Many conservatives are aware of the Supreme Court appointments. In the long run, it may be the only reason that they do vote for McCain. My brother falls into that camp. When I saw him this winter I said, "so, y'know, how's that Bush thing workin' out for you guys?". I had told him two Christmases ago – as I was the lone old-school conservative in a room of 20 family members … the only one against the war. And I told my brother then that Bush would TOTALLY eviscerate the Republican party. He said, "yeah….Maybe".

But my brother still gives credit to Bush for the Supreme Court nominees. My brother and I agreed that that was one of the only two "conservative" things Bush did in his entire presidency – the other being tax cuts that raised revenue and would have more significantly decreased the budget deficit IF the Republicans had not spent more money than any congress in history – or had Bush had the balls to use the veto pen…

…but, y'see, that was Rove's great strategy to keep Bush in office – minimize the Democrat party by being so accommodating to a traditionally Democrat spending agenda that there would be no issues with which to undo Bush. But for the unpopular war, it worked. There were no issues that Bush proved to be to the right of the Dems re: spending. The short-sightedness of this Rove strategy was in the miscalculation that the truly conservative base would take being bitch-slapped where PRINCIPAL is concerned – look the other way, and continue to vote Republican. We won't. I didn't. I didn't vote Republican in any national office in 2004 or 06.

But, back to the Supreme Court nomination…. My memory is not that short. I remember that we (conservatives) had to SHAME Bush out of his first choice (Harriet Miers) – a non- "strict constructionist" – in order to get him to appoint who is quite possibly the most brilliant lawyer to be appointed in decades. It wasn't Bush's idea. And it wasn't Democrats who made him change his mind.

Anyway, the reason that matters is this… If Bush's first choice was an unprincipled political payback appointment – how much MORE LIKELY is McCain's to be similarly leftward? The likelihood of McCain appointing a John Roberts type judge is somewhere between the likelihood of Brittney Spears recovering her sanity, and me winning American Idol. In other words, not bloody.

We are going to lose the Supreme Court. Sad, because I think that signals some really, really bad shit. But I'd lay some serious money on that bet.

In my lifetime I have seen conservatives – really ideologue type conservatives – bandy about the idea of a third party. I've even had several of my mother's politically active friends (did I ever mention that my mother was the Indianapolis chair for the Goldwater '64 campaign?) go third party for a while – they really disliked Bush senior (how soon we forget who first used the term "voodoo economics"). But only now am I really seeing more mainstream conservatives talking seriously about it.

Every time third parties have been tried in recent years (with the obvious exception of Nader) it was with this mistaken notion that America wanted to "quit all this partisan bickering and just get along!". But they always reflected the left's agenda more than the right's – even though the perception was the opposite (Anderson, Perot).

The whole "Non-partisan/bi-partisan" myth is just a fraud. Its appeal is in the one-sided measuring stick that a good politician is one who "gets something done in Washington". "Can't we work together to get something DONE?!" is the mantra.   Every election cycle the candidates are paraded before the media, and what are they asked? "what did you get done?", "What are you hoping to get done?".

Well, hell's bells. Exactly how, in principle, can a conservative answer that? If the right answer is already pre-determined – that growth of government (characterized as "getting things done") is the mark of accomplishment – then how does the conservative hope to come across well when he says (proudly) "I did nothing, and if re-elected, I plan to do more of the same!".

Well, the obvious answer is that he tells the truth – he tell them that he plans to close down government redundancy, work on efficiently running the good programs that are already in place, and work on the "cutting spending" portion of the "raise revenues by cutting taxes and cut spending" equation. That's what worked in '94 and '96.

Oh yeah. Within a decade they proved they didn't mean it. I guess it's back to "What do you plan to DO?" then, idn't it?

The Republicans who were elected as conservatives (but ended up not fulfilling that promise) were incapable of seeing a way to both keep their power AND answer the tough questions about growing government (they lost the whole damn thing on a semantic argument – "Budget cuts" – and they NEVER recovered. Of course there were no "cuts". Not even with inflation taken into consideration. But only a few of them were capable of answering the question "WHY ARE YOU CUTTING THE BUDGET AND STARVING LITTLE CHILDREN?" They HONESTLY couldn't figure out a way to say "Asked and answered. There are no CUTS" because, I believe, they were incredulous that, though truth was on their side, they continued to be challenged with the same mistaken, semantic debate. And they weren't used to the new 24 hour news cycle amplifying that irrational challenge.).

Anyway, so they thought that they could exchange meaningfully addressing fiscal responsibility with instead addressing the war….and that backfired on them. And they lost BIG in 2006. BIG.

Non-partisan/bi-partisan is solely applied to Republicans. Solely. Just try to find ANY instance where demands of bi-partisanship are made to Democrats. You won't. It's comical. The same people who demanded that Bush act in cooperation with Democrats in congress – even BEFORE those Democrats won a majority – based on the principle that since Bush did not win a majority in the popular vote, he should then let the Democrats in congress have more power – remember? …"Power sharing"? …would have been aghast at such a proposal made of a Clinton presidency. In fact, they were apoplectic that Clinton (in good bipartisans fashion) gave in to many of the Gingerich proposals.

It is clear. There are two kinds of people who want "non-partisan/bipartisanship" -- Liberals ... and people who are just tired of following the wrangling of politics because it has taken up a ubiquitous place in our day to day lives. You can't go ANYWHERE without political info-tainment. Americans who are saying they want politicians to stop being partisan are just sticking their collective fingers in their ears and saying, "la-la-la-la-la-la!!" They are Rodney King pleading, "can we all just get along?".

Or is the demand for non-partisanship/bipartisanship a collective call for a one-party system? I don't think so.



In reality, I think that what America wants is a principled partisanship – one that batters the other side with its well-reasoned, well-educated point of view…and is smart enough to know the answers to the stupid questions. And they need is statesmen who can state their case with logic – not demagogues armed with their particular branch of the media interpreting for them all the hot-button topics that they KNOW will empower them.



It's so simple. I wonder why nobody ever thought of this before. Like putting fruit in jello. What a concept.

...and, yeah, if it's "non-partisanship/bipartisanship that the ultimate goal, I'll ask you as I asked my brother...

Given the Democrats vote in favor of entering the Iraq war...

...so how's that bipartisanship workin' out for you guys?