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 ...
Maybe he shouldn't be putting sliders on the outside corner of the plate when the people who voted for him are the ones at bat.
No. Has nothing to do with him.
That 1986 Tax Reform written by Bill Bradley was a disaster.
Listening to certain talk show hosts tho, Reagan is their deity, facts be ignored!!!
Yep. Could have been dozens, but I certainly do remember hearing more than a few.
I suppose our Republican intelligentsia simply didn't believe Bush might actually pick someone who lives and thrives outside their range of expectations.
I'm really disappointed in the talking heads that we've all come to rely on to be our public voices for so many years, because I never believed the clique would shout down their own side in such a shabby way.
Me too.
At the very least, the other side is giggling in the cloak room. Some may even hope for an open civil war, one they can exploit next year.
The Meirs appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will be incredibly important, I think. Bet it gets better ratings than Desperate Housewives.
Unintentionally hilarious.
"Interesting"? It's blatantly obvious that "bushbot" is a derogatory name. If you disagree, care to define what you mean by "bushbot"?
Reagan had to deal with Dem congresses, and was working valiantly to shift the entire course of American politics. Moreover, the difference between Reagan and GWB is that when someone on the right wants to slam Reagan, they have to nitpick out a bare handful of policy items out of a grand 8 year record, but when someone on the right wants to slam Bush they just need to open their eyes for a quick glance at his actual policies..
Yeah, the outcry from the punditocracy has been pretty amazing. I love how the bots pile on Coulter, who they previously worshipped when she dared criticize the President. BTW, has Hannity weighed in for or against Miers yet?
Nice philosophy. Good thing you weren't around for the Continental Congress, the Civil War, D-Day, the Manhattan Project, etc. etc. etc.
If it's not worth fighting for, it's not worth having. Or to put a biblical spin on it, "God spits out the lukewarm".
That's baloney.
The only short list she was on was the one Harry Ried prepared for Dubya to pick from.
What was he thinking? He was thinking, "Man, I hate that bully Harry Reid. But maybe if I give him my lunch money one more time he'll leave me alone."
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans, particularly conservatives, are less supportive of President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court than they initially were for his nomination of John Roberts, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday night.
The poll, taken Monday and Tuesday, indicated many people are concerned about Miers' lack of judicial experience.
Asked to rate Bush's nomination of Miers, 44 percent of those polled described it as excellent or good, while 41 percent said it was fair or poor and 15 percent had no opinion.
Among respondents who described themselves as conservative, 58 percent said the Miers pick was excellent or good, and 29 percent thought it was only fair or poor. By contrast, 77 percent of conservatives in a July poll thought the Roberts nomination was excellent or good, and just 13 percent found it fair or poor. ( )
Fifty eight percent approval from those who identified themselves as conservatives...the base has been appeased.
Gawd, hope someone skips posting the obligatory picture of that scrawny caterwaul..
I give up, logic eludes too many on this topic.
Hannity has hosted discussion about Miers on his programs, but so far as I've seen he hasn't weighed in with his own view yet.
Who went up against Goliath? It wasn't the mightiest. It was a boy. With God. And a rock.
The policy on illegals was wrong, and I thought so then, but in Reagan's defense I will say that it was a far lesser problem then than it is now.
But most important of all, Reagan had to deal with Democratic congresses, not with the Republican congresses Bush gets to have.
And, again, my point was that you look at the totality of Reagan's record by comparison to the totality of Bush's record and its not even in the same ballpark. Reagan's is the one way over to Bush's right..
But this is the most forseeable trainwreck I could ever imagine.
They know damn well in the Whitehouse that this nomination would tick off the base given the number of proven conservatives on the deep judicial bench.
Harriet Miers may turn out to be a terrific Justice; I hope she will.
But the President gave the finger to the conservative base as far as I'm concerned. Fool me one (Souter) shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Between this master stroke of stupidity combined with excessive spending, no immigration policy, etc., I'm wondering how long conservatives (not Republicans) but CONSERVATIVES will fall on their swords out of loyalty.
Principle, not party my friends.
You are so correct. It is too bad that the White House has such calloused, or such idiotic advisors that they did not tell our "compassionate conservative" President that was the case.
I just re-read Janice Rogers Brown's Whiter Shade of Pale, and it triggered a germ of an idea.
Janice Rogers Brown thinks big government is a problem. She also has a history of judicial restraint. In comparison, assuming that Ms. Miers would practice judicial restraint, I am not sure that she sees a problem with big government. That difference in attitude could color her judicial opinions.
For me, I object to big/centralized domestic control in general. Of course it is more objectionable when the control comes from the Court rather than from Congress, but judicial restraint may not be "enough" to reverse the course of government growth.
Because she obviously _is not_.
There is never "a best" person for the bench. There _is_ a pool of qualified candidates, depending on your own personal political persuasion. Draw from that pool, and you _may_ end up with a very good appointment.
To pick a crony and ignore the pool reflects upon the decision-maker as well as the choice.
When G. Bush the first picked Souter, he gave the perfect example of what happens when one ignores the pool of qualified conservative candidates and makes a choice that one _hopes_ will work out. In that case, it didn't.
Maybe Ms. Miers will surprise us all. I hope so. But I expect otherwise.
- John
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.