Posted on 10/14/2005 8:22:50 AM PDT by SteveH
Ask yourself, does this sound like a White House that is in control of the situation, or does it sound like a White House that is desparate?
Ask yourself, was Reagan right or wrong when he said "Trust, but verify"?
Let the Kool Aid flow.
Harriet, withdraw. It's the right thing to do. Thanks.
BOHICA
;-)
Reagan listened his advisors and nominate O'Connor. Reagan didn't know O'Connor. GW does know O'Connor.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php
Who's Cracking Up?
Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:
The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.
Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:
About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:
The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.
I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.
With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.
The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.
So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.
The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.
So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.
But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.
Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.
Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.
And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.
The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.
But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:
*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%
Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.
Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).
Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.
Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink
No sale.
Nice try.
No sale here.
And Instapundit's:
http://instapundit.com/archives/026104.php
("More and more, I have wonder what the White House was thinking with this.")
These guys aren't exactly legal lightweights. (But maybe you don't buy that either.)
Steve - what're you talking about, "signed McCain Feingold?"
I disagree that Miers should withdraw and I really liked Grampa Dave's post on the subject of 'low approval ratings.'
The GOP is embarrassing itself with all the dissention over Miers.
McCain Feingold is a law which is widely viewed as limiting freedom of speech. GWB signed it into law after promising his constituents on the campaign trail that he would support the nomination of "strict constructionists" to the SC.
The GOP is embarrassing itself with all the dissention over Miers.
Well, then, it's fairly obvious that Meirs should not have been nominated to begin with. That's what happens when a leader betrays his constituents. They leave.
Yup, let's keep gouging each others eyes out over this nominee. Sure. Makes sense to me.
And those of us who DON'T feel betrayed will leave over the boorish behavior of the betrayed. Sounds like a lose-lose situation, all the way around.
Honestly, read again what you posted to me. You sound like a whiny child! You and all the other whiners out there. Bah!
That's a feeling and a sounds-like. It's not a rational argument for or against. What's your rational point, if you have one?
Honestly, read again what you posted to me.
I did. I merely made an observation.
You sound like a whiny child! You and all the other whiners out there. Bah!
That's a sounds-like, and name-calling. What is your rational point, if you have one?
My rational point is that it is irrational to play shoulda woulda coulda. Miers is the nominee. If anything, the best thing to happen is not for her to withdraw but for the Liberal Senate to vote her out as in not confirm her.
43 is the leader of the party and the nation. I can't believe the way this is played to what he 'owes' anyone. There has been way too much made of this and particularly by the likes of Ann Coulter. It's worse than hearing some bloviating Liberal jerk spout off about 'war for oil.'
It is pure-dee male bovine excrement!
Thank you, that is exactly my point.
Thank you. The Bush haters have a game plan to go from one area to another with no linkage, re the McCain stuff.
Thank you. The Bush haters have a game plan to go from one area to another with no linkage, re the McCain stuff.
"The Bush haters have a game plan to go from one area to another with no linkage, re the McCain stuff."
Please continue. I seem to have a better understanding of your veiwpoint than some others...
I've heard that one before, in a different guise. "It's better for GWB to sign McCain-Feingold and then have the SC strike it down as violating freedom of speech."
Shoulda-coulda-woulda is exactly my point. Meirs should withdraw now, and if she doesn't, GWB should withdraw her.
Better than put all one's marbles on just trusting the canonical someone else (e.g., the "Liberal Senate") to do the right thing. Expecting -- depending on-- someone else to come to your rescue when you are in trouble and you can rescue yourself is not rational, it is stupid.
But hey, don't take my word for it. Just take the risk the HM is a stealth liberal, and wait for the fallout in 2006 and 2008. Can you say "President Hillary!"? I'm sure you can. Who will be saying shoulda-woulda-coulda then? Not me. ;-)
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.