Posted on 11/02/2005 11:05:03 PM PST by RWR8189
"The conservative screamers who shot down [Harriet] Miers can argue that they were fighting only for a 'qualified' nominee. . . . But whatever the rationale, the fact is that they short-circuited the confirmation process by raising hell with Bush. . . . A cabal of outsiders--a lynching squad of right-wing journalists, self-sanctified religious and moral organizations, and other frustrated power-brokers--[rolled] over the president they all ostensibly support."
--David Broder, Washington Post, Nov. 2
Nothing like the calming tones of The Dean to bring context and a needed sense of perspective to the proceedings. In his comments on Sunday's "Meet the Press" and in his post-Miers Meaning of It All column yesterday, Mr. Broder was like someone who sat down at a table hungry, got served only Democratic talking points, swallowed them whole and quick, and is now burping them out in all directions.
I write of it because he is important, and because I think his imagery is a bit--maybe the polite word is "heightened"--not because he misunderstands the Miers drama, though he does, but perhaps for other reasons.
Briefly: Mr. Broder says Bush got "rolled" by his own supporters in the Miers fiasco. But he did not. He got defeated by them. He made a bad choice, and they resisted. The White House fought back; conservative thinkers fought back even harder; Republican senators did not back the White House; the White House retreated, rethought and renominated.
This is not a scandal; it's a story--and a surprising one in ways Mr. Broder doesn't understand. The story is that the president didn't dig in. He was, for once, supple. He rolled with the punches. That's the "rolling" that occurred. And it's not a disaster, it's promising.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Peggy, Peggy, Peggy, please spare the old Broder. :-)
She is a classic, and the absolute best writer.
There, I prove myself not to be a sexist.
Most Dems are so used to an adolescent assumption of the indispensability of party solidarity that they don't understand that Republicans can disagree with their President and the party won't fall apart. Democrats could and should do the same but they don't, and it's cost them.
Personally I agree with Noonan that the withdrawal of Meiers and the nomination of Alito tend to strengthen Bush, not weaken him. More than that, it is a fascinating view of an exercise of representative government that makes the study of American politics so very compelling. A sitting incumbent President just had his will successfully opposed in a matter that did not involve direct election, and responded in the manner we see before us. The mechanism here is so subtle that it makes the machinations of parliamentary politics seem crude by comparison. And successful, IMHO, because I think Alito's in.
That people sometimes do this on impulse, after perhaps the third Grey Goose, leads to and I think encourages a certain polarity in our discourse. It leads to heightened drama, heightened language and extreme thinking. Unpondered thoughts are put forward in unmediated language. Fine--this is all part of the fun--but it is not without implications.
New advertising line: "Grey Goose -- we polarize the Internet".
Broder's own frustration is obvious.
Booze -- and not cheap booze.
But if Bush hadn't listened to his base he would be accused of willful stubborness. Whatever.
The only principle is this: Whatever Bush does is wrong. Period. By definition. And we-the-Democrats will explain how it is wrong in this particular case (as we will in every particular case).
Don't we want flexibility in our leaders? The ability to realize and admit mistakes? That's what Bush did here and it's being spun as "getting rolled".
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We're Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I remember last year when some of the rats tried to turn the flip-flop charge on Bush. They gave up fast.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We're Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I agree with you, but my problem with the so-called "right-wingers" is that they say they want the original intent of the Constitution to be judged, and then go off and tell Bush he cannot do exactly that! If Miers stunk as a candidate, she would lose in a vote. That is what the Constitution calls for!
Bump
David Broder - The man who wrote the column "Don't be too tough on Rosti" - defending thief and crook Dem Rep. Rostenkowski.
To be more specific than booze, it's vodka. Not cheap at all and used largely in martinis. I'm not sure why when a bar stocked with Grey Goose should have Bombay.
"There, I prove myself not to be a sexist."
Yes, but you sound kind of elitist to me. :-)
I love it!
At the risk of getting off the topic of the thread, I can think of a couple of reasons.
1. Bombay is gin; Grey Goose is vodka. Martinis -- real martinis -- are made with gin.
2. Grey Goose is made in France. Consequently, I haven't tasted it in three years. As I recall, it was unremarkable, as vodka (in my opinion) tends to be.
Grey Goose is good but overrated. I'm a Hanger One man myself, although I've only seen it at liquor stores, not bars.
Because Grey Goose is vodka (French) and Bombay is gin (English). Apples and oranges.
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.