Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
I decided to end my self-imposed exile from posting due to information that I received this past weekend from ‘a little birdie’ in Washington, which I subsequently had confirmed by another ‘insider’ if you can call him that.
You know I won’t tell, so don’t bother asking me for names, links, or further information. I trust these individuals, and have received accurate information from them before and shared it here on Free Republic. Of course, all are free to either accept or reject what I am about to share, but if you know anything about the Dog, I don’t change my mind often, and my only goal is to pass on information that can help support the Conservative agenda.
Issue 1.
Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bush’s list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the ‘stars’ who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.
More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.
Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.
Issue 2.
Arlen Specter is in my opinion, a traitor to the Conservative movement. He has made it clear to the White House that he is determined to protect his legacy, by NOT supporting any name among those who might make it possible to overturn Rowe V. Wade. What that means, is that had Bush put up someone who might make us proud, Specter reneged on a PROMISE to support Bush’s judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorum’s) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specter’s pending chairmanship in favor of John Coryn, or an extension to the term of Orrin Hatch.
The removal of Specter from the Chairmanship would have been disastrous, because he would have remained a committee member, and would have sided with Democrats against the President’s selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specter’s health issues at the time these decisions were being made.
One could argue that it might have been best to send up nominee after nominee, even if eventually defeated, but remember that O’Conner is only around hoping for a quick confirmation so that she can be with her ill husband. Bush was under the gun to come up with a confirmable candidate, or risk a Supreme Court not running at full strength as important rulings came under review.
I am told that Arlen Specter has gone back on every single promise he made when his chairmanship was still a question, and feels untouchable now that he is ill, because any punitive measures taken against him would be seen as ‘less than compassionate’ by the MSM and Democrats, who admittedly would have a field day, were Specter punished for his duplicity. The sad thing is that after “Scottish Law” or even the “Magic Bullet theory” that some think that anything that Arlen Specter says can be trusted. Sure, he supported Clarence Thomas, but does anyone believe that Specter would still be a Senator if he had not?
Issue 3.
Let’s face it; our Republican Senate is an embarrassment. From the weakness of Frist, to the petulance of the dude who ‘thinks he is leader’ McCain, down to his McCainiac compadre Lindsey (tinker-bell) Graham, to the nut from Mississippi who thinks he can actually get his leadership position back by actively rebelling against the President, we aint looking to good at all.
Our Republican Senate has as members at least 7 Democrats who could have never gotten elected as Democrats, who nonetheless support the Democrat agenda whenever they can get away with it, which unfortunately due to the weakness of Frist, is all too often. I find myself wishing Tom Delay would run for the Senate against Hutchinson, just so we can have someone in the Senate not afraid to break some heads to get things done. Why can’t we have a Republican Lyndon Johnson when we need one?
Because our Republican Senate is so weak, President Bush cannot rely on them for much. He could not have gotten majority support in this current Senate for any judicial nominee that would have made us proud. The usual suspects have made it clear to the President that any nominee who would have put their re-election prospects at risk would vote against that nominee. The bottom line, is that the Republican Senate is made up of too many who want the job, but not the work. The only job they see before them is that of getting re-elected to another six year term.
Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Owen, Alito, or anyone else you want to name, would have been defeated, and probably defeated in committee, in order to save other Senators from having to vote them down on the floor. Of this, I am now convinced. Only two names were considered allowable for Senate confirmation; Miers and Gonzales. When Bush met with Senators, he was reportedly told that these two names were the only ones that stood a chance to be confirmed, but Gonzales would face pointed questions about Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and the administration’s policy on torture. It would have been ugly, but he would have been confirmed against the added damage done by dejected a dejected conservative base, and liberal attacks on the President’s agenda. There would have also had to be a new search for an Attorney General, which would have been just as ugly.
Had Bush put up selections that would have been defeated, the chorus of ‘Lame Duck’ chanting coming out of Washington would have drowned out the President’s agenda. A defeat in the Senate would have also signaled to Congress that they were on their own, and no longer had to back up, support, or even listen to President Bush. They would have been free to play the political-calculation game that the Democrats have been playing for 6 years; avoiding tough votes that would be used against them in a future campaign.
So, what’s the bottom line?
The bottom line is that Bush did his best to give us what we want, in a way that will not hurt the prospects of the Conservative agenda. The primary thing that must be considered, is that the Congress can NEVER be put back in Democrat hands, for that would destroy all progress made up to now. Our day will come, but this aint it. If we had a Republican Senate made up of real patriots without the odd liberal in Republican clothing, things would be a lot better.
In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst.
It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time. This fact is not the fault of the President. Indeed it is OUR fault. It is us who have supported less than the best candidates for the Senate. We are responsible for Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, Graham, Lott, Frist and other persons of questionable courage. We should not be blaming Bush for our own votes. We selected the people that the President must rely upon to move his agenda forward. If they are losers, then he loses too.
Though they literally suck, we are stuck with these people because we must keep the majority to keep our agenda alive. There have been worse moments for us, but none would be worse than than the day we lose the Senate our House majorities. I now believe that although Bush disapointed many of us, that he did the very best he could do without destroying our momentum.
Yes, like Rush Limbaugh said, it was a choice made from weakness.
But the thing to remember, is that it was not Bush’s weakness, but our own, and that of the people we have elected to Congress that made this happen. Had they been strong, Bush could have selected anyone we wanted.
Because of what I now know about how and why Harriet Miers was selected, I withdraw my earlier statements against her, my statements suggesting anything less than my strong support of the President, and finally, my self imposed exile from Free Republic.
Pukin Dog is back, so deal with it.
If Laura Bush can't play politics, then she should not speak on issues such as this....plain and simple.
It would appear that her comments have been greatly blown out of porportion.
Besides, as much as anyone wants to complain, "Bush" (not Limbaugh, Kristol, or Krauthammer) was on the ballot and W's the one who won the election. It's his choice and he's spoken. It's time to shut-up and be a team player or give the opposition ammo for the next fight.
I can say that because I'm a Democrat and I don't like her anymore than you like President Bush...and I can't shut her up and don't want to add to the abuse heaped on a decent man doing a tough job with lousy help from his friends. I sure as hell wouldn't want any of your kind covering my back.
I'm withholding my opinion until I see what happens with the F-35. All those allies spending all that development money...and no airplane??? :)
They are more ironic than moronic. It was Laura who opined that she would like to see a woman replace O'Connor. Moreover, the President has used Miers sex, i.e., first woman to be this or that, to support her nomination.
I actually believed what you said before you said it. If anyone thought it would be good for the party or the conservative movement to have the Dems shoot down our nominee if that nominee was a PROVEN Conservative, they are wrong. And the Dems KNOW how important this seat is and were prepared for WAR. If Bush is right about this nominee it may prove to be a great choice at this time given the current players.
Ping!
Of course, this reveals the whole problem with the Miers nomination...it is too personal to Bush, and it does not appear that he made an objective decision, but one colored by his personal relationship with Miers.
The Senate ate my homework. A leader leads. Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas and won against a Dem-controlled Congress. Politics is the art of compromise, but there are times when principle trumps expediency. Let the Dems and RINOs try to kill a qualified, experienced, Conservative nominee knowledgeable about the Constitution with a proven judicial track record.
David Frum hasn't impressed me- way before this disaster. He is now impressing me with the way he is piling on here in reference to Miers. He is positively gleeful- I wouldn't want him on my side in any fight.
I find this quite unlikely. However, what I do find likely is that the White House is putting this out as a way to combat the negativity about the nomination.
The first message that was sent was that several potential nominees asked to not be considered and also that several nominees would probably lose, given the current Senate makeup. Bush made the best pick he could by taking advantage of the cover Reid provided him.
Whether true or not, this had the desired effect of blunting some of the criticism of Miers (take Pukin Dog's change of heart as an example)
Now, the message is that Bush may withdraw Meirs and he may not name a replacement this year. Essentially, Bush is telling Conservatives, be careful of what you wish for because you may not like the alternative.
I believe this is also designed to blunt criticism of the Meirs nominee.
I am actually quite hopeful about the situation. I suspect Meirs will be confirmed if she performs adequately at the hearings. Although not my favority pick, I tend to believe that Meirs will end up being a vote for our side, although not a brilliant legal mind for us (neither was O'Connor).
I think this uproar will end up being healthy. Conservatives have sent a shot across the President's bow, so to speak, and told him not to take us for granted. I think the President sent one back across ours and said that he knows what he is doing.
Sometimes it is necessary for Allies to get each others attention just to make sure their support is not taken for granted.
IMHO
I hope that you're wrong about this. Harriet Miers wasn't who I expected President Bush to nominate. But now that he has, I want to hear what she has to say. Unfortunately, if you are right, then she has been silenced before she's even had a chance to speak and we'll likely never know one way or the other.
Q But, you know, conservatives are worried about what's going to happen when she gets on the bench, and they're worried about what's going to happen in the future. And I get the feeling - and I'm not sure if this is too strong - I get the feeling some conservatives, President Bush, are feeling let down by you; and they're thinking they've supported you for so long and when an issue that is so important to them comes up, that you let them down. How would you answer that?
THE PRESIDENT: My answer is Harriet Miers is going to be confirmed and people will get to see why I put her on the bench. She is an extraordinary woman. She is -
Q You said she is the most qualified candidate for the job -
THE PRESIDENT: As I told you.
Q -- would you agree with that?
MRS. BUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Q You had pushed for a woman to be a nominee.
MRS. BUSH: That's right. And I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling, herself. She's a role model for young women around our country.
Q Some are suggesting -
MRS. BUSH: Not only that, she's very deliberate and thoughtful, and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, but certainly to the Supreme Court she'll be really excellent.
Q Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that?
MRS. BUSH: That's possible. I think that's possible. I think she is so accomplished, and I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.
It is pretty bad when you raise the white flag even before the fight. A fight here, won or lost, would have been good for the GOP. The spineless GOP could then use the same tactics once the Democrats get in the White House, and force them to nominate more moderate justices. The White House should have dared Senate democrats to filibuster. Would Hillary really want to be part of a filibuster on Supreme Court nominess???? That is what I want to know.
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.