On last night’s show we had the pleasure of speaking with Rachel Maddow of Air America regarding two major issues. We discussed The War in Iraq and whether Bush “lied” which has been consistently and thoroughly proven to be a canard perpetuated by the Moore-Kos-Sheehan-Franken-Gore-Kennedy angry faction of the Democrat Party (i.e. mainstream Democrats) who have still not gotten over the “stolen” 2000 election. The only proven “liar” has been the partisan Bush hating Joe Wilson. Check out the official timeline and see for yourself. He is just another poitical hack-retread who has followed in the footsteps of Bill Burket and Dan Rather who have failed miserably in their demented preoccupation with taking down Presdident Bush. The one thing this predident isn’t is a liar. Say what you will about his policies (spening, borders, immigration, tarriffs, McCain-Feingold etc…) the American people trust this president. They may not agree with him, but they know he means and does what he says- unlike his predecessor whose policies and actions were dictated by sticking his finger in the air and guaging “popular” public sentiment. The Democrats know that the only way to defeat Bush and the GOP going into the 06′ elections is to destroy his reputation. The liberals know that they have nothing positive to offer in terms of a forward looking agenda for America and can only deomoniaze thier political adversaries (Delay, Rove, Rummy, “Big Oil,” Homophobic-intolerant-racist-backwards-white-Christians, and the big cahoona G.W.Bush). When you have nothing positive to offer all you can do is criticize and attack those who do. This president has taken such bold and courageous positions that it should not be much of a surprise to any astute political observer that his “popularity” ratings hover around 50%. Partly this is due to the fact that rightward leaning conservatives who represent the majority of this country (socially and fiscally) have been very critical of Bush on spending, border security, and the Mier’s nomination. Since the White House has listened to “we the people” via the New Media blogosphere, and have taken “corrective measures,” expect these poll numbers to go back up. While he may not be “popular” with about half the electorate right now, rest assured that this president- if he remains steadfast in fighting an agressive WOT, nonimating conservative originalists in the mold of “Scallia and Thomas” to the SC, defending the borders, cutting taxes and spending, and reforming SS, healthcare, and education in his next three years in office- will go down in history as one of the greatest presidnets this country has ever known.
We also breifly discussed the Alito nomination and our guest claimed that he was out of the “mainstream” (boilerplate talking points that you will hear ad nausium up until he is confirmed and then like all the other inanities uttered by the left repeatedly- they will just go away to make room for more DNC issues talking points. I asked Rachael if Ruth Bader Ginsberg was “mainstream” in her view and she replied that she was more mainstream than Alito and could only point to Alito’s Rybar dissent where he cited Lopez to say Congress lacks the authority to regulate intra-state possession of machine guns. It is not an “extreme” position to respect precedent ( a quality I always thought liberals held in high regard- or is it just the extra-Constitutional legal precedent of “right to abortion” found nowhere in the Constitution that they esteem so much?). It’s not “extremism” to side with the Constitution. It’s called Federalism. The Commerce Clause has Constitutionaly enumerated limitations and dose not give the government unlimited authority to regulate private business.
As to Ruth Bader being “mainstream” Edward Whelan of NRO The Corner has a brilliant piece here which demonstrates how out of the “mainstream” Ginsberg is. Nobody who Bush nominates will ever meet this “mainstream” standard set by Ginsberg. And that is why the liberal lefties are apoplectic right now.
If, after all, you have dedicated your career to the ideological fiction that men and women are, except for trivial differences in plumbing, absolutely identical (rather than, say, of equal dignity and wonderfully complementary in nature). . .
If you have such disdain for the Founders that you purge their words of imagined gender bias and entrench your own policy preferences into constitutional law in place of the real Constitution. . .
If you regard the traditions of the American people as benighted. . .
If you pretend that abortion and even the utter barbarity of partial-birth abortion are constitutional rights (see Stenberg v. Carhart) and that the Constitution requires that taxpayers fund them (see Ginsburgâ??s chapter on the 1976 Term of the Supreme Court in a book titled Constitutional Government in America). . .
If you believe that it is bigotry not to elevate homosexual relations to the status of traditional marriage (see Lawrence v. Texas). . .
If you think that the Constitution can plausibly be read to prohibit laws against polygamy and prostitution. . .
If you oppose the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts for perpetuating stereotyped sex roles. . .
If you are so removed from reality that you see co-ed prisons as necessary â??to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil societyâ?Â. . .
If you recommend that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape should be reduced to twelve. . .
If you believe that it is your job as a justice to supplant the political process and dictate for all Americans which interests are part of some New Age â??right to define oneâ??s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human lifeâ? (see Lawrence v. Texas). . .
And if you wonâ??t abide by the same rules (see 5th paragraph here) that you so eagerly impose on everyday Americans. . .
Then itâ??s hardly surprising that your comparatively modest proposal of abolishing Motherâ??s Day wouldnâ??t be memorable to you.
But it is shameful that Democratic senators and the liberal media have the gall to portray Ginsburg as a â??moderateâ? and as in the â??mainstreamâ? while they attack President Bushâ??s outstanding nominees whose records and values are, by any measure, far more in line with those of the American people.