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 consider its context in the way in which it is used.
LLS
Well, at least she can still string the words together......
;-)
You do her an injustice in attacking her writing. Those lines you quoted are not just words strung together for effect, in which case they would have no real meaning (which is likley why you belittle them).
Rather they perfectly describe what she wanted to say--and POWERFULLY.
If what she says angers you--attack IT.
Ouch I hope she's not reading this!
So True...any pull "GW" may have had w/ his GOP is very shaky...not gone, yet.
If "GW" gets another USSC vacancy...Well, You know...
"and angels dancing" ------ LOL... Which angels would they be?
Not much here but your own personal opinion.
Rage? no I haven't seen it.
Patriotism used as a defense of the war? no I haven't seen it. you sound like Hillary.
"Trust me" isn't acceptable? again I disagree. At times when a leader has to make difficult choices he needs to have the trust of his peeps.
By the way, her writing is always overly powdery, flowery, and over-done these days. She used to be excellent, but that was 20 years ago. Now, it's all fluff.
Do you mean like they were with Paul O'Neill, federal spending, illegal immigration, prescription drugs, and letting Teddy Kennedy author Education Bills?
I think he's been putting out feelers that he intends to do that.
I think Bush has made some major errors but at the same time I also think he's dealing with the realities of the present Senate. The Republican party might have a majority but the conservatives don't and there's a nice batch of Senators that aren't that far apart from their moderate Democratic counterparts. If he wants to get anything accomplished he has no choice but to compromise or nominate someone without a track record.
I don't agree with Peggy that if he had nominated a judge with conservative record it would have led to the mother of all battles. His choice was made from the lessons of the last Senate when a group of Rino's stabbed him in the back and I don't think he's willing to risk having that happen again. I can't say I blame him.
I might have paid attention to her a year ago. After her unreasonable criticism of the President's Inaugural because it had too much Go stuff in it, I ignore her opinion as one which is based on the cocktail criticisms of her friends in Manhattan.
My comment I made on the thread about Novak's column stands. Noonan's opinion is irrelevant.
Thanks for the ping, though. I am sure the same people will shortly show up here, if they haven't already.
Agree..still looking/hoping for some (real) insight into the nominee. :|
I'll go on the record right now. Meirs will NOT be confirmed. This will be another ego defeat for Bush as a lame duck candidate. It's a disgrace to Conservative America who has waited patiently for these openings and then tthem thrown away on Moderates and incompetents!
BUMP
I don't know which is worse—having her defeated...or having her confirmed.
Either way, I'd like to thank W for finally letting those scales fall from my eyes.
What the hell looks good??? If she has to decide a Lottery case???? oh boy! This woman is an intellectual lightweight. SC is Heavy Lifting!
This issue is doing a good job of distinguishing partisans from conservatives. Add me to the list of Barking Moonbats.
I agree. I'm astonished at the level of vitriol directed against conservatives who wonder if Bush made a bad choice. Bush is no conservative and doesn't deserve the totally uncritical support given to him by many people on this forum (no one on Earth deserves uncritical support). We used to joke about Clinton kool-aid drinkers, well I see a lot of Bush kool-aaid drinkers here lately.
In my humble opinion, a conservative would have vetoed the pork-laden highway bill, would not have proposed a multi-billion dollar social engineering program to rebuild New Orleans, not support the prescription drug give away, not have worked with Ted Kennedy on education reform, etc. etc.
Not only is Miers an unknown with questionable things in her background to give social conservatives real reason to pause, she's also an old lady. We have the chance to shape the court for years to come, how long will a 60 year-old serve? I hope I'm wrong about this appointment, but Bush has done a lot lately to cause me doubt him.
Feel free now to flame away and call me names like some of you do to everyone else who raises doubts about Miers and Bush.
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.