This may get a lot of motors running….printed with permission of Jeff Chidester from an email thread we are both on….and even a month later, this could invoke a bit of fireworks among the NH Conservative Folk…
and of course, I had an answer (after the jump). We join the regularly scheduled show already in progress:
I have enjoyed your post and the all of the responses.
First let me say that that Bob (Bestani) is a great guy and solid candidate. He has a great grasp on the issue, and as Fred said, has been very honest (even when people did not want to hear it) since announcing. Bob is on my radio show this weekend (NH Perspective, Sunday 11am – 96.7 the WAVE). Sadly, this election has not really been about substance until now, and some candidates are talking more fluff than substance.
As to the Senate candidates. many people concur with your observations of Bill Binnie. Some are concerned he is trying to buy the election (which never holds well with people). But seeking office is an expensive endeavor.
Kelly Ayotte is a solid conservative (Watch how the comments roll in on that statement – I know there are a lot of people who would disagree). Her position on Sotomayor was a non-political one, and based purely on the Constitutional responsibility a Senator has in the process. We liberty-minded people get irked when liberals oppose justice nominees purely on ideological reasons, yet somehow expect the same behavior when we disagree with the nominee. The truth is elections have consequences, and the President gets to choose his nominees, and barring any revelations that disqualifies the nominee (which are few in nature), then all a Senator really can do is publicly state their concerns with the nominee. The same Constitutional provision that applies to the Supreme Court applies to Ambassadors, Cabinet positions and other consuls and sadly has become too polarized (by those of the Left).
Kelly has said numerous times she doesn’t agree with Sotomayor, and would have preferred a different nominee. But ‘prefer’ is not what a Senator is being asked to do in accordance with the Constitution. Kelly has been very clear…
on the types of nominees she believes should be the norm, and not the exception: Roberts and Alito. If we don’t want more Sotomayor, let’s make sure we never elect another Democrat as President.
People also ignore the fact that Kelly was the ONLY candidate who came to the support of Sen. Bunning regarding the PAYGO rule (concerning the funding of unemployment benefits). While sitting Senators and other candidates ran or ignored the issue, Kelly stuck her neck out on principal. She took a lot of heat from the democrats (and no support from professed Conservatives), but she was dead right, and it speaks volumes to her conservative credentials.
No candidate is perfect, and I do not agree 100% with any of the candidates, but I feel comfortable calling Kelly a liberty-minded Conservative. Please do not take that as an endorsement, just a non-partisan observation.
PS- All the candidates have appeared on my show. Some of archives of those interviews are available at jeffchidester.com.
Well, that was just a slow pitch and fat target. I have a good relationship with Jeff and decided that a good shot in the ribs just might just serve as his needed wakeup call)
>> Watch how the comments roll in on that statement – I know there are a lot of people who would disagree
They did, and I did (emphasis just applied):
Never let it be known, that upon seeing a ball at the edge of a slope, that the my urge to kick such ball down said slope becomes so stifled that I walked the other way….heh!
On a legal ground, Kelly may be right – I’m not a lawyer. That said, Justices are no longer just legal eagles – some wear blinders when reading what I consider the simple, plain-spoken words of the Constitution (like "shall not abridge or infringe") and haul out the Progressive telescopes. One CAN blame the Left since the Borking – they made it not just a legal vote but a philosophical one as well. In that way, it is similar to the NRA’s disaster on the DISCLOSE Act – sell out on the First to "protect" their status on the Second.
All Rights are now interlocked and must be protected. Each and everyone of them is now under attack by the Justices who believe that their responsibility is not so much what is in the Constitution as it is "current public standards" (e.g., a living document, as seen by Progressives) and international norms (of which Sotomayor is an Internationalist / Globalist by her own past words).
Since the Left has expanded the meaning and scope of "confirm", and have used it mightily since Bork got Borked, I see no reason why Conservatives should not. Face it, the Supreme Court is not a legal entity – it is as politically motivated as the Congress and the Presidency – they just wrap it up in different paper.
Otherwise, why only a 5-4 decision in Heller? Or Citizens United? We came within a hair’s-breadth of losing TWO important Rights.I think that is worth giving folks the heave-ho.
And yes, Jeff, we’re still buddies….
