There are many pundits expressing the position that there is a need for everyone who opposes President Obama to support the Republican Candidate no matter who gets the nod while a roughly equal set of pundits hold the opposite view, namely that electing a Liberal or presumed Moderate Republican, often labeled as Republican Progressives, would be no different and possibly worse than reelecting President Obama. The former group claims that replacing President Obama is all that matters even if the replacement does not oppose such things as Government run Health Care, Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade Legislation, and various other left-leaning ideas. The latter group claims that since these Moderate, or not as Conservative as a purist might demand, Republican would not repeal Obama Care and would still work to enact a Cap and Trade Carbon Credit System and the rest of the Progressive ideology driven taxation and legislation, it would be advantageous to keep Obama in the White House as that would keep Conservatives alert and attentive in their opposition while placing an presumed “Obama Clone” would give many Conservatives a false sense that everything was peachy-keen, relieving them of any need to ride herd and remain vigilant. But are these the only differences or is there more reason to favor even the weakest of the Republican Candidates as even the most Moderate, even Liberal, Republican would still be an improvement over having President Obama reelected.
The truth is that both sides of this argument are correct but neither one has claim to the whole truth. I would have to agree that some Conservatives might take a more relaxed posture having a Republican in the White House than they would with President Obama remaining in the White House. With our nation precariously balanced at the cusp of the abyss, true Conservatives who are conservative first and foremost, and belong to one of the political parties in order to have input during the primaries, would not sleep with even a true red, white, and blue Conservative elected to the White House as the corrupting influence of operating inside the Washington Beltway has been exposed by near endless examples of turned Conservatives weakened by their time spent in Washington DC. Another reason that true Conservatives would not rest simply because of who holds the White House is that it has been made evident that the active eroding of our Rights and the Country’s Constitution and founding principles originate from places other than just the White House, though the White House does have a significantly larger influence than all the rest combined. They are fully cognizant that Congress and the Supreme Court also need to be monitored for the damages they can inflict upon those Conservative principles and the underpinnings of the Constitution. Replacing President Obama with a real and honest Conservative does little to prevent the corrupting influences of the elected members of Congress, the selected Judges of the supreme court, and the severe but concealed damages committed by the faceless hoards of regulation pushing bureaucrats who are unelected, not appointed, and simply life-long government employees who have been empowered against all reason, logic and Constitutional permissions. There are probably countless reasons that should inspire people of every political bend, other than the truly apathetics, to carefully monitor as much as every piece of paper generated in the name of our Federal Government no matter who holds the White House, either branch of Congress, and the alignment of the Supreme Court as the plethora of functionaries who make up the behemoth we refer to as the Federal Government have been granted power sufficient enough to completely vanquish our Rights and Freedoms using nothing more than a keyboard and the correct Government forms. Obviously, the idea that Conservatives would take a nap for four years simply because of who holds the White House is not entirely true, though there will be the more casual Conservatives who will return to their blissful slumber after electing the candidate they are told will hold the line. So, there will be those in the Camp of the Sleepers and those who are Camp of the Nervously Ever Vigilant, and the latter group is thankfully becoming more dominant.
We are told that one issue we need not concern ourselves over when a Republican is in the White House, rather than a Democrat, is the Judges they will appoint will be true Conservatives. Really now! Let’s take a little time and just look at the nine Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court, who appointed them, and how well they represent the Liberal or Conservative bend of the President appointing them.
Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, is a fairly solid Conservative and thus passes the appointment test.
Justice Antonin Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan, is one of the most Conservative and a Strict Constructionist who holds up the founding intentions of the Constitution extremely well, a definite true through and through conservative worthy of President Reagan.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a slightly Conservative Centrist who has steadily moved more and more to the left to the point where he supports the Liberal living Constitution side as or more often than he supports the etched in stone Strict Constructionist of the Constitution. Justice Kennedy is, at best, barely a Moderate and does not reflect the Conservative principles of President Reagan who appointed him. This is one example of Conservatives needing to have concern over who is appointed by a conservative President simply in order to get the Senate’s stamp of approval. For Liberal Presidents appointing Liberal Justices it is almost an automatic approval by the Senate providing the appointee is not an insult to the court, which some have been. Conservative Presidents are not afforded the same deference when appointing Justices. Actually, they can expect a hostile and critical examination and exhausted review by the Senate where approval may be denied simply due to politics. A perfect example of such was when Robert Bork was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and ran into a brick wall which is what led to the nomination of Justice Kennedy.
Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H. W. Bush, is another respectable Conservative and Strict Constitutionalist and thus an excellently qualified Conservative.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton, is as one would expect, an extreme leftist Progressive Liberal who believes the Constitution is a living, malleable document which should be twisted and interpreted in a new manner that reflects the current ideas of each Judge and the society in which they reside. Apparently, if Justice Ginsburg’s ideas of what the Constitution should say and can be stretched and mutilated in order to support her thoughts, then there is no need for using the Amendment process when as a Justice she can simply read it with a preconceived idea in mind. True through and through Liberal just like the President who appointed her.
Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by Bill Clinton, has been a respectably Liberal Justice as would be expected.
Justice Samuel Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, represents the moderately Conservative somewhat Centrist views of the President who appointed him.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, appointed by Barack Obama, is almost as far left as Justice Ginsburg or President Obama. Justice Sotomayor, like Justice Ginsburg, could be considered to be an ideologue.
Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by Barack Obama, is a recent appointee and was never a Judge at any level previous to being appointed to the Supreme Court. This presents the unique and unprecedented situation of having no previous decisions on which to qualify her leanings. It is presumed, and I see no indication of this being an unfair representation of her political leanings, that Justice Kagan will be a Liberal leaning member of the court, possibly even a strongly Liberal Justice.
Where most of the Justices of the nine currently on the Supreme Court are representative of the President who appointed them, looking at Justice Kennedy and a fair number of Judicial appointments historically, those appointed by Conservative Presidents are far more likely to slide more towards a Liberal viewpoint after being placed on the bench or simply being more Liberal than expected than the opposite case occurring. Taking the entirety of Judicial appointments into consideration, it appears that Judicial appointments do tend to be somewhat more Liberal than the person who appoints them. This makes any appointments by a Centrist or Liberal Republican President highly potentially to be Liberal Justices and thus making it all the more important to never slide into complacency no matter whom is placed in the White House and elsewhere. There is one retired Justice of the Supreme Court who exemplifies the Liberal tendencies of a Justice when compared to the appointing President, and that is Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Justice O’Connor was initially a slightly right of center appointee who trended consistently more liberal with time. President Reagan made this appointment over the protestations of some of the most conservative Senators that she could not be counted to overturn Roe vs. Wade and might not make a very Conservative Justice.
It may be that I am somewhat jaded in my opinions and view of recent history, but it has been my observation that many of the politicians who are sold to the public as being true Conservatives are nothing of the sort. It appears that one must take into account that what the members of the national press, the mainstream press, call a conservative is anybody less liberal than themselves. This makes many people who are actually left of center to be presented as being Conservative and a true Centrist as a far right Conservative. It is all a matter of perspective. Also, with history being as poorly studied, understood, and applied to our current times, the ideas and intent of the Constitution are virtually lost in our society. If you do not believe me, simply ask people to list the Rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. See if anybody can tell you all five. The First Amendment reads;
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The five Rights are;
1) Freedom of Religion
2) Freedom of Speech
3) Freedom of the Press
4) Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
5) Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances
Looking at our choices for the Republican Presidential Candidate, I doubt I would fully trust any of them. Every one of them has some area that might give any Conservative pause and reflection. Here is how I would rate them as far as being a good and solid Conservative by my understanding of what being a Conservative should be.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would not even qualify as Conservative and I would place them both as leftward of center. Jon Huntsman would be probably very close to Romney and Gingrich and probably would rank as more knowledgeable on foreign affairs. I would place Rick Perry as somewhat right of center, or leaning Conservative but still mostly a centrist. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum I would call true Conservatives across the board and difficult to differentiate. Picking between them comes down to which one you feel has more experience, is most likely to not surrender or bend under pressure, and personality, all relatively subjective choices. The most strictly Conservative, or at least Constitutionalist, is Ron Paul. He probably comes closest to the kind of man the Founding Fathers would have said to be the most qualified to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and the spirit in which it was intended. That said, that does not mean he is automatically the best conservative for a very simple reason, Foreign Policy. Many Conservatives do not hold the ideal of free trade with no foreign entanglements as the best ideal for a foreign policy and thus disagree vehemently with Mr. Paul, and that is the choice you need to address. If you agree with Ron Paul on Foreign Affairs, then he is off and away the most Conservative. But if you believe that the United States must not hide away from the world and needs to make and keep allies thus must be somewhat active in world affairs, then you need to choose one of the slightly less conservatives, namely Bachmann or Santorum. Then again, there are those who will hold the opinion that I am all wet and Newt or Perry or Mitt or Huntsman are the real through and through Conservatives and I need to do some reassessing. Takes all kinds and be glad there is but one of my kind.
Beyond the Cusp
Beyond the Cusp 
Leave a comment