Posted on 10/06/2005 2:24:09 AM PDT by AntiGuv
That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.
The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.
The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Amen. Same people who have been attacking Bush for many moons now. What is so surprising to me is how childish some seem to be about this. They are having a race to see who can put out the most outrageous venom.
Tantrums and spewing hate have been trademarks of the Dem Party for some years now, but now I have to admit some in my own party are guilty of same. Truth is, most average people don't believe fights and wars in the Senate solve anything. That's because most average people work in the real world and have to settle major differences and problems at work and in their lives in sensible ways.
Your cognitive powers are certainly impressive!
lLS
Great minds run alike!
LLS
" He's jumped the shark and is no longer relevant."
- Nice turn of phrase. Too bad it has no basis in reality. I think I prefer the phrase, "Bush has snookered the opposition once more."
The trouble with relying on personal loyalty the way he did here is that loyalties change depending on the positions of the persons. When Henry II made Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury he firmly believed his old friend and crony would run the church as Henry wanted. It turned out so profoundly the other way that Henry became utterly infuriated with Becket and had him murdered.
As Peggy says, getting a lifetime appointment with tremendous, unaccountable power changes a person, often profoundly. The only reasonable assurance we have that this won't happen in case of any Supreme Court appointee is if that individual has a consistent record of originalism and has spent most of his or her life fighting the good fight. That doesn't exist with Miers and it's why so many of us feel so badly about this pick.
Isn't it a bit much to assume because one has faith that they must not be a conservative but for only that reason or that they can render a decision that is not faith based but is strictly based on a conservative originalist view of the constitution? I don't think you know how her opinions may be written or received for that matter so this is over-reaching. How about a few facts or at least a reasoned argument instead of unfounded opinion? I'm not sure about this nomination either but the more I hear and read about this person the more comfortable I am getting that the President meant what he said that he ran on the promise of appointing justices that would not legislate from the bench and would be faithful to the constitution. I'm waiting to see and hear more facts, and to hear Ms. Miers respond to the questions in the hearings. I cannot fault her for having faith in her God, nor can I fault Bush for nominating someone who does especially when it will give the libdims absolute convulsions trying to undo the trap they put themselves in.
"...awestruck by the clear and easy brilliance Clinton had just shown--on the fly."
"The problem with dancing angels in your head is sometimes you can't control where they dance or why. Better to look to the music they're dancing to . . .who's playing the tune?"
Not to put too fine a point on it but Clinton never actually SAID anything in his life. The President is far more likley to have been 'awestruck' by Clinton's facility at doing it.
To stick to the analogy, Angels would goad us higher, they don't give us slick personalities or powers of performance--that's the Devil's job.
You guys don't get it! Bush sold us Conservatives down the river.
He gives the democratic voting elderly the "Big Government, Billion Dollar Medicare Prescription drug plan. He give the democratic voting Moms the " Big Government, Billion Dollar Education Plan.
Yet, he gives his Republican voting, Loyal conservative base a pledge that he will nominate SCJ in the likes of Scalia and Thomas.
Then Wimps out of a fight and nominates someone with no record or paper trail of there Conservative pedigree.
I lost all respect for Bush and will not give the RINO party another dime.
Re #45: great post.
Someone pointed out yesterday, if Bush had chosen a lightning rod type of candidate, it would have prompted a wave of contributions to Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc.
I was disappointed at first--very much so--but I'm starting to come around. I like the idea of a red-stater, outside-the-beltway Justice, and I will reserve my final judgment until I hear what she has to say.
Yeah... sorry, I couldn't resist.
Yes, it's too bad that conservatives are the opposition.
I used to think that. But I doubt it's true. They won't admit it, but they are the elitists.
I agree, I'll hold off my opinions until I watch the hearings. As for a lightning rod nominee -- there is no way the pubbies on the senate would vote for such a nominee. The enemy of known conservative judges to the USSC is not the democrats (they are a known no vote), it is the spineless republicans -- starting with Frist, and including the likes of Snow, Collins, Chaffee, Dewine, Voinivich and others. The conservative pundits are doing themselves no good by screaming before the hearings.
Got a pin? :-)
IMHO, I don't think what we want right now is a Justice who is goaded to go higher. I think what we want is a Justice who will interpret a sentence according to its construction.
I don't ever want to place myself in the position of defending Clinton--except this once. Had you seen him that day, you'd understand he was the real deal in service to the wrong cause. He was not practicing sophistry or rhetoric at the mic. No sir. Not that day.
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.