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 ...
Hey..what is this? Some sort of misdirection from one of you bushbots? I can sniff 'em out so you don't fool me!
I hope you're being sarcastic with that long list of 'barking moonbats'. I'm not sure what the president with this nomination. He could have nominated Janice Rogers Brown. Good record, solid conservative, a women, and black. We all could have had great fun in watching Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, etc. in twisting themselves in knots trying to attack her.
But noooooooo, we get another Bush insider with no record, who voted Dem (albiet in the 80s) and we're told "Trust me on this one". No thanks. The high court has become the de facto ruling junta of our times, supplanting the simple farmer's language of the Constitution with prongs, twisted logic, and references to foreign law. This is probably THE most important domestic issue of our times.
So Peggy thinks for herself and is not a Kool Aid drinker. Something wrong with that? I think the "barking moonbats" have a valid point. I'm concerned about this choice as much they are--and rightfully so! Put me down as a moonbat!
HA!
No, they are not stupid. It is quite plain however that the White House did NOT have in mind keeping any promises made for conservative votes. Bush lauded his conservative views and whined for their votes and then did an in your face gambit fully expecting that he could pull it off.
He and his handlers failed miserably. All one has to do is look and listen to Bush on TV. He is one POed off person and is having great difficulty containing himself.
If one cannot see the inner rage exhibited by Bush, they need new glasses. When people questioned the war, he used patriotism to ward off the blows. With this there is no defense and he had to resort to the shopworn theme of "trust me". That is damn lame for any president to use as a crutch.
How? Where?
"This battle in the conservative movement will be intellectual vs. faith-based, and will seriously fracture the party for a long time to come."
I fear that you are, in fact, correct. A good question would be why would anyone throw this bone of contention into the pit at this particular time. It reminds one of the Schiavo (sp?) issue. As a matter of fact, people have fallen out, or in, along much the same lines.
This issue will do much damage to conservatism and the question still remains. Why?
They--and Peggy--deserve to be muddied up a little bit.
Not so much because they attack Bush wrong headedly, but because they are lazy, victims of their own tunnel vision. There were plenty of clues Bush was capable and most willing to make this kind of mysterious appointment. They did not simply miss the clues, they were clueless where to look for them.
An example from the former Governor of Texas:
In December 1994 Colonel Daniel James III was Operations Group Commander, 149th Fighter Wing, Texas Air National Guard. Son of famed Air Force General Daniel "Chappie" James Jr., number III appeared to be headed for retirement and a return to his full-time job as an American Air Lines pilot.
A Vietnam pilot, smart, articulate, personable, highly capable at everything he took on, respected by one and all (excepting of course the usual malcontents and the envious), James' appointment as Texas Adjutant General in 1995 sent shockwaves through the Texas National Guard. What did a lowly Air Guard Colonel know about commanding something that included the 49th Armored Division? How'd you like to be holding your first staff meeting with a group of highly experienced and politically savvy Army Guard Officers who mostly outranked you?
Well, the appointment worked out, sufficiently so that now Lt. General Danny James sits over at Andrews Air Force Base as the Director of the Air National Guard.
Doesn't take too much dirt scratching to find other examples where Bush has reached into his memory bag to pull out highly capable unknowns to place in high profile positions. People who claim to know the inside of things ought to have a broader field of vision -- and fire.
IMHO, of course.
Got anymore of that Kool-aid?
Whose "bot" are you?
Really? And who told you this? Did someone in the administration chat with you about their "stalled" agenda. Or did you hear this on TV and decide it must be true? Do you even know what the Administration's agenda is? Do you have a copy of their agenda that you can post here?
Perhaps you could highlight your list of the Administration's agenda so we know which items are done, which are being worked on, and which are "stalled".
Perhaps the agenda that is "stalled" is really only a list of things that you felt the Administration should have done. More like a personal to-do list than an Administration agenda.
It's a good column. I agree that Meirs' has to prove herself in her Senate hearings. She has to prove that she is equipped to resolve Constitutional issues. Running the Texas Lottery Commission is not proof enough.
I think this is a well reasoned piece. Dear Peggy is absolutely right to express the major problem with Miss Miers - that we simply do not have enough information about her, and that given the numbers of able people who could have filled the post, it's not sufficient to say "trust me" in justifying passing them over.
I have supported the President to the hilt in the War on Terror, and bit my tongue on a number of issues including spending (President Reagan would never have approved). If I am to be called a "barking moonbat" for suggesting this is a less than stellar choice, so be it. I refuse to adhere to the idea that President Bush cannot commit a mistake - down that way lies losing reason in the name of partisanship, and ditching principle in the name of playing "follow the leader".
Regards, Ivan
Yes it does! In my humble opinion, the whole nomination is a ruse! Meirs will do her visiting of the Senators and Congressman and at the very last moment will declare that this isn't the right thing for her and step away from the nomination. At that time President Bush will nominate Luttig and all will be well with the world. He, the President, will have caught everyone off guard and gets the person he really wants in there. And, the battle we all so wished would have happened, will now happen. My conspiracy theory!
If you believe that then we don't really have a disagreement. To me that's all that matters. The rest is desert and perhaps we weren't ready for, or couldn't afford desert at this point in time.
Instead he chose to reward only the religious conservatives in his broad coalition. Just look at the people who endorsed her..
Perhaps that is why he trusts her character so much though. He made some strong statements about her, that she won't drift Left, that she won't invent rights, that she is an originalist. How does he know that?
My only conclusion is that he recognizes and trusts her character.
If Bush is right about these things then we all should be more than happy. "Mission Accomplished!" according to my way of looking at it.
Yup, the list of 'barking moonbats' is definitely sarcasm. That's what some Miers advocates on another thread were calling Ann Coulter and other conservatives that have expressed alarm over the Miers nomination. In fact, the list is growing so long now that I realized I missed a few names (such as George Will and Gary Bauer).
Brilliant insight. Thanks.
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.