# Now Bush loses the Cato institute conservatives. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602 "2006-03-08T22:54:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/21 "2006-03-09T04:33:03Z")
**In denial:** The makeup of the SC is a done deal, first of all. Secondly, there’s no evidence at all at this point that either Roberts or Alito are willing to actually overturn Roe v Wade. I’m unconvinced that they are. We’ll find out soon enough, but the stance of the next President will have nothing to do with that, since it’ll be just about three years before the next one takes office, and there’ll probably be another replacement before then. So, if you’re rational, you’ll realize that at this point, for better or worse, the die is cast and there’s no point making your choice for the next President on the basis of this issue. You can be in denial and think that it will, or you can make a rational calculation and realize that the next President’s position on this issue is irrelevant. However, at one time the US actually stood for something, before we invaded on a transparent pretext and then indulged in widespread torture throughout a network of prisons around the world. Me, I’d like it to stand for something again, as in the minimal standard of decency that we at least were guided by before this, this, person and his co-pro-torture team - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Gonzales - got up there. I want the comfort of four years with someone who might restore the US’s tattered reputation before the world. That’s something that the next President can change. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/22 "2006-03-09T04:43:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I was talking about what will happen during the primaries, when nobody would be able to say that Hillary is the nominee. The traditional strategy is “run to the [in his case] right in the primaries, run to the center during the election.” > > Too late, if you ask me. I think that ship sailed when he hugged Bush. Your a New Yorker, how do you feel about a McCain/Rudy G. Ticket? It could happen at this point. The Religious Right will try and run Jeb Bush and the Moderates and Conservatives will probable rally behind McCain. McCain can grab a lot of independent voters especially with a liberal Hero Republican from the North East. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/23 "2006-03-09T05:15:05Z")
I’m not sure how the decision came down to abortion or espect/integrity, **pantom**. And I’m probably dragging this topic way afield. For practical purposes, though every President gets at least one Supreme Court appointment - the only President who served at least one full term without getting a nomination was Carter - and with several Justices in their 70s, the next one may get more than that. So it is an issue. (Trivially/Amusingly, McCain is older than six of the current Justices.) While those could be reasons abortion _shouldn’t_ matter to voters, I don’t think they’ll make liberals more likely to vote for McCain. If Roe v. Wade is overturned by November 2008, I think liberals and Democrats would be even less likely to vote for him. But that’s all speculation, obviously; I don’t know what the court will do either. Back to the topic a little bit, I’m another person who thought this kind of Republican splintering was bound to happen eventually. The nature of a political party is to have people with different agendas, but it’s become clearer and clearer in the last year that the goals of some groups of social conservatives and fiscal/small government conservatives were just incompatible. If anything, I’m happy that the libertarians and the latter group have stopped taking one for the team. In some ways, the Bush presidency has convinced me that they have the right idea about government after all. **What Exit?** , if you’re asking me personally, I wouldn’t vote for that ticket in a million years. It would probably pick up votes, but I’m curious to see what New Yorkers think about Rudy by that time. He was unpopular pre-September 11th, and I’m not sure how much will be glossed over. Regardless of who the VPs are, if the 2008 election is Clinton/McCain, I’m sure to vote Libertarian or stay home. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/24 "2006-03-09T14:52:09Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Just a thought: if it winds up being McCain/Hillary, a lot of liberals will be voting for McCain, including me. Hillary’s a panderer, without, as far as I can tell, any limit to what she will do to get a vote. Hmm? Specific examples? On this page – [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_views\_of\_Hillary\_Rodham\_Clinton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) – I can’t find anything on which she hasn’t been constant. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/25 "2006-03-09T14:57:22Z")
Thank you for asking: > [@](#): > > [Star-spangled pandering](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html) > > Last month Justice Antonin Scalia was politely quizzed by Norman Pearlstine, the outgoing Time Inc. editor in chief. The event, held in Time Warner’s New York headquarters, was supposedly off the record, but so much of it has already been reported that it will not hurt to add Scalia’s views on flag burning. He explained why it was constitutionally protected speech. It’s a pity Hillary Clinton was not there to hear him. > The argument that this famously conservative member of the Supreme Court advanced – actually, reiterated – was that while he may or may not approve of flag burning, it was clear to him that it was a form of speech, a way of making a political statement, and that the First Amendment protected it. I could not agree more. > Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal… > Consistency is not always to be admired in a politician, but when a supposed liberal is one of only two senators to sponsor a bill to restrict freedom of speech, then we are talking about something basic. If this is a pander, it is in the worst possible taste. > The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred…Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around – either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her. So, she’s pro-war and she’s weak on civil liberties. That’s more than enough proof for me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/26 "2006-03-09T15:07:36Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > Thank you for asking: > > So, she’s pro-war and she’s weak on civil liberties. That’s more than enough proof for me. I haven’t seen the Molly Ivins piece, but I understand she raked Hillary over the coals recently. Chris Matthews quoted a pretty funny section from it on Hardball yesterday. While she climbs in the polls, she sinks with the “liberal establishment”, in as much as there is such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602/27 "2006-03-09T15:11:44Z")
Eh, there’s probably two or three folks left in it, outside of Hollywood, of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-bush-loses-the-cato-institute-conservatives/347602.md?page=1)