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nichts. Nada. "Deference to the legislative branch" means checks and balances don't check or balance. "Deference to the legislative branch" gave us Social Security, Wickard v. Filburn, farm subsidies, Medicare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Great Society, campaign finance "reform," and Kelo v. New London.
Maybe when Congress defers to, or at least reads, the Constitution, the Supreme Court might have a slight reason to give "deference to the legislative branch." Until then, fuck 'em.