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 this is true, conservatives to KNOW that and defeat ANY Republican on the Judiciary of blocking originalist judges. That is another argument in favor of a showdown.
The only reason the GOP doesn't want to do that is so they can protect RINOs as Republicans care more about power than conservatism.
It's fourth and seven and a field goal will win the game. Oh wait, don't kick the field goal--let's try a pass in the corner. That's what I hear the carpers saying on all the threads.
I keep hoping that someone will tell me why this choice is the worst thing that ever happened simply because Harriet Miers is a name that FReepers hadn't heard prior to her nomination. I wonder how many people had heard of William Rehnquist before his nomination the SCOTUS ... and he, too, had no previous judicial experience. That didn't turn out too bad ... ;-)
The people like Owens have just been seated in their current spots after years of contentiousness and delay. Their positions are important, also. I personally want a strong judiciary (i.e., constitutionalist, non-activist) on all levels, not just SCOTUS. Why expect those like Owens and Brown, having just survived running the gauntlet, to go through it again, this time with the stakes even higher and the mud likely to be much thicker?
..... If one of the "approved by FReeper" nominees had been selected, then their SCOTUS confirmation process would be much more harsh than what they have already endured ... and we would have to start back at the beginning on filling their current positions, a process that could be dragged out for years longer. It makes sense to me to leave them where they are and select someone new for SCOTUS.
When Bush hasn't let us down on any other judicial appointments and we know very little about Miers, I don't understand why so many people assume that Bush has suddenly gone off the deep end simply because they are not familiar with her. Isn't this awfully presumptious? Isn't it also quite presumptious to take the stand that there are only 4 or 5 people in the whole country who meet our criteria for SCOTUS, even though very few of us know diddly-squat about potential candidates?
If anyone can/will address any of these points, I would appreciate it though I'm not sure that I will have time/opportunity to respond ... and will not argue. I'm just trying to learn and understand ... :-)
My insiders tell me your insiders are not credible.
This is what many of us have been trying to get across for days now.
The more I like about this the more I think it's time to pull old spectors FBI files and W's administration needs to make that old basturd spector an offer he can't refuse...
You go, Puke! You got that right again! Liked your argument and readers might like yet another supporting view--applying the MOOSEMUSS, principles of war to the question. Look it up on www.mysandman.blogspot.com
LOL!!!
I'll buy your analysis with but a few comments on the above.
Caveat....I don't like RINOS. Period. At least here in the liberal hell of Delaware, we KNOW where Biden stands.
But look where RINOS get elected! Pennsylvania, Maine, New Hampshire, Arizona. All places with a serious split in the compilation of the voters.
Anyone running in Pennsylvania that was anti-abortion would never get elected there. Period. Too many liberals in Philly, with the rest of the state Republican voters being basically Republican-Lite.
So the Republican party, in what can arguably be called questionable wisdom, choose to run as representative of the party a RINO. Only a RINO would win there.
One could argue with my assertion and indeed there's indications that the pendulum is swinging. But that pendulum swings slow and changes slower.
So we get the RINO's we can stomach. The rewards of having Republicans in the majority are many. The Chairs of all committees are Republican. This fact alone is worth its weight in gold. There's the factoid, however misleading, that there is, indeed, a Republican majority. Sure we have several RINOS but it's better to be the majority than the minority in any case.
Thus decisions are made and something is lost. We get Arlen Specter or maybe NOBODY. Maybe back to minority status. Maybe back to Democrats chairing all the committees. Remember how Daschle bottled up everything in committee?
As for it being OUR fault, ie the solid conservative voters, I say no. First, this administration has run scared witless from backing solid conservatives in RINO-like states. There was that guy from New Jersy. Another from California. One of them was named Simon, forgive my aging memory. Early indications that with a little backing from the administration these candidates might have had a chance.
It's not the CONSERVATIVE voters who won't back, or elect, these candidates in RINO states. It's the voters, a salad bowl of mostly socially liberal folk who want a Repub to mind the money. Lots of PA Democrats voted for Spector. Many of them would likely have refused a Santorum.
These RINOS do what they were elected to do. Which is to represent their voters. Spector is nowhere, nowhere, nowhere if he goes against abortion. The voters of PA simply will not elect a senator with that stance. It's not your solidly CONSERVATIVE voters who would refuse to vote for an anti-abortion candidate. It's the liberal voters, many registered Democrat, for God's sake, who would so refuse.
We live in a representative democracy and though I can't stand Pelosi, she was elected to represent the Mooonbats in San Francisco.
You either live within our political system or you don't.
If one does not think that these representatives should represent their voters than I guess one would also assert that Sunnis should represent Kurds and Shias shouldn't be represented at all. Or some other more appropriate analogy.
Basically I agree with the analysis of the poster and suppose that's EXACTLY how it all came down.
It's our political system. Like they say, it ain't perfect.
As for WE not supporting solid conservative candidates, I'd say not true. WE don't have enough votes in those RINO states to get them elected. What WE should be doing is....tada...educating our fellow voters.
And, exactly who helped Mr. Specter get re-elected? Oh, it was Bush that saved his sorry, sagging ass along Rick Santorum. It was also many fellow red-state Senators that allowed him to chair the judiciary after supposedly getting a promise from him that any nominee would get a fair up and down vote on floor.
Yet, ANOTHER reason to have this fight. If this is true and Specter pulls this, he needs to be removed from leadership.
Do Dems do the same in primaries? I've never noticed myself.
"he looked like the cat that swallowed the canary "
Oh, I know. I wanted to slap him. Who appointed him as the one to "approve"?
we have RINOS in the Senate that can't be trusted to vote for a partisan known conservative nominee, and the Dems have moderates who are uncomfortable with using the filibuster.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue here. With that agreement they agreed to take over the Senate and gained greater influence over the entire government. I told people that at the time, and they vehemently denounced that assessment.
Damn right there are Dems in red states that don't want to act, that's why you force them to a vote. Force them to commit on record. Then use it against them in their eletions if they make the wrong choice. You call the bullies bluff.
Granted, if put on scene like that where they would be forced by their constituents to vote right they'd rataliate elsewhere. Tax cuts. WOT. But they are already looking to raise taxes, and withdraw. They just protected the terrorists in a bill!
What I am saying is that the President is made weaker by appeasing them, and in the long run, it won't matter. Give them two years and they'll have our troops pulled out, taxes going up, and any number of ills UNLESS something dramatically changes in the Senate. They need to be faced down and defeated.
"The President has done everything he can to get a better Senate. Look at all the campaign appearances and fund raising events he's done."
He actively supported Spectre vs. Twoomey in a close race. I'm not sure that's turning out as expected.
I'm willing to keep the House majority.
I'm asking why the Senate.
I knew it was my fault.
Well, Dog's got a better track record around here than you do, so most of us will take Dog's sources over yours.
And in a similar vein, no matter what the GOP asserts either.
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.