Posted on 10/29/2005 7:17:04 AM PDT by shrinkermd
It's my sense - and tell me if you disagree - that the wounds of the Miers battle are already close to healed. The expectation is that President Bush will appoint one of a dozen well-qualified conservative nominees who will delight his supporters and prove acceptable to a majority (and maybe more than a majority) of the US Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at frum.nationalreview.com ...
This was Frum's effort just a few days ago (24 October 2005):
"...Some friends of mine and I meanwhile have organized Americans for Better Justice (BetterJustice.com), which has raised money for a national television and radio advertising campaign to urge the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers. You will be able to see our spots very shortly on the site. They will be airing this week on "Special Report with Brit Hume," "Fox and Friends," the Rush Limbaugh program, the Laura Ingraham program, among other places.
"...The petition formally hosted here at NRO urging Miers to withdraw is also migrating to the BetterJustice site. If you have not signed already, please consider doing so by clicking here to make your voice heard.
Well a week is a long time so the knuckle draggers out in red state land must have forgotten already.
Umm NO David. When you put as much effort into overturning the Judical Fillibuster as you put into borking Miers, then I might listen. You decended into the political gutter, David, out of personal malice towards Miers. Conservatives are NOT going to forget that too quickly. We may forgive you eventually, but it will not be any time soon.
What would you have Frum do? Should he gloat over his "victory", pouring salt in the wounds of Miers supporters?
I pray we have a strong conservative like Luttig or McConnell nominated. However, I will never forget the over the top histronics of Frum, Coulter, and Ingram.
David Frum (born 1960) is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and the author of the first "insider" book about the Bush presidency. Born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Frum is what some may describe as a "trans-national" citizen. He remains involved in political activities in both the United States and Canada, and his editorial columns have appeared in a variety of Canadian and American magazines and newspapers.
He graduated from the University of Toronto Schools, followed by Yale University in 1982 and from Harvard Law School in 1987. The New York Times called his first book, Dead Right "...the smartest book written from the inside about the American conservative movement."
Following the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Frum was appointed to a position within the White House. Still a Canadian citizen, he was one of the few foreign nationals working within the Bush White House. He served as Special Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Speechwriting from January 2001 to February 2002. In 2002, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
In January 2003, he released The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, the first insider account of the Bush presidency. Frum is widely cited as having authored the phrase "axis of evil," which he discusses in his book. As the title suggests, Frum also discusses how the events of September 11, 2001 redefined the country and the President. Frum writes, "George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man."
Frum's latest book An End to Evil, was co-written with Richard Perle. It provided a spirited defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and advocated regime change in Iran and Syria. Furthermore, it called for a tougher policy with North Korea, as well as advocated the US take a tough stance against Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations in order to "win the war on terror" (the book's by-line). The book received some negative reviews, with some claiming that it only served to further isolate America in the world's eyes. Fareed Zakaria criticised it heavily in a New York Times column, taking a jibe at the authors by suggesting, "To transform the world, you do actually need to engage in it."
Frum is the son of Barbara Frum (1937-1992), who was one of Canada's most respected and influential journalists and was widely thought to have liberal views. His father, Murray Frum is a real estate developer. David Frum is married to writer Danielle Crittenden.
Frum has written for The Weekly Standard, Forbes magazine, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and has recently returned as a regular columnist for Canada's National Post.
Frum is Jewish and is considered to be a neo-conservative.
Frum strongly supported John Roberts, George W. Bush's nominee for Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. However, like many conservatives, he opposed the nomination of Harriett Miers for the Supreme Court, on the grounds that she was insuffiently qualified for the post, as well as insufficently conservative.
Since May 2005, Frum has been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.
Just be quite for a while an let the wounds heal. A smart victor in politics knows better then this. Coming around now and acting like what he did was no big deal IS pouring salt in the wounds.
Fair enough - that's a reasonable expectation.
I agree with your sentiments.
Not trying to start a fight here - but I'm conservative. And I thought the Miers nomination was bad. And I'm happy that it is over. And I am ready to move on.
If only others were able to write as you. Able to diasagree without tearing down your opponent as a number have done. Conservatives can disagree but lets keep within certain boundaries.
It was not a matter of supporting Miers that upset most in the pro-Miers crowd, but that "the process" was Borked.
Would you rather nail Frum or work together to get a strong conservative on the court?
I agree. And I don't know how the rest of you can be so angry after Miers 93 speech surfaced. I think we dodged a bullet thanks to the efforts of Frum,Coulter,Krauthammer,Ingram,Limbaugh,ect.
Confirmation would result in Ms. Miers sitting on the court for the next 20 years. Given what was learned about Miers over the last several weeks is that a scenario you're comfortable with?
Rejection by the Senate would have been far more politically damaging to the President than withdrawl. Republicans voting down a Republican President's nominee? That sounds just super, especially to the rabid left.
Who's "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?
It was imperative that political pundits insert themselves into a Constitutional process to prevent an elected President from having his Supreme Court nominee receive an up or down vote by 100 elected Senators? It was imperative that we now forever lose the correct argument that every nominee is entitled to an up or down vote in the senate? I disagree.
"We" just might be everyone BUT the 3500 or so people who actually bothered to sign Frum's ridiculous petition. Are you telling me that you admire someone who thinks starting a petition is an effective means of influencing opinion? I guess I missed his petition on CFR, immigration, congressional spending and any number of worthy issues.
Frum sucks. He's about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake.
Do you have a problem with speech as a part of the process? Please, you're bloviating about "Constitutional process" is a bit much. I guess we're supposed to wait for W to nominate someone then shut-up and let the Senate vote. Miers was unqualified and not up to the job. She was an embarrassment.
I spent election day in a phone bank for W, support him wholeheartedly, but the best favor you can do a friend is to tell him when he's dead wrong. This has nothing to do with the filibuster debate.
An up or down vote is the right of a nominee after Judiciary Committee hearings, not when first submitted by the President. Suppose someone is nominated that it turns out has committed some past or previously unknown crime? What if someone is nominated who falsified his resume? Do we waste time on an up or down vote or hearings for such nominees. The Miers withdrawl has nothing to do with the up or down issue.
This idea that conservatives somehow thwarted the constitutional process by criticizing or opposing the nomination is nonsense. What are pundits expected to do, remain silent? I guess it then follows that conservative pundits should have been unopposed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg so as not to disrupt the constitutional process.
So who's Dave's next favorite "dark horse" Supreme Court nominee, huh?
What a piece of work he is.
Oh BTW, how many of you knew this about Huffy?
Arianna Huffington (born July 15, 1950) is an author and a nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. She describes herself as a "former right-winger who has evolved into a compassionate and progressive populist
Yep she started out as one of ours who found her niche by "evolving" to the Left. Wonder if David is considering following in her footsteps?
Oh but that's right, guilt by innuendo can only be used by 100%ers, never AGAINST them!
I didn't sign it. But then, I was already fully aware of what was at stake. A petition has value as a center of gravity around which opinion may coalesce, gain mass, and thereby draw more distant, disinterested opinion toward it.
This is a great day in America. I am confident that George W. Bush isn't pouting or moping like the few Mierskats at FR.
BTTT
I would want him to have the decency to shut up his face. I will not read his stuff or watch him on TV op ed shows any more.
Who's "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?
Us mice don't have much to say. We just vote.
But we're not talking about any conservatives - we're talking about you. LOL.
Are you telling me you don't think exercising free speech via a petition is an effective means of influencing opinion?
Well, at least you're taking the mature approach...
That those two sentences should follow each other in your post is truly ironic. Apparently, only people who call Bush an idiot, and Miers any number of names are allowed the privilege of free speech. No where in my posts do I say Frum isn't allowed to speak his mind. I realize that unlike you and me, that is how Frum makes his money. By bloviating. But I question the judgment of anyone who considers his opinion worth anything more than warm spit after he decides something as worthless as a petition is an effective means of changing a process. That he circulated his petition nationally on a variety of media and got next to no response indicates I am not alone in my opinion of his effort. The last time I saw such tactics they were either being initiated by leftwing moonbats protesting the war, or junior high children protesting a dress code. If you consider Frum someone worth listening to, you are free to do so. Just as I am free to question his judgment and the worth of his (paid for) opinion.
I will have a hard time with Coulter/Frum/Kristol/etc. for a long time. (Ann Coulter is forgivable, if sufficient number of her pictures are posted here on FR)
But the rest will have to prove themselves to ever be trusted again.
And I look forward to seeing what Frum does with the money he raised to rap Miers.
Is he going to use it to get the next nominee confirmed? Or is he going to use it as seed money for the new organization he started to further his voice in Washington?
You are giving pundits responsibility that rests solely with the American voter. Frankly, I don't want idiot pundits whose world can be defined by the Washington D.C. beltway to make decisions for me. I did not vote for them. Nobody did. In many cases, their qualifications are similar to those of Hollywood actors. "I call myself an expert, therefore I am". If you don't like the decisions made by people you elect, vote them out of office. But if you are going to allow "pundits" to do your work for you, you are no better than liberals who dote on every word and whim from the Hollywood left. Replace Barbra Streisand with Ann Coulter and tell me what the difference is between anyone who wants such celebrities to involve themselves in the political process. I voted for George Bush. Part of that vote included giving him the authority to make decisions like appointing Supreme Court nominees. I also voted for the Senators who are ultimately responsible for deciding whether those nominees deserve a seat on the bench. I didn't vote for Bill Kristol, David Frum, Hugh Hewitt or Rush Limbaugh. I am perfectly willing to listen to what they have to say. And I am perfectly happy to reject their rambling when I don't agree with it. And when one of them (or all of them) ramble on in such a way that they look more stupid than the people they are trying to tear down, I cheerfully toss them onto the great scrap pile of reject celebrities who think their opinion matters more than my vote. Frum currently sits right at the top of my reject pile.
Then apparently you don't believe people like George Will, Ann Coulter, David Frum et al, very publicly calling Bush an "idiot", a "mental midget", a "liar", a "promise breaker", a "lame duck", a "traitor" etc etc etc, had any impact with regard to embarrassing Bush. Don't be a hypocrite. You don't care about embarrassing Bush. All you care about is whether or not your choice makes it to the Supreme Court.
"But then, I was already fully aware of what was at stake. A petition has value as a center of gravity around which opinion may coalesce, gain mass, and thereby draw more distant, disinterested opinion toward it."
Some center of gravity. Last time I looked the dumb thing had generated less than 5000 signatures. It was a joke, and it is a credit to most Americans that they ignored it. It is a supreme discredit to Frum (and National Review) that they ever created it in the first place. You can be sure, they won't make that mistake again.
Absolutely. With the exception of the California governor recall, which was a procedural effort put in place with specific guidelines, can you tell me when a petition effort has succeeded in changing the course of events? And don't say the Miers nomination, because Frum's petition was overwhelming ignored by even the most vocal Miers opponents.
Do, or don't. We don't care, either way.
Evidently you believe the President is unable to withstand the sheer power of conservative punditry. I'd like to think President Bush has the power to ignore them.
BTW, will you be insisting that the next nominee reveal his position on abortion?
But you absolutely don't want to think that. Earlier in this thread you said the following, "It was imperative for conservatives to force the withdrawl before the Senate hearings." If you want "conservatives" to force the withdrawal, exactly who are they directing their efforts to before Senate hearings? It can only be the President. And the big threat was that if Bush continued to ignore them, the howls of protest regarding her nomination were only going to get louder. "He CAN'T ignore us. We're his base."
My earlier statement was in reference to your assertion that conservative criticism had somehow derailed the constitutional process and that it was hypocritical to deny Ms. Miers an up or down vote.
I am arguing that precisely the opposite is true. If conservative opposition led to her withdrawl it did so within the bounds of the normal political process and, in the end, was to the benefit of everyone. Withdrawl was the only way to avoid two potential bad results. A bad justice for the next 20 years or the political humiliation of the President's nominee being voted down by his own party.
Petitions are often one component of a drive toward some goal. They help galvanize opinion, provide people with a sense that they're making a difference, etc. I think it would be difficult to isolate the impact of any petition, but just as in this case there's no doubt that petitions DO have an impact at some level.
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.