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 ...
I have been critical of Peggy Noonan in the past for writing fragrant words with little substance. This is not such a column. Kudos to Peggy for demonstrating her insight.
Peggy .. why does there always have to be a fight?
Why can't you all just believe that he thinks Harriet Miers is the best person for the bench?
Come time for the hearings ... we all will find out for ourselves
One of Peggy Noonan's better pieces in a while! Somehow coming from someone as gentle in her words as Peggy makes this all the more powerful.
Ducks.........geese.
****
Remember this: Swift Geese Veterans for Truth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255054/posts
Yes she has. I used to really like her..... almost wanted to take her out on the town and mess up that lovely harvest hair of hers. She always has been more sugar and flavoring than substance. Now she's an odd middle-aged woman who poses more than any thing else.
Go ahead and add me to the list as well. :-p
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
You've stiffed this president a few times already Peg.
Doesn't it give you pause to note this list of "moonbats" constitute the ideological lynchpin connecting the American people to the Republican party?
I've payed no attention to Peggy for the last 6 months. Don't know what the problem is, maybe mental-pause, but she's been in a negative critical mode for awhile now.
You sure do post alot of negative stuff about Bush.
"Jumped the shark," well he's not Fonzie.
For one so New (9/15) to FR, makes one go "Hmmm?".
Read my tagline. I've been here for years.
It gives me pause/note that most are journalists or TV media type who love to "hype" a story.
Novak, Kristol, Buchanan, and Savage as lynchpins of the Republican party...now that's funny.
So what made you "sign up" on 9/15, or should I say "re-sign up?"
His critics and detractors always overplay their hand when trying to rip his decisions apart.
This issue is doing a good job of distinguishing partisans from conservatives. Add me to the list of Barking Moonbats.
I'm still remembering the time Limbaugh apologized to the President on the air for not understanding his strategy, and bashing him on a certain decision. (my memory doesn't serve me well, as I can't remember exactly what it was...all I remember that Limbaugh was negative for days and then had to do an about face...I think it was the 2002 election lead up.)
If I were a liberal though, I'd be way more nervous about the Meirs appointment. Harry Reid is already on record supporting her and he knows less about her and has less reason to be supportive, for sure. His hand is crippled now having walked around with her saying nice things.
Know that the Souter Liberal drift is not a given. Frustratingly, we've seen it too many times, true, but it is not a guaranteed drift.
I think Bush feels that the very BEST way to get a conservative SCJ approved (don't forget, we have an annoying number of RINOs even though we do hold the majority) AND to prevent a Souter Liberal from being appointed is to know that person very well.
He says he knows Harrriet Meirs and she won't drift. He knows her better than any President has EVER known a SC nominee. That ALONE is why I'm not pulling out my hair.
I feel mildly secure, not because Harriet Meirs is a known conservative entity, but because I trust Bush and his ability to recognize character. At this point we don't have much choice, now do we? The more conservative clamor the more the Libs will want her appointed, seems to me. It is an odd play for Bush but it just may be genius.
Thanks for that link. It would appear to me that Lifson is correct and that Rush has forgotten the article.
It is surely a cross-section of the luminaries of the conservative movement, and just as they've been shredded for daring to question GWB's 'inspired' nomination it seems now Peggy will get dragged through the mud as well.
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.