The one thing that should bear some fruit for us is the over 200 plus judges GWB will get to put in place in the next 4 years, along with, perhaps, 2 or 3 on the high court. Unlike Bush 41, Bush 43, and his team seem to have a better undestanding of how to stack the courts.

The cynical side of me wonders if Sen. Arlen Specter got Bush’s support during his (Specter’s) reelection bid just so that Bush would have someone to play “bad cop” in appointing “moderate” judges of the O’Connor/Suiter ilk. Without Specter as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman - and gatekeeper of judicial appointments - Bush would have no excuses and would have to appoint more of the Thomas/Scalia type of judge. Specter, after all, was personally responsible for the Borking of Bork. That Sen. Rick Santorum and President George W. Bush both endorsed him during his primary run against a bona-fide pro-life opponent, who probably would have won if not for those endorsements, is interesting.

And where would the Republicans be without the pro-life issue to energize religiously serious Christian voters?

Maybe that is too cynical. Maybe not.

On the emotional/intellectual divide, I have to say that my own mirror’s Mr. Auster’s: a delightful schadenfreude at the castigation of the left; an emotional relief in the re-election of Bush; and an intellectual conviction that in the long run conservatism specifically and western civilization generally will be the worse for it. I hope I am wrong about the latter.

Not too cynical but unlikely Matt. I don’t think Bush is that sophisticated in his Machiavellian machinations (although his underlings certainly are). Karl Rove and his henchmen are committed to I don’t know what.

For what it’s worth, Specter should not only be denied the chairmanship but also be removed from the Judiciary Committee; and the recently elected Rhodes Scholar (who actually finished his scholarship and is now my senator) and lawyer, David Vitter, should replace him.

The conservatives, as my Daddy pointed out in a pending letter to Hastert, don’t put people on committees who are fighters. (My Daddy has tasked me, characteristically, to word-process his letter despite his being a better typist than me. His “excuse”: he doesn’t have a computer.) He is right; you don’t get respect unless you demand it, and the Republicans don’t demand it. (He is an ex-Marine with a genuine Purple Heart. It has taken me years to get him to apply for benefits because of his hearing loss undoubtedly due to his role as a forward fire-control corporal during several major WWII island battles.) Witness the recent vandalism and murder of conservatives, yet the conservatives don’t go on the offensive and attack the liberal haters such as Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore. Has the worldwide conservative leadership not failed to respond to this expressed hatred of conservatives?

On the immigration front, the new Congress will be even tougher on the issues than the last one. I am very skeptical about Bush trying to push amnesty schemes or any other treasonous notions. See an analysis by Mark Krikorian at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200411050830.asp

Watch what happens. If Sen. Arlen Specter is Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman, then GWB is not serious about having conservative judges, and Matt’s cynicism is correct (Nov 7 9:29 pm). Double score to Matt if GWB then appoints Alberto Gonzales as his first Supreme Court justice.

Matt’s cynicism is based on the reality of GWB’s first term performance. The “theory” that Bush now has the backing of the American people and the numbers to really let loose and expose his true conservativism, is unproven at best. After all, GWB violated his first term presidential oath within months after taking office (McCain-Feingold). Maybe for the second term he will really, really mean what the oath says, but I’m not sure. We will soon see if GWB has discovered his “inner conservative” or not.

Arie has is right. Bush’s first term was almost completely “liberal”, save for going to war in Iraq and The Patriot Act. What else has he done that even resembles “conservatism”? Has he gotten thru any truly conservative judges? In four years? I scoff at those who still believe that Bush has an ounce of conservatism in him. Every bit of evidence (open borders, pulling back The Border Patrol from inland arrestings of illegals in Ontario CA, his not doing away with H-1B visas to keep foreigners from moving here and bringing their families that take American jobs, siging huge spending bills because it was politically expedient) shows that he has been a liberal and then some. Can his sudden “conservative streak” now be believed? Read Karl Rove’s lips. He’s the one really in charge. We’ll be lucky to get another conservative judge on The Supreme Court.

Me. Levin wrote:
“Bush’s first term was almost completely “liberal”, save for going to war in Iraq …”

I think it may be a mistake to believe that going to war is always an illiberal act (although it may always be an unprincipled exception, I suppose). Liberals are more than willing to fight, and fight viciously, when they genuinely believe they have somehting to lose. Iraq is not a defensive war protecting traditional America against an enemy; although that kind of war against Arabia might have made some sense, thus the conservative divisions over Iraq. No, Iraq is a manifestation of the idea that the best antidote for “terrorism” is “freedom”. Iraq is a liberal war.

In reply to Mr. Levin, Bush has been quite good at appointing conservative judges. The Federalist Society has been heavily involved in vetting his choices. The big question mark is the Supreme Court. Many Republican presidents appoint conservative judges to district and appeals courts, where the public does not focus its attention, but start to get very middle of the road when a vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court. Then their “moderate” choices get swayed over time by the liberal justices, media pressure, the Beltway crowd, etc. I believe this is called “growing as a justice” by the liberal crowd, as in the example of Anthony Kennedy.

Bush has been pretty good on pro-life and pro-gun positions, overall, with only a few occasions of lip service to the center-left and no real actions in that direction. We need to keep a realistic perspective of Bush rather than demonizing him. On the whole, he is a right-liberal, but he has his conservative moments.

As a career teacher (I reject the self-congratulatory term, educator) I must comment on Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind package. It reflects the modern mis-understanding about the fundamental purpose of public education in the United States. That purpose is NOT to educate every child. It is to OFFER an equal education to every child. Children have rights. Trust me on this because I hear it every day from disgruntled parents, weak and pliant administrators, board of education members, and the children themselves. These parents and their children are FREE to reject education, and often, they do. Another fundamental mis-understanding of Mr. Bush’s is that a Federal Bureaucracy can correct perceived educational deficiencies in our system. When has a Federal Bureaucracy ever corrected anything? Mr. Bush’s third great mis-understanding is that public education shapes society. It is actually the other way around. When it is proven that the greatest correlative factor in educational success is a two parent home, this third mis-understanding becomes glaringly obvious. The President’s shameless pandering to Senator Kennedy that created No Child Left Behind is indefensible.

Joseph’s comment on public education is interesting, and he raises three valid points on Bush’s lack of understanding about the issue. I would add a supplement to his third point however (that it is society that shapes public education). I think it goes both ways, actually. There are plenty of leftists in the public education apparat who clearly are attempting to shape our society - look at the “War on [White] Boys” mentioned by Christina Hoff Summers, the constant “self-esteem” programs for females and favored minorities. There are far too few teachers like yourself, Joseph - and far too many who care only about pushing an agenda.