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. But I don't think it was discussed specifically beyond the WH and Frist, and maybe one or two others. More than that, and there would be a leak relating to the nature of the nominee.
It has to be a stealth nominee
That is what one argument over the nomination boils down to. Another is the charge of cronyism. Neither argument illuminates the constitutional principles of conservatism. Does conservatism itself need to be stealth, in order to appease the left and the RINOs? Is the spirit of conservatism so weak that it would lose in the marketplace of ideas?
most of what is running around on the FR threads is unadulterated BS
That is usually the case. But I agree, signal to noise deteriorates when there is a contentious issue in the news. I do think there is enough substantive disucssion on FR that it is useful to help open-minded people figure this out. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't even read here, let alone contribute.
what little real data I have see does not make me uncomfortable.
I'm in the same camp there, mostly. I suspect the Ms. Miers is more of an advocate of "government largess and compassion and wisdom" than I want, but that inclination should have no bearing on most matters that come before SCOTUS.
Individual contributors are required to report the name of their employer. I believe the contributions were hers, not the company's. Perhaps the contribution was expected, ala the way "United Way" contributions are.
I don't think the contribution is relevant at all. Others disagree with me on that point, obviously, but I don't think for one second that contributions in 1987 represent any risk that she is a judicial activist in stealth clothing.
The goal is setting the people's government on the straight and narrow path set forth in the Constitution. The Court is one part of that operation, but not the only part. The Senate's dysfuntion in using cloture to shoot down a nomination is another problem, and it is going ignored.
What you describe is open disclosure or admission of fatal weakness in conservative and constitutional principle. "We can't win on principle, so we have to win on stealth."
That might be true, but I an disgusted by that sentiment. While choosing a SCOTUS judge is not as monumental as the Declaration of Independence, the words of Patrick Henry are a stirring reminder of why, sometimes, the better course is to openly fight for principle.
The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. ...They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Could be. And I assume he factored in some amount of loss of open support that the Miers pick would cause.
But OTOH, I think that doesn't matter. People who are disappointed in the Miers nomination will still support cutting the fat from government spending. And they will support any other conservative activity that GWB dares to advance.
No. It's an FR term. Like other labels, it defies accurate definition, but general would be an RNC shill who avoids substantive discussion.
>>>No. It's an FR term. Like other labels, it defies accurate definition, but general would be an RNC shill who avoids substantive discussion.<<<
Now you have made me curious how a poster who has been a FR member for about 20 days is more familiar with FR terminology than I am.
" because I never believed the clique would shout down their own side in such a shabby way"
I've never thought that people who consider themselves conservatives would so quickly turn on those who have been at the front of the conservative movement.
All it took was Ann coulter to be critical of the miers pick and she's told to take some midol, get new batteries (for her vibrator, apparently), eat a sandwich, or get a man.
Many others who have been praised in the past for their judgement received similar treatment because they dared question this pick.
Face it - people like limbaugh, noonan, and coulter aren't the ones who've changed - it's the ones who are attacking them now. They've resorted to the liberal playbook of ignoring the issue and resorting to personal attacks.
Great column from Peggy.
BUMP
This might help ...
saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
Sorry had to drift off to work. :)
We don't really disagree that much. I'm willing to cut the Pres some slack but we both are in the same "dilemma" having to trust his judgment.
You react to this, objecting to him putting us in this place. It didn't appear necessary. And I am sympathetic to that feeling but am more willing to wait and see, to trust his judgment and insight into her character.
The true wisdom of Bush's choice? ...only time will tell. I think he is more concerned about his legacy than to allow a dog to get on the SC, especially after his father's choice of Souter, who by all accounts appeared to be an ultra-conservative.
Well I appreciate your observation.
Not by might says the Lord but by my Spirit...and except the Lord build the house the laborers build in vain.
Is this the correct application of the Harriet Meirs' nomination?
I sure hope so.
you left our Krauthammer and Sean
I am hopeful, too.
That's a great quote. Thanks for posting it!
>>>This might help ...<<<
That would be something the prudent would add to his profile.
FTR, I believe the reason I am unfamiliar with the term 'Bushbot' is because I am not one.
"The base" refers to the voting base.
There is no difference between voters at the booth; you either vote for the man, or not.
From hanging out in FR for as long as I have, I've come to believe that "the base" is best defined as any one particular group of individuals who are not pleased with whatever decision of the President's is being discussed at any one particular time.
Lastly, I personally don't care how someone else defines my political views, nor am I somehow bound by someone else's definition.
If I decide to call myself a conservative by virtue of the fact that I am not a liberal, then that's what I am. If your conservative views are radically different from mine, and in my opinion too far to the right, then, by the same right that you claim to be able to decide whether I am a conservative or not, I deem you not to be a conservative, but a fascist instead.
One last thing about the fabled "base"...
In geometry, and construction for that matter, the base is the broadest part of a shape/design, that which by its volume anchors the structure most securely; the base, by the very definition of the word, cannot possibly be the narrowest point in the structure.
Self-defined "real conservatives" are constantly defining what constitutes a "real conservative" with an ever-narrowing definition of the term.
The base of the triangle that is the GOP is not the diminishing point where only "true conservatives" and angels may thread, but the broad plane far below where the troops stand...in other words, that 58% that approve the President's choice in this matter.
With emphatic emphasis upon narrow.
Pretty quick there won't be enough of them "real conservatives" to win an election.
You forgot to close your tags.
Here, let me do it for you:
/sarcasm
Well, I for one thought it was a good op-ed. But then again, I am a "East Coast" (DC area) conservative who went to an elite school. So apparently I am now the devil.
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.