The longer you pretend something is real....

I remember being upset (outraged is more accurate) when Mr. Bush wouldn't allow Alan Keyes to speak at the Republican convention before the 2000 election. My Catholic Republican friends assured me that "Bush was a true believer-that he needed to make sure that he wasn't percieved as some anti-abortion extremist. But after he was elected-then I'd see his true colors."

Well we have seen his true colors over and over, and they are as I predicted. He throws a few bones, but when going gets tough he does not come down on our side. He is not a true-believer. He is a politician and a Republican before anything else. Hopefully my Catholic Republican friends are Catholic first....

My view of the latest Bush nomination for Supreme Court are better expressed by others: here and here (hat tip to Southern Appeal); and the posts at Southern Appeal on October 3rd expressing thoughts like these I lifted:

Even if Miers turns out to be the second coming of Scalia, which I doubt very much, the reasons and the process by which she was chosen will still have a negative impact on the legal side of the conservative movement. From here on out, judicial conservatives and academics will always be mindful that participation in the Federalist Society or the expression of strong opinions may very well be an automatic disqualifier for the federal bench. Better to keep quiet and avoid associating with those who have made their feelings known if you hope to go very far.

Such a development is not only bad for the conservative movement but for the health of the Republic as well. The process and reasons by which people in our Republic reach high office should be such that the people have a better than average chance of knowing what they are getting. We need to know where these nominees stand and what philosophy, if any, guides them. However, if the only people nominated to the highest court in the land are those who throughout their careers have successfully managed to hide their true beliefs and avoid associating with those who don’t then we will end up with a court of cowards and opportunists. I am not implying that Miers is a coward or an opportunist (I certainly hope she isn’t); only that a system that elevates stealth candidates favors such people and arms them with the advantage of anonymity, an advantage unavailable to those who are willing to take a stand for their convictions.

Our Republic deserved better.

Where do we go from here?