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.
Thank you for making this point!!
Out of curiosity, why is that?
Law firms always give to both parties. It's called hedging your bet. Contributions from corporate America are akin to protection money. There is plenty out there to cause doubt about Miers, but I don't think this is it.
He was recruited by Harry Reed and the DNC despite his being pro-life (a Socialist otherwise.) The DNC and the Governor, Ed Rendell (former head of DNC) courted him and promised unlimited funds to take on Santorum. He will not only have all the Dimwit votes from Philly but all the manufactured ones they can make from the dead and non-existant come election day. I seriously doubt that Santorum can win since there will be a huge defection of pro-life Democrats in W. PA, his conservative base is p.o.'d at him over Specter-Toomey and with Rendell running for governor again, they will have the machine cranked up churning out those votes by the millions. Once Philly turns in a certain #, it's not possible to win if everyone else in the rest of the state votes for you. Every election cycle the number of people living in Philly gets smaller and the number of registered votes gets higher. In '04, they reached and exceeded the possible number of living voters just like some of the Ohio counties did. It won't stop them from manufacturing some more for '06 unfortunately.
The sad fact is that these weasels will hold up a SC vote because they want more aid for Louisiana or Mississippi, or a rainforest dome in Iowa, or any number of other issues. The only people hey are afraid of are their constituents or the liberal press.
So if you string a few opii together you got yourself an opera? Live and learn.
That is where we can make a difference.
"Law firms always give to both parties. It's called hedging your bet. "
So you're telling me she and her firm hedged their bets. Wonder who's side she would have been on if Gore had won. I suppose she would have stayed at Locke Liddell and sucked up to the Dems even more. I am glad to hear Miers hedges her bets. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Actually, that's a great question which goes to the heart of our present crisis.
US Senators, for the most part, come from the non-producing upper class. They either inherited money, or made money nonproductively (in finance, for example).
They all, or almost all, went to elite schools and all of their friends are members of the social and political elite (the rare exception, like Coburn, proves the rule).
This elite non-producing class has certain common prejudices and beliefs. Of all of them sexual "freedom" and the corollary "right" to kill undesired babies is one of the strongest.
The Democratic senators don't need any discipline. Their side, the death side, is what they all believe already.
The Republicans, however, have depended on pro-life votes for their seats. Most of them who say they are committed to pro-life justices are lying.
They therefore have a strong (or very strong) incentive not to vote.
There are not 20 Senators who would vote to confirm a pro-life nominee, IF their vote was #51.
I seem to recall reading of a number of Justice Department investigations into voting "irregularities" going on quietly. I wonder if PA is among them.
Thanks again for the info!
Your welcome. Not just Miers though, ALL lawyers. That's why we hate them and our government is so screwed up. It's run mostly, by lawyers.
Maybe Rudy said no, but Kristol was on TV right before Bush's speech swearing that it would be Guiliani. I was quite pleased to see Ridge named just to see Kristol's grin wiped off his face.
1) I have no evidence she is an originalist.
2) IF, as said, he has calculated he cannot appoint the BEST people for the position because they are known Strict Constructionists the weasels are threatening to refuse, and IF we have Senators attempting to protect terrorist rights which we do, and IF we have Senators trying to withdraw us prematurely from Iraq which we DO, and IF we have Senators trying to hike our taxes which we DO, and IF we have Senators trying to slowly contrict all free speech which we DO Etc etc ...
You expose them NOW while the President is STILL standard bearer of the Party before real jockeying begins in fall '06-'07, on a topic HE has the advantage of strength on.
Two years from now he will be weaker then he is now, and that is when the traitors will pounce and our country is in true jeopardy at that point in the WOT if Iraq is not stabilized because I guarentee moves will be made to deny funding at that point. They need to be exposed now.
You've lost your marbles. Next thing you know you'll be praising Osama.
You're welcome. Just to clarify, "status quo" in my comment referred to age old society, not to the present subversion of the Constituion practiced by the current ruling class.
I found this interesting article on powerlineblog.com. It was written by Huge Hewitt. Good advice for us here to consider. Read this:
I'm glad to see Hugh Hewitt emphasize the need for mutual respect among conservatives in the Miers debate. The Bush "loyalists" and others who support the Miers selection should respect the right of disappointed conservatives to forcefully air their critique. Not only is this their right, but such commentary provides useful feedback to the administration about the sentiments of a portion of its supporters. At the same time, the critics should respect the expectation of the loyalists that the vote on Miers not be driven by disappointment or punitive considerations, but rather by an open-minded assessment of the options.
Finally, both sides should respect the good faith of the other, as we all try to sort through this messy situation. Not everyone who undertakes an open-minded assessment will reach the same conclusion, and it's fine to criticize reasoning and conclusions with which one takes issue. But calling fellow conservatives toadies, bed-wetters, or elitists, or telling them to just shut up, is immature and unhelpful. Let's leave that sort of thing to the left.
Bork thinks that RKBA is outdated, so I have read. I also consider him to be a believer in the idea that government can take a large role in ordering society. Otherwise, he may understand rather well the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice. But if I am correct on my first 2 objections, then he is not qualified in my book, fwiw.
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.