Paragraphs are good...
In case you haven't noticed, the split is not because W made a weak nomination, it is because a group of whiners won't keep their mouths shut about it. It's not the crime, it's the people who caught the crime that are to blame. Or at least that is what I have learned here the last two weeks.
It's the most idiotic decision President Bush made during his presidency, bringing to mind the danger, common to all presidents, of living in the "presidential bubble." There had to be many people surrounding President Bush who knew this was a terrible choice, who either: 1) Didn't speak up out of sheer fear or careerism (there are stories of Andy Card shouting down dissenters), or 2) Didn't speak up because access to the president was too tightly controlled.
"Judgment" doesn't have an "e." Not a big mistake, because it's the kind of word that looks like it should have a "e" in there.
And now, a word from our sponsor?
Headline: Aspiring FR jounalist accuses Meirs of
"...her clandistine leanings..."
That is a new one.
the poor defense of Harriet...and most disturbingly ...the PC kneejerk defense
indicates to me the WH never saw this coming
which makes me wonder...wtf were they thinking?
moderates did not get him elected
we elected him in 2000 for these potential SCOTUS nominations as much as anything else
Back to apostrophe school with you. Both of them are wrong.
I disagree.
IMHO, the underlying source of the problem is that a large number of conservatives are spoiling for a fight. Since we have a superficial "Republican" majority in congress, they think it's time to take the fight to the enemy.
That would mean nominating an in-your-face conservative. Someone who will guarantee a knock-down drag-out fight with the democrats.
I'm pretty sure we would lose that fight. The Dems and their media allies would have a golden chance to paint us as extreme in the process, and many of the "swing" voters in the country would believe them.
We could easily lose Congress and the White House as a result. Is that really what people want?
We are in a WAR with people on the left that I consider evil. But the way you win a WAR is by picking and choosing the time and place for your battles. If you charge blindly ahead on a battlefield of your enemy's choosing, YOU LOSE.
Either way, it is a huge blunder. Somehow he has gotten the mistaken idea that conservatives could be led by the nose as easily as republicans. That was a huge mistake.
Bush has now opened the door to a possible loss of the House in 06. Whether Miers is confirmed or not, the republican party has lost.
The President Bush has NOT blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. The bluestate elites have blundered badly. I do believe that most of the arguments that have been posed about Harriet Miers have come across as elitist.
Just as Ike did with Earl Warren, Reagan with Kennedy and O'Conner, Bush 41 with Souter, we all know how important it is for a president to pick somone based on a nominees reputation rather than a presidents personal experience with a nominee. The reputation method has worked well give the court such a liberal tradition.
Can you imagine the BRASS of BUSH 43 actually appointing someone he knows well and has worked with for 10 years.
Just think he could have followed the Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush41 model and appointed an Earl Warren, O'Conner, Kennedy or Souter.
So I did the best I could to make sense of it. If you're offended, oh well, have a nice day anyway.
It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weakened because his judgment is now doubted within his own camp.
The Democrats always doubted his judgment, 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 opposition to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandestine 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;
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.
Nice try however poor implementation.
If you go to the DU implementation will not be a concern and you will be held with high honors.
Well to be precise by some in his own camp.
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.