What is it about Mier's Nomination that Weaken's Bush

10/16/2005 | Westpole

[Westpole]

President Bush has blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weaken because his judgement is now doubted within his own camp. The Democrats always doubted his judgement indeed his intellect. Now the same doubts are being expressed on the right. What is it about this nomination that can so undermine the presidency. The main problem with Ms. Miers' nomination can be summed up simply, she is a "weak sister". People respect bold action even when they don't agree with it. The Democrats mostly voted for the war in Iraq even though they opposed it. A bold move by a President will usually be deferred to. But there is nothing bold in this nomination. The very character of the nominee that is emerging is that of a follower not a leader. Some may believe the strength of the oppostion to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandistine leanings on any number of other issues. But that is not what is giving the Bush presidency problems. Mr. Bush could have gone in one of two other directions. If he nominated a conservative intellectual leader the right would have cheered and the left would have played the same cards they have over other conservative judicial nominees. Their opposition would only have made the President look stronger not weaker. Had Mr. Bush nominated say a leader with centerists or even liberal views the right may have objected but he could claim that "balance" on the court is a an important principal for American stability and his willings to put stability over his party's wishes would have made him look bold and certainly in the media wise. In either case the president would be a bold thoughtful leader. But Mr. Bush did neither. He nominated a camp follower..a weak sister who's best quality is her loyalty to him. If confirmed the Democrats would hope the loyalty was binding as long as it was convinient, whereas the right would hope she would just follow Justices Scalia and Thomas. So what Mr. Bush has done is force both sides to wonder which leader this follower will follow. No one is comfortable with making that speculation for a justice of the Supreme Court. And everyone senses a missed opportunity to increase the intellectual heft of decision-making in the country's only forum for which there is no appeal.

[dixiechick2000]

"From all your posts last year against President Bush, I doubt very much that you voted for him."



ROTFLOL!

You have absolutely NO idea who you are dealing with, do you?
If you did, you wouldn't have made such a silly comment.
He is one of the President's most ardent supporters.
That doesn't mean he has to agree with him on everything.
In fact, it would be unusual if he did.

[EternalHope]

You haven't explained how this voodoo works. In what tangible ways would this weakness manifest itself. Will the Republican congress start making liberal laws if Miers doesn't make SCOTUS? Is there a rule that the President looses his veto power if his liberal nominee isn't confirmed?

If you are perceived as strong other politicians are more likely to want to curry your favor, thus doing your bidding, and vice versa.

Likewise, if you are seen as unpopular you will be a safe target to attack, and vice versa.

If you are seen as weak it will be considered safe to oppose you.

etc.

[bert]

I have come to believe that the general discussion has changed from liberal vs conservative to gradations of conservatism.

This takes liberal issues off the table and allows the spectrum of conservative thought to be put on display. This is good.

I think of the Zell Miller democrats. They think they are democrats even though they really aren't. The leftwing hijackers have stolen their party away.

With the discussion limited to various aspects of conservatism, they should be able to pick and choose enough positive things they agree with to switch.

It's a good thing.

[wardaddy]

Thanks to you both.

Gorgeous autumn day here in Upper Dixie.

and folks are washing the helloutof their cars ....thank goodness

[Squantos]

I doubt very much that you voted for him

I just doubt you and everything you say......

[Jim_Curtis]

If you are perceived as strong other politicians are more likely to want to curry your favor, thus doing your bidding, and vice versa. Likewise, if you are seen as unpopular you will be a safe target to attack, and vice versa. If you are seen as weak it will be considered safe to oppose you.

If you give this a little more thought, I believe you will see that you have it exactly backwards.

Republican politicians will be more likely to stand against the President realizing that his judgment is suspect in the eyes of those who vote for Republican politicians. Democrat politicians are irrelevant in this matter.

[onyx]

Gorgeous, perfect day here too!

Watching football with the doors and windows wide open. This is heaven.

[wardaddy]

It sure is isn't it?

after a very hot summer....hottest one here since 1951 I think

[onyx]

Really? Since '51.
I am happy and relieved to know that.

We had several record breaking days, but those records were mostly from 2000.

I note that some leaves are starting to turn. Course we lost a lot of leaves during Katrina.

Car wa$hing weather, huh? GOOD for you.

[wardaddy]

Yep....super hot weather like the past 3 months plus cuts my gross by about 25%

[wardaddy]

doesn't do a lot for self storage traffic either come to think of it....flat as Marisa Berenson

[onyx]

A cut of twenty-five percent HURTS. That's awful.

[wardaddy]

thanks...

[EternalHope]

If you give this a little more thought, I believe you will see that you have it exactly backwards.

Republican politicians will be more likely to stand against the President realizing that his judgment is suspect in the eyes of those who vote for Republican politicians. Democrat politicians are irrelevant in this matter.

Au Contraire. If the natural tendency of Republican politicians were to the right of President Bush, and he was forcing them to the left, then I would agree with you.

However, we have a significant number of "Republican" politicians whose natural inclinations are anything but conservative. A weakened President Bush will be LESS able to keep them in line.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Whoops. Sorry. I've been away from the 'puter all day.

And now, a word from our sponsor:

[bourbon]

JV--

WD is the real deal. He is a strong Bush supporter. He's just not a Bush groupie.

[wardaddy]

Thank You

I hear it's finally cooled off down there.

This crisp auntumn weather reminds me of High School football weather and dove hunting at Bozeman farms

or Charlie Morgans

or Emmett Stanley's

I bet yer dad would remember those names

Bozemans was always a big giddyup

[Jim_Curtis]

Au Contraire. If the natural tendency of Republican politicians were to the right of President Bush, and he was forcing them to the left, then I would agree with you.

However, we have a significant number of "Republican" politicians whose natural inclinations are anything but conservative. A weakened President Bush will be LESS able to keep them in line.


You seem to be arguing that most Republican Senators would prefer an unknown and possibly liberal SCOTUS nominee to a known conservative originalist nominee. If that were the case, and I refuse to believe that, we are worse off than anyone heretofore could have imagined.

[WKB]

From all your posts last yearagainst President Bush, I doubt very much that you voted for him.




You need polish up on your stalking techniques
there buddy. or read your own home page

And ye shall speak the Truth and the Truth shall make you free. John 8: 32

You couldn't be more wrong about
Wardaddy and his views,opinions and positions
on Bush and politics in general.

[muawiyah]

Mentioning the arch-traitor Ginsburg brings up something else that "W" realizes, even if his critics don't ~ that is that she's a sick woman and is not likely to live out three more years on the USSC.

"W" gets a chance to nominate an ideologically oriented person to replace her.

Then there's Stevens. He's already drooling so it won't be long that "W" will get another chance at a nomination.

It's possible that "W" could end up having appointed nearly half, or maybe more than half the members of the court by the time he leaves office.

Miers is not his last opportunity.