Posted on 10/07/2005 3:06:16 AM PDT by Crackingham
Edited on 10/07/2005 3:37:55 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected. Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Why not someone like Judge Janice Rogers Brown or any of a number of other identifiable judges with a proven history of upholding conservative judicial principles under fire?
Looming in the background is the specter of people like Justice Anthony Kennedy, who went on the High Court with a "conservative" label and then succumbed to the Washington liberal culture. But while the past is undeniable, it is also not predestination. This administration needs to be held responsible for its own shortcomings but not those of previous Republican administrations.
Rush Limbaugh has aptly called this a nomination made from a position of weakness. But there are different kinds of weakness and sometimes the difference matters. President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.
When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.
Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators. Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.
The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement. We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure. For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth. That's not ideal by a long shot. But ideal was probably never in the cards, given the weak sisters among the Republicans' Senate "majority." Full article
I don't want a 2nd vote for Roberts. I want a smart person who can reason his/her way into doing the right thing and hold his/her own.
"I've rubbed elbows w/ the 'beautiful people' quite a bit. I can testify that all church goers are tolerable except for one group: evangelical church goers. The quiet laughter and tinkling wine glasses go dead silent when the topic of true blue bible thumpers comes up."
What you bring up here is at the heart and soul of this issue. If the "evangelical church goers" ar doing what they ought to do, they'll be praying, because God is neither Republican nor a Democrat.
And some of us are rejoicing that The President has by-passed the usual routes-of-ascendency (Yale, Harvard) and picked someone with real values that mean something.
I just watch NBC put on Kristol who flat out slammed Bush for picking Miers.
Funny ... why would the 'neo cons' reject Miers so quickly? And why is the MSM so delightfully giving them so much air time to voice their dismay and disgust?
My guess: the neo cons can be seen (because they are Republican, really) as the best way to go after Harriet; and thus preserve what little respectibility the demonrats have left.
btw, I forget ... did Kristol go to Harvard ... or was it Yale?
Wonderfully, wonderfully refreshing after a week of temper tantrums and political fantasy.
Things he's saying don't look good.
Well, they're talking about fried twinkies now. LOL.
I will never forget Tyrell's excellent comment on Kristol. Tyrell said Kristol is the kind of guy who likes to sit around in a smoking jacket (even though he doesn't smoke) and sip brandy in his study.
Kristol has been gunning for the President since the spring of 2001. After the election, there was a short period where he supported the President, until it became obvious he wasn't going to be hired by the White House. The only time that Kristol has supported the President's policies is the WOT, and I actually think this was done because McCain supported it.
Bill Kristol wouldn't be caught dead at a Right to Life function. I have no idea whether or not he believes in abortion or not; it's simply that he wouldn't like to be around all those people who didn't go to Harvard, like bowling or bass fishing, and watch "Everybody Loves Raymond." HA!
The Presidents hands were tied. Dr. Sowell hit the nail on the head with his thoughtful column.
I think she is quite qualified. A moral and intelligent woman. She will be confirmed and shut all the naysayers up.
Thanks. I will be paying close attention during the hearings. That is not a good sign.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46710
This is today's and there's three articles at the bottom.
Oh my.
Just read your post and missed Corise. Who is he and what makes you think this is all about the left opening Bush's TANG service?
Could you also post that on other threads to see if other freepers saw this and can flesh it out a little?
I don't want a 2nd vote for Roberts. I want a smart person who can reason his/her way into doing the right thing and hold his/her own.There's entirely too much "reasoning" going on these days. Too much "creative thinking".
We need a back-to-basics approach to the law. Simple, pure-hearted people like Meirs, guided by strong conservative intellects like Roberts, will get us out of the rut that all our legal geniuses have dug us into.
Bush is brilliant.
Exactly, thanks for posting this comment. So, now it seems as though Crow will be the official bird this year of many FReeper Thanksgiving feasts.
Does this mean it's still Bush's fault? LOL!
Misunderestimated by his own party, how sad.
Sorry, that should be Jerome Corsi, author of "Unfit for Command" & "Atomic Iran"
and see post 32 for a link.
Still another might be, why did the White House support Frist as majority leader?
Do you mean "tolerable to the beautiful people"? (I'm feeling dense this morning)
The Senate has depths of incompetency that we have yet to plumb.
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.