Following Cal Thomas, Richard Reeb argues that the President should act as a "republican schoolmaster," using this opportunity to remind us of the first principles of the Constitution, i.e., the role the constitution plays in fulfilling the principles of republican self-government. This requires that he nominate a smart person (or smart people), who is (or are) faithful to these principles and that he and his Senate allies be intransigent in their own adherence to and articulation of these principles.
There is no way, I am convinced (most recently by this), that the nomination fight can avoid being nasty, so there is no reason to conciliate on matters of principle (by choosing a so-called "moderate"). Let’s hope that there are men and women of intelligence and high principle who have the stomach for it.
I like Cal Thomas. He’s a good man, good thinker. I like to read his column in my Sunday paper. Beats Andy Rooney, hands down! During the week, it’s Limbaugh, Paul Harvey, some FoxNews and my freinds at No Left turns to keep my brain healthy!
As far as this Supreme Court matter, we’ll just have to press forward, not compromise and hope for the best. We have a job to do. Let’s get her done!
Bush is, unfortunately, not used to communicating intellectually on domestic policy. It’s hard to believe that he might start now. Never having played the "schoolmaster" role on any of the social issues, or federalism, or constitutionalism, or judicial tyranny, he would probably make an embarrassing hash of it if he tried at this late date. What we’ve seen and heard so far indicates a resolutely non-intellectual approach to this court appointment -- not reassuring in the least.
"What we’ve seen and heard so far indicates a resolutely non-intellectual approach to this court appointment -- not reassuring in the least."
Just what have we seen and heard so far that indicates a resolutely non-intellectual approach? Nothing! We haven’t seen or heard anything substantial from responsible parties. If you are referring to the propaganda and misinformation being leaked by liberal pacs, liberal blogs and democratic senate concerns then you’ve rashly and incorrectly jumped to the wrong conclusion. Which is exactly where those concerns want you to be. You’ve rushed to judgement when there is absolutely nothing to judge at this present moment. Bush has been misunderestimated so many times but has always found a way to rise to the occasion when he needs to.
" Bush is, unfortunately, not used to communicating intellectually on domestic policy"
He’s not used to communicating intellectually on much of anything, and despite the constant defenses of his intellectual capacities from his learned superiors here at NLT, I highly doubt he’s actually CAPABLE of communicating intellectually. Maybe the drugs did it to him, who knows...
Yea, unlike Mr. "I have a plan" Kerry, Bush just isn’t an intellectual. You know, Clinton was supposed to be smart but what I saw was a man totally consumed by his own base appetites...Bush has accomplished more in 5 years than Clinton has in his entire career. Maybe Bush isn’t an Aristotle, but he sure has managed to beat you folks at every turn. As I’ve asked before, what does that say about the intelligence of Democrats? :)
First of all, "winning" (as I have said in another post) is often temporary, and many of you seem to have forgotten that. There was a time when Democrats were the "winners," and I don’t recall Republicans blaming their own collective lack of intelligence for that.
Instead, the right has embraced an anti-intellectual stance (again, which I have referred to in other posts) characterized by Bush’s doofus act, (real or manufactured, who cares? It plays into the needs of writers like Mack Sandpaper, above, who thinks that tuning in to Cal Thomas, Andy Rooney, and Rush Limbaugh places him among the intelligentsia) professor-bashing, academia-bashing, and science-bashing.
Further, winning an image war has little to do with substance, or with the intelligence of the population of Democrats. What entertainment "wins," for instance? Jerry Springer, "Friends," top 40 Country, Pop, rock, Paris Hilton, etc...
So, the Swift-boat veterans "win," and the Bubbas of Fascism allow themselves to forget that images of REAL veterans, currently losing their lives in Iraq are NOT ALLOWED on the "Main Stream Media," then those Bubbas contribute to the general takeover of this country.
Why don’t they wake up? Why don’t they recognize that they have been duped, and have served as stooges, and have given up their own freedoms so that corporate fat-cats like Cheney, Bush, Haliburton, Enron, Worldcom, and their Saudi friends can make more money with less regulation, and less loyalty to their workers.
The reason, is that no one wants to wake up from a pleasant, funny dream populated by smooth-talking good-ole boys to find out that they have participated in constructing their own nightmare.
So, no. Bush himself is not likely to capitalize on a "teaching moment." He’s engaged in convincing his supporters that it’s okay to be a doofus. Let Rush and Cal do your thinking for you! Let the Attorney General worry about your safety, and your rights. Fantasize about having a brewski with your buddy, George. It’s alot better than waking up. Heh, heh, heh.
Fung, you think YOU are an intellectual? You ain’t, son. Intellectuals actually THINK, while you only EMOTE. Mister, you’ve got worms in your head...you’re toxic, dude.
Gosh Dain, given our topic, the irony is so thick and convoluted, it’s almost recursive.
Did I ever claim to be an intellectual? Are you making that claim, or trying to establish yourself as one? If so, I would not begin with the comment above. Dude.
Hey, man, you’re harshing my buzz.
I’ve known lots of brilliant people in my time, and the smartest ones weren’t afraid of colloquialisms. Generally it’s the stuffed shirts who force themselves to speak the Queen’s English. Truly bright people needn’t impress people with pretense.
And Dain, I suppose the natural conclusion here is that YOU set the standard for what an intellectual is, especially among the commenters at No Left Turns, right? What a sorry little man you are.
You are right, of course. They needn’t.
Oh, Erica, the pain...argh...a Dumocrat called me a name. Gasp...goodbye, cruel world...
I am suggesting President Bush nominate one of the most ethical men in the country, John Ashcroft. The Senate can hardly fail to confirm & Americans win big!