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.
I think they would do just that, and with suprising ease given the spineless RINOs we have in the Senate.
So why is Bush nominating someone who was suggested by Harry Reid? Or who doesn't have a paper trail? Miers sounds like a compromise candidate to me.
I rest my case, the First Lady's comments have been twisted and blown out of proportion.
Agree completely. Let's put the RINOs on the spot and see who can be relied upon.
So what? Either you are with us or against us. Let them choose and so will the electorate next time they come up for reelection.
This is something that must be avoided at all costs. If our 'best' are allowed to be defeated, were one of them ever willing to undergo the process, it would set back the Conservative movement for quite some time. Bush needs victories, not fights. Under that criteria, Miers is the best candidate, which is why I changed my mind.
Enjoyed your MSM manifesto from way back, PD. One question - can you clarify what you meant by Bush not putting up anyone else?
If George W Bush or any other President nominated "Harry Myers", his counsel who had never been a judge and had no record relevant to the job, he would be laughed out of town.
If Harriet were a man, she would not have been considered for five seconds.
LOL.
Well, seeing how she has no ideas, that leads those who oppose Miers to focus on other aspects of her nomination...like how it evolved that she was the "most qualified nominee" Bush could find.
Same can be said for the country, but the conservative base wants both. We got a taste with Roberts and have been hoping for a full course meal this time around. After years of Clinton's outrageous thrashing of our justice system, there is a lot of pent up frustration. This is the heat those senators need to feel. President Bush feels it now and my guess is that the weak, spineless Republicans would have felt it had Bush nominated one of the more anticipated nominees and they not supported him or her.
The RATs will give her 45 votes.
Their support for her is a no-brainer.
First, it splits the majority.
Second, there is an abundance of evidence that Harriet is Sandy Baby without the background - that she can and will be rolled by the leftists on the court.
Third, the fact that she will (probably) be seen as a failure will blacken the name of W long after he's back in Texas.
It's a trifecta for the Dems, and their support is all but assured.
There are at least five (actually, many more) leftist Republicans who will go along.
You can swear her in - unless SHE withdraws, and I don't know why she would.
This is the whole trouble with these senators. Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins answer to their electorates, which are very liberal. That's why they can only support a non-paper trail conservative.
Others, like Hagel, McCain, and Lugar, are in safe seats or aren't up for reelection until 2010.
Some, like Voinovich, have gone mushy and cowardly because they are afraid of the press.
Voinovich you could maybe cowe into voting with the President. The rest would do what they darn well pleased, based on how advantageous it is to them.
Well, you kind of made my point.
If she has no ideas, then that is a legitimate argument against her. Several commentators have done an honest job of presenting that angle without attacking either her or the President personally.
There just isn't a morally acceptable reason to attack the personal angle in this case. After all, if you think back to the Bork nomination, that is what got us to this political point in time in the first place.
Well...I'm off for a bit. Thanks for the interesting discussion. I appreciate your fairness to an opposing viewpoint.
His COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED brother, you mean?
He wasn't a GOOD attorney geneeral, but then neither was Janet Reno.
Harriet Miers is qualified. Are there people who might be more qualified? Sure. Would they have accepted the nomination? Don't know...except for Priscilla Owens, who removed her name. Would another candidate get approved? Looking at the squishy GOP senators and lock-step democrats, I am not very confident of that.
Unlike many, I am only williing to take on a senate battle if we can win it. I presume Bush counted the votes he had available, since he spoke to 80 senators about the nomination. He isn't going to nominate someone to go through the meatgrinder if all that happens is that their career and reptation are trashed, and they don't get the position.
She broke the law in hiring illegal immigrants to clean her house. I much admire Linda Chavez, but facts are facts.
Why do you think that Bernard Kerrik is not heading Homelanad Security?
Because he can't be faithful to his own wife and he took kickbacks.
Do you not remember the DUI that almost got the President de-railed?
I think you're exaggerating the voting publics' concern with this. Voters know he drank and that he snorted coke. People make mistakes. GWB quit and moved on, became a Christian.
Marple, I'm not contesting what the MSM are: a sordid pack of immoral, lying, unethical, rabid, mangy dogs. I'm just saying that they didn't become this way only after the Clinton presidency.
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.