The Latest Snark (Speaking truth to Daffy Duck conservatives opposed to Harrier Miers)

Irish Pennants ^ | October 7, 2005 | Jack Kelly

[Tench_Coxe]

"Heck. W should nominate Jeb for Attorney General. The Kennedys got away with it."

He'd definitely have the unquestioning support of a sizable contingent on this forum.

[EDINVA]

Until any Supreme Court nomineee is confirmed, sits on the bench, and signs off on an Opinion, one can only speculate how s/he will act on the Court. Same was true for Scalia and Thomas, lest you forget. I know a very conservative lawyer who had a FIT when Scalia was nominated, thinking he'd caved on certain issues while sitting on the DC Circuit, yet he has become the GOD of the right. If you are precognitive and can say how any nominee will decide, you are, indeed, very special.

[stop_fascism]

And, if she can't stand up to Billy Kristol, she wouldn't be able to stand up to the NY Times once on the bench. So this is a test of character.

[stop_fascism]

Burger writing a solid, stirring opinion on anything. Now that's funny.

[Afronaut]

"Wait until the Libs regain control (due to "conservatives" abandoning the President) and they turn our defense over to the U.N."

And send your Thank You note to Bush. Do you think that it was wise to start a huge fight with the Base instead of the Left? Put the blame where it belongs.

[stop_fascism]

What if the court has only 8 and a lot of 4 for 4 votes

Every decision by liberal lower courts will stand. Free all terrorist. Fine. No god in the pledge. Fine. No parental Notification. Fine. Gay Marriage. Fine. Partial Birth Abortion. Fine. Gun Confiscation. Fine.

[Thom Pain]

And the alternative to supporting the GOP in the upcoming elections is...?

I'm not saying I agree with the party on everything, I'm saying that the Pubs are closer to what I believe on most issues (The Libs are mostly 180 degrees opposite of what I believe). My approach is to vote GOP, and then hound them to death to move them closer and closer to true conservatism.

Also, with the current media in place, a truely conservative candidate is un-electable to national office. The MSM (daily viewership in the tens-of-millions) will not let that happen; the candidate's views would be twisted into pretzels. The more conservative press (FR, blogs, talk radio) just do not reach the vast majority of voting Americans (plus the dead Dims, etc.)

Elect the candidate closest to your views, then work tirelessly to push them toward your views.

Unfortunately, there is just no viable alternative, unless you favor a defenseless U.S. that is subservient to the U.N.

[unseen]

That's what primaries are for.

[unseen]

That is total BS. Our ELECTED leaders are changing the rules of the game AFTER we voted them into office. It is called arrogance pure and simple. When the VP said that the conservative uproar will go away in a couple of days on Monday in such a snide way, he basically said that the conservatives can throw their fit it doesn't matter. If the leaders would have governed in the last 5 years with anything close to their campaign promises we would more than likely trust the administration's word on this nominee. They have however BETRAYED almost everything they stated. They backed away from Social security reform, Tax reform, they mangled the Iraq war because of political pressure, they increased the size of the government more than Clinton did, they increased the debt, They have allowed the Corporations in the pursuit of profit to screw the average middle class American at the gas pumps, at the stock market, and at the federal trough. They folded with John Bolton, they folded on every fight in the last 5 years when the Democrats threaten a fight. Not one bill has been Vetoed in 5 years. The highway bill, the energy bill, the 200 billion for the war, the bancrupcty bill on and on pork piled ontop of pork, spending out of control, the nuclear option not used, the Dems still control the Senate and not one fight, not one debate, not one vote to change. If our ELECTED REP leaders will not stand and fight for us in the trench but runs whenever they even see the enemy why should the troops continue to remain on the field? Since 1994 we have won the house, the senate, and the presidency. We are tired of Judicial fiats handed down to us by UNELECTED nerds. WE want our leaders to fight for our core beliefs not run and hide everytime a Kennedy, Biden or some other nut case voices a complaint.

[krazyrep]

That's unfair.

I've made no secret about the fact that I believe the Senate leadership shares a great deal of blame for the current confirmation mess. However, we have a mid-term election coming up, and the next Presidential cycle gearing up, which changes all the rules. A change of a mere two votes means nomination filibusters are a thing of the past. There's a lot that can be done over the next year to convince two rebel RINOs to change their votes or else Republicans can pick off two of them or two Democrats. Then the President can nominate ANYONE for ANYTHING and expect it to get through. Do you think the Democrats are suddenly going to play nice-nice if another position opens up?

Instead, many Miers supporters would rather let the Democrats and liberals in Congress control the confirmation process for years to come without even an ATTEMPT at a fight to end it. Instead of stealth bomber attack which accomplishes little more than blowing up some empty tents in the desert, Bush could have opened an all-out offensive that could have taken it right downtown.

And the base simply aren't mindless automatons who march in jackbooted lockstep like Democrats. A lot of people worked hard to get enough Republicans elected to specifically end the abuse of power by the Democrats. If they're acting disloyal, it's because the President apparently has no loyalty to them. It works both ways.

It bears repeating that much conservative criticism of Miers is NOT IN ANY WAY about her qualifications per se. She's no doubt a highly qualified lawyer who would make a decent Justice once confirmed. But there was an opportunity to possibly end Democrat abuse of the confirmation process and the filibuster - an issue which was specifically why many Republicans voted for Bush - and he has essentially given up before even fighting. He could have pushed for a controversial choice, and forced Senate Republicans to explain to thier constituents why THEY were disloyal to the President during an election year.

Once Miers gets confirmed, her supporters shouldn't complain one bit about Democrat filibusters in the Senate or any wacko Supreme Court decisions - even if Miers and Roberts vote the right way.

A lot of people were ready to fight with and for the President, but he simply quit the field before the battle even started.

[You Dirty Rats]

A lot of people worked hard to get enough Republicans elected to specifically end the abuse of power by the Democrats. If they're acting disloyal, it's because the President apparently has no loyalty to them.

And that's why he appointed liberal judges to the Circuit Courts instead of renominating and fighting for his nominees, right?

The President is too smart to start a battle he can't win. There aren't 60 votes to invoke cloture on Janice Rogers Brown for SCOTUS and there aren't 50 Senators willing to go "nucular" and prevent filibustering of nominees. That's the reality.

ALL of the people that worked hard in 2004 are disappointed. Some of us, though, are keeping our heads and realizing that the President is not the problem -- it's the Republican Senators who are weasels that have denied us a hard-earned victory.

I stand by the President because I firmly believe that he has a good heart and has been the victim of disloyal ingrates in the Senate. For him to now be attacked by his so-called "base" is disgusting. Fortunately, all of these cheap shots will not affect him.

[krazyrep]

You're admitting that the reason Bush had to nominate Miers is because no one else can be confirmed due to Democrats and RINOs. If so, then the REAL problem - Democrat abuse of minority power - remains untouched and President Bush is neither willing to address it nor force Senate Republican leadership to address it. Thus, he has been disloyal to those who elected him to address that problem.

All the way around, that's a net Democrat win. So we get a slightly more reliable vote (we hope) on the Court. But regardless of how Miers votes, the Democrats can continue to filibuster eminently qualified nominees for the courts and Republicans will head for the hills. Democrats can continue such shenanigans as filibustering Presidential appointments like U.N. Ambassador or any other appointment they want, and Republicans and the President will give in. When a Democrat President nominates total left-wing wackos, Republicans, stating they want to rise above partisan politics or some such, will dutifully confirm them without a fight and we'll all sit here and gripe and moan how screwed up the court system is.

Miers may be a qualified nominee, but her nomination does absolutely zilch to address the real problem and signals the President is has as much backbone as Senate Republicans to confront the issue.

Sometimes you can lose a battle and win the war. The Bork defeat proves it. Bork wasn't confirmed, but that defeat led to Republicans being energized into re-taking Congress and the White House. A defeat here could have been used to get a filibuster-proof majority or at least the possibility of getting enough extra seats in 2006 to pass the Constitutional Option even without McCain and the RINOs.

These aren't "cheap shots." Bush has caved to the Democrats without a fight and ensured the base will have to cross their fingers and pray their stealth candidates won't become Souters.

The President can do better. He's shown the willingness to fight even though he may not win - until now

[You Dirty Rats]

The Bork defeat proves it. Bork wasn't confirmed, but that defeat led to Republicans being energized into re-taking Congress and the White House.

You actually believe George HW Bush defeated Dukakis because the base was energized over the Bork rejection? That's preposterous.

We didn't retake the House and Senate until 1994. I thought we won the 1994 Election due to the "Contract With America" -- maybe that's not right -- but to claim it was because there was a seven-year delayed reaction from the Bork rejection is hilarious.

[You Dirty Rats]

If so, then the REAL problem - Democrat abuse of minority power - remains untouched and President Bush is neither willing to address it nor force Senate Republican leadership to address it.

If you think the President has the ability to force the likes of Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Voinovich, Hagel, McCain, Warner, Graham, and Specter to vote the way he wants in the Senate, you are positively delusional. They all know he's out of Washington in a little over three years and couldn't care less what he thinks of Senate Rules.

Roosevelt swept all but two states in 1936, but he couldn't get his Court-packing plan through Congress, even though he had overwhelming 'Rat majorities. You grossly overestimate what effect any President can have on the institution of the Senate. They are not going to change Senate Rules to please him. Deal with it!

[krazyrep]

Over the next three years, six of the seven Republican "Gang of Fourteen" members are up for re-election. Only TWO of those seats need to be filled with more reliable votes to make the nomination filibuster a thing of the past. If that doesn't convince them to change their vote, at least the possibility exists to get rid of them NEXT year.

But what does the GOP and the White House do? Do they even attempt to support more conservative candidates? Do they even ATTEMPT to put pressure on them going into a primary election? No, the GOP campaigns FOR THE GANG MEMBERS and AGAINST their Republican opponents.

As long as GOP leadership and Republican voters continue to support the likes of McCain, DeWine, Chaffee, snowe and the like, we DESERVE to have Justices like Ginsberg and Souter.

Talk about delusional...