Skip to comments.Will The Real Harriet Miers Please Stand Up
Posted on 10/06/2005 6:51:14 PM PDT by George Stupidnopolis
In the blue corner were the Democrats. Utterly bereft of issues, the old guard of the party had been usurped by the likes of Michael Moore, Geroge Soros, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean. All they could do was whine and complain, their every move contributing further to a reputation of stagnation, false posturing and utter wuss-hood.
In the red corner were the Republicans. They didnt look as fit as they had a few years previous, a visible paunch and a few bruises were evident, but for the most part the oddsmakers bet 100 to 1 that the right cross would render the left hook impotent. All that George Bush had to do was to nominate a proven warrior for Supreme Court Justice. We just knew he would honor his promise to provide us with a cultural commando in the mold of Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas. He wouldnt dare roll the dice or abandon a working strategy. He would never take a dive.
Like most people whose feet are firmly planted on the right side of fence, I wanted a fight. It seemed we had the liberals on the ropes, and this was to be the battle for the crown. We wanted to see Biden, Feinstein and Kennedy brutalized and bloodied. We wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological cities and sow the ground with tequila salt.
Instead, George did the unthinkable. he didnt take a dive, but with the surprise nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Miers, he might have done something far worse. In socio-pugilistic terminology, it appeared that Bush took a Souter.
Or did he? Ive been thinking about this in the days since the nomination, and suspect there might be a grand plan behind Bushs pick. Perhaps its wishful thinking on my part, but Im beginning to think that the President adopted a very devious strategery to make the left look like fools, to force them to hang themselves with their own rope.
In the immediate aftermath of the nomination, Democrats were thrilled. Unable to contain themselves, they ran to the ever-supportive network cameras. They gave Miers praise - Harry Reid acted like he was ready to marry the nominee he himself had suggested. They puffed their chests over the fact that theyd made Bush back down and select a nominee of the wishy-washy OConner genre. They believed that low approval polls, two hurricanes, an ongoing war and non-stop media propaganda had forced Bush to comply with their wishes.
Not being a far-seeing bunch, the Democrats perceived Miers as a moderate. They saw here as someone who was once a Democrat, that had given $1,000 bucks to Al Gore. They saw her as someone who could be swayed by the leftist pressures of Washington DC, who would eventually crumple under the pressure and side more and more often with the liberal members of the court.
At this moment the likes of Reid and Feinstein are wishing they could take back their initial gloating. The press, eager to help the left, trumpeted the news that Miers is moderate. The general public now believes it. What the Dems didnt know, and didnt bother to check out, is that its becoming clear that Miers is extremely anti-abortion.
Liberals have but one true issue. That being, their support for the pro-choice movement. Theyre obsessed with the topic. Armed with this fact, and again, Im hoping this hypothesis is correct, Bush may have painted a master stroke.
If Miers is as strongly pro-life as reported, what are the Democratic members of the judicial committee to do? They already given her praise, and the press has already convinced America she is a moderate. If the Democrats approve her, allowing an up or down vote, they will have abandoned their pet issue and will suffer at the hands of disgruntled lefties in the 2006 Congressional elections. If they dont approve Miers, fearful of antagonizing their base by disregarding their most cherished talking point, they will be painted as the ultimate obstructionists.
Remember, thanks to the lefts own words and massive media support, America now sees this woman as a moderate. If she is forbidden a fair vote on the basis of a single issue, the public will feel Democrats truly have no mission in life but to disagree with Bush. This will galvanize the Republican base (and more importantly, the always disgruntled and fickle independents) to vote against Democrats in 2006.
Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would have indeed been to the death. The all-important swing voters, the independents, would have been convinced by the media that the nasty Republicans were attempting an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to the left. While Ive not yet determined if Bush is brilliant or a bumbler, I am intrigued by the impending fireworks
If the President is truly attempting this strategy, it is a bold gamble. If he is, and if it works, he will KO the Democrats without ever throwing a punch.
Many of us would have preferred a fight. We wanted to give the left a black eye, to see them lying on the canvas beaten and destroyed. We wanted to win the battle.
But maybe, just maybe, George Bush is looking to win the war.
From my post three days ago:
I've been reading some of the Miers threads and I've never laughed so much on FR as I've laughed today.
This nomination is without question the most brilliant strategery ever from the misunderestimated President. From the reactions of some Conservatives you'd have thought GWB nominated Chucky Schumer.
Just make sure you have your rabies shots up-to-date, sit back, and pop some popcorn. This nomination has the hotheads on both sides frustrated -- they wanted a nasty dogfight while the President is only interested in confirmation of a nominee he knows inside-out. She is his freaking lawyer FGS!
40 posted on 10/03/2005 9:11:07 PM EDT by You Dirty Rats (They misunderestimated Roberts; now they are misunderestimating Miers)
"We wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological cities and sow the ground with tequila salt."
Rubbish! I don't think it was about wanting a fight at all. Most conservatives are just deathly afraid of another Souter. After working their butts on in the trenches for 20 or so years, who could blame them?
Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg and Stevens will leave the court once it is obvious to them that for the most part there vote really doesn't matter anymore. Actually, I think Bush is counting on it.
And how about that Trout Wrapper !
>Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would have
>indeed been to the death. The all-important swing voters, the independents, would have been convinced by the media
>that the nasty Republicans were attempting an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to the left.
This is the lynchpin of the pro-Miers argument. I don't think it holds water.
Herein lies the division in the Republican Party.
Some people actually wanted "The Most Brilliant NOMINEE Ever" rather than the most brilliant nomination strategy.
I didn't want a nasty dogfight. I wanted Luttig or JRB as Associate Justice.
Keep trying. I wanted the conservative jurist that would have changed legal thinking for centuries to come, not an enigmatic mediocrity.
I see your point. Man...folks is gettin' steamed.
My friend has a longstanding relationship with the brother and met Ms Mier at social functions. She spoke of the family and was very pointed about the loyalty and integrity of the Meir family.
Maybe we need to cut Ms Peir and Wubya some slack and let the process nfold.
I'm not interested in a fight, I'm interested in *winning*.
A judicial non-entity, that is in no way, shape or form a proven conservative jurist is NOT WINNING. It's failing to even show up and fight ...
How is this thought contrary to my statement about wanting "The best nominee ever?
Haha! That's rich.
I'll bet the family jewels (both) that she has had at least one abortion.
Based on what evidence? I'd bet the family jewels that not ever single woman in the 60's had an abortion....and not even the majority
"...Girl...you'll be a woman soon..."
I wonder how many "brilliant Harvard-educated lawyers" would last past Exam 1 in an undergraduate Abstract Algebra class.
If you have to ask what Abstract Algebra is, you wouldn't.
Of course it doesnt hold water.
It assumes that if the President nominated a real conservative judge, the people would flock to the party of the ACLU, NARAL and NOW.
Previous elections and polls already prove that wrong. Roberts was a popular pick and so would any other well-qualified conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.