So the idea is to head off Democrat opposition by going for the milquetoast first? I'm not sure I like that idea.
The question should be put, which would you want? Bush to nominate Miers, or, Kerry to nominate Lawrence Tribe?
I hate vanities. But not this one.
How about finding a thread with an actual news story and posting this as a comment? That is the way it is done. Then, after a year or two, if enough people like what you say, you can become a columnist like JohnHuang2.
"...trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her."
_______________________________________________________
I trust him too.
Good posting and thanks for putting it up.
Bush has damaged the conservative movement by nominating Ms. Miers, rather than Judge with a solid track record.
Sun Tzu The Art of War
DITTO! You are right on!
Yes, I would rather have had Bush nominate Janice Rodgers Brown, and have had a knock-down, drag-out fight in the Senate, with all the Demoncrats and RINOs voting against Brown, and her nomination failing--and then Harriet Miers.
Because those events would have driven enough Black voters out of the arms of the Demoncrats to break the stranglehold that keeps Blacks on the urban plantations. It would have been a blow to the Demoncrats that it would have taken them years of more lies to overcome.
The Miers pick is the fulfillment of a promise made to the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE portion of W's base.
The fallout, therefrom, cleves along spiritual, not intellectual lines.
Suppose Bush put up, say, Wilkinson and he got buffeted by the Senate. Clearly and unmistakably, Senate Democrats would be opposing the candidate based on politics and not the merits. The Angry Left was ready to shred Roberts, but it couldn't -- because his record was just too good. You saw how the Democratic senators who feared for their jobs supported him.
Now, you might say, that wasn't the pick that would have changed the balance of the court. True (as far as media perception goes). My answer is ... so what? Does that make our side less correct?
This is why we put up with all the compromises of the past five years. This was it. This was our shot. What did we get? The least qualified candidate since Abe Fortas.
Come on, we're supposed to care about the right way to do things, not just the right outcome. That's what makes us better.
I agree with you 100%.
Great post Allen. Good job.
The Miers pick is the fulfillment of a promise made to the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVE portion of W's base.
The fallout, therefrom, cleves along spiritual, not intellectual lines.
Bush has not earned the right to say, "trust me."
1) He didn't keep his word on embryonic stem cells and created a market in embryos, which is what the culture of death wants.
2) Bush signed McCain/Feingold. His conservative princpled stand rested on hoping the Supreme Court would do what he was afraid to do - kill it.
3) Bush has yet to oppose a dime in socialism.
4) Bush is proud of recruiting Kennedy to write his education bill.
5) Bush created a whole new entitlement - prescription drugs. It wasn't something he was pressured into, either. It's passed and signed but no one wants it.
Some argue that it is the president's choice to pick whomever he will nominate. Not true. He is there to represent the people who put him there and to uphold the constitution. Republicans never should've voted for Ginsberg based on her unconstitutional views, rather than voting for her in spite of her wacky leftist views.
Bush has created a disturbing precedent in choosing Roberts and Miers. He has sent the unmistakable message that known conservatives need not apply. Some will say, "...but look at his appellate appointments." Sure, he made excellent appellate appointments, but he left them to twist in the wind in his first term. I'm sure the stealthy nature of his SC nominations are not lost on his appellate appointments, either.
He's also damaged Christian conservatives with his behind the scenes re-assurances that, "...she's gonna vote the right way." In a way, confirming liberals fears that conservatives want a Christian activist judge. Thankfully, aside from Dobson selling out, Christian conservatives have not endorsed Miers.
Conservatives need to press Miers during the confirmation hearings instead of giving her a pass. She may or may not do well, but Bush, the Nixon Republican, has slighted conservatives for the last time.
We have the Senate and can run over the filibuster. Why play it safe?
You should be socked fifty bucks for posting a whiny vanity.
"Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda."
Frum is a Canadian. Any questions?
Good points, well said. Harriet vetted all Bush's judicial nominees, and that's extremely reassuring. (Cheney vetted Bush's original V.P. list and we did quite well there.)