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.
Yes, probably sometimes great intellects get caught up in fine but extraneous points that the lesser exalted don't even notice. As Hayek put it, sometimes great intellectuals overvalue their intellects.
There was no opportunity to force a vote on the nuclear option, the DEMs caved and stopped filibustering. and haven't filibustered since. There was no way to invoke the nuclear option once the RATS stopped the tactic. The threat of filibuster isn't enough.
You've made some very good points. I only hope Bush gets the chance for another appointment, maybe even 2. (We can hope after all).
Oh, you mean Trent Lott, the Republican Senator who voted for Clinton's Ruth Bader Ginsburg appointment but "has questions" about Buch's Harriet Miers choice.
Good post PD. I recently sent email to Rush Limbaugh after he somewhat complained about GW and some of his policies/decisions:
There is no reason we can't fight now.
The problem is the administration has calculated, wrongly imo, that the price for fighting is too high.
And, no, I don't buy those stating they are afraid of a nominee being defeated. I'm talking about high stake gambles.
I truly believe the losers in the Senate would threaten to withhold funding for the WOT.
My belief is that when a bully threatens you, you stand up to them. Get a little bloody, but you bloody them as well. But on this, we have the upper hand with the majority of their constituents that will kick their butts in the elections.
Take the offense and go to the American people. Call the weasels bluff, but keep the evidence to put them on the hot seat if they try to follow through with the threats behind closed doors.
1) I have no evidence she is an originalist.
There is a small amount of evidence that suggests she may be an originalist. But it certainly isn't conclusive at this point in time. The hearings may help on that.
But you didn't answer the question I asked you.
If the president knows Miers to be an originalist, then wouldn't the best thing for him to do would be to nominate Miers and save the weasel smoke for another fight?
There was an opportunity to force the filibuster. We still have people being filibustered right now. All Frist has to do is bring them to the floor for a vote. he has chosen not to do so.
It's OK ;-)
621 was meant for you, sorry I messed it up somehow.
That's exactly the problem with the people in Washington, especially those in Congress. Instead of representing those that elected them they think of themselves and and feed their own ADD.
Let's move everyone in gov't in Washington to New Orleans (except the military folks) then blow the levees up...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=18066
My present beef is the 60 vote supermajority for confirming nominations.
The "ruling class" are those who the people have elected to office. The lazy people want to be lead, and are easily mislead.
And Specter knows full well she can't comment on cases that may appear before her. Point is, she has no paper trail that proves she is pro or con. As for Dobson, let them go ahead and bring him in. What does his big-time talk have to do with her? She never said anything.
Neithr you nor I are Olympia Snowe's constituents. She answers to the voters of Maine, who are far more liberal than Texans or Hoosiers.
Not all of us.
You left out "married money"! (I'm from MA.)
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.
There does seem to be an element of "the soul of the hive" about libs/Dems (I forget what that's from, though I think Chesterton used it) -- aren't bees said to act as if they all think almost as one entity?
Abortion really is the linchpin, and I'm not sure I understand completely why. People complain about single-issue voters and litmus tests, but attitudes toward Roe really are a pretty reliable indicator of strict constructionism or originalism vs. the "living document" Constitution. Even the women's magazines (which I stopped reading years ago so I don't know if they still do) did at least for a while champion the "I wouldn't have one myself, but who am I to say for anyone else" cop-out, a variation of the politicians' "personally opposed, but. . . ."
There really is the scent of Satan about it. (You can check my posting history -- this is not a charge I throw about lightly.) I recall a footnote I saw in a Shakespeare text in grad school, I think to The Tempest, that explained that the recurrent anti-witch hysteria of the time was largely attributable to the popular belief that witches could induce miscarriage.
No, because...
1) We have no guarentee of another opening.
2) Once the primaries heat up, he'll be weakened in influence. People will be sparring to cosy up to the possible new president of the United States and unless that person is close to G.W.B., and his positions, they'll syncophantly betray the President forthrightly.
Im wondering what you think of this thread?
Do you have any insights into how they established it?
Brilliant. I know so many examples of that in real life.
I can not even begin to tell you. For them, not knowing the janitor's name is a sign of great importance. Most I know are on the left, but I think that the right flirts with this from time to time as well.
I believe they are often people more infatuated with the gravitas of the question, than the value of the answer.
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.