Paul Deignan from Info-Theory continues to strongly oppose the Harriet Miers Supreme Court Nomination. Today he takes aim at Bush's judicial philosophy, making the assertion that it is "pro-roe":
President's Judicial Philosophy is pro-Roe and Three Easy Pieces.Additions:
Eric (Myopic Zeal) urges caution:
I urge a note of caution in regard to Mrs. Bush’s comments. She is not a constitutional scholar, and there is definitely a chance that she believes that "overturn Roe" means "make abortion illegal" which it most certainly does not.
Bush's inconsistencies in regard to abortion are well-known (and largely ignored) by the pro-life community. On the otherhand, characterizing him soley on the basis of Alberto Gonzales and troubling statements made by his wife does ignore other more favorable actions and statements.
Other comments: Donkey Stomp says Conservatives Hold Your Fire
The Grim Shadow - Does anyone even care that Bush promoters are using the same tactics that the liberals use when people disagree with them on any topic? More here. Also, see Carol's comments on this post.
This is why it is good to have redundant, interlocking indicators.
The Gonzales quasi-nomination was determinative. There is no question about Roe there.
P.S. I don't think that Laura Bush is that ignorant. She was caught in a faux pas a couple days prior to the first inaguration.
Since that time they have not repeated that mistake and not one has pressed them. On Roe and Miers, Bush says he cannot recall a discussion. Really? That sounds like something Clinton would say about his close legal advisor of these may years.
We've been played for fools.
The Grim Reaper's article raises some significant about Bush's pro-abortion record.
President Bush has repeatedly supported funding for abortion advocacy groups such as planned parenthood (he intentionally signed such budgets).
Many pro-life leaders failed to inform their constituencies of these deficiencies.
Don't blame me, I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.
Don't blame me, I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party.
Argh. This mentality bugs me.
Look, I like the Peroutkas just fine. I like the Constitution Party's ideals just fine. But they aren't going to win anything anytime soon with their current plans. So voting for them is basically a vote for the Death Party.
Third parties have traditionally had a very rough road in American politics. On the current stage, with the current parties having had the time to thoroughly consolidate their power, a third party is very unlikely to succeed. If it does succeed, it will require a grassroots, bottom-up effort.
Start small. Remember, "all politics is local". Try to get Constitutional Party candidates into local & state offices. Build up a credible organization first, then go for the White House.
Alternately, the Constitution Party could work within the GOP. Remember: The GOP is a coalition. It includes everyone from Rick Santorum (yay!) to Arlen Specter (boo!). If the Constitution Party was willing to work within the GOP, they could be a strong voice to counter the pro-choice elements. It wouldn't be a 100% victory, but it would be an improvement over the status quo.
Right now, all the Constitution Party does is steal a handful of votes away from Bush. I'll be the first to admit that Bush isn't perfect, but he's loads better than Kerry would have been.
If you don't like Miers, fine. But just imagine who Kerry would have nominated....
"But just imagine who Kerry would have nominated...."
This is a scary thought ... I don't think Kerry would have had any problem with a "pro-roe" litmus test.