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.
Well said.
Again, you are recommending that we play it from a loser's standpoint; we can't do what we know is right - because of WOT or such-knot - I'm sorry, I could care less about what the losers will threaten - THE SUPREME COURT is paramount.
Common Tator can explain the birth of a new Majority Party, the infights, and eventual discipline from those fights better than I can. Specifically, how the Democrats managed to develop strong party discipline as a result of their former battles when they became the Majority.
With the incessant cheerleading of the MSM and their innumerable variations of "the Big Lie."
Tell the Republican Senators that absolutley nothing will be passed without his veto and a fight until they confirm his nominee.
I don't know, but I suspect that there are many, many simultaneous back-room deals at any given moment that we don't know about. One Freeper posted (I forget who) that Bush signed CFR to keep McCain in line during the campaign (I don't know whether it's true, but it strikes me a plausible). Granted, it too often looks as if Bush is getting the worst of the bargain.
Welcome back, trouble! ;^)
However, I try to look at this from the point of view of the White House.
First of all, regardless of how scummy a senator is, if the party leader won't support incumbents, then that leader (the President) loses all clout in the Senate.
Second, if polls show that Toomey can't win the primary or the general (despite how Toomey supporters felt) it is smart to not support him, because the President didn't want to earn the enmity of a powerful senator.
Third, if Specter was pretty much guaranteed of re-election, it would be counter-productive to destroy his campaign and end up with a democrat. Remember, the Senate was very closely divided. Specter's election gave us the committees and the majority leader, even if we ended up with Specter.
This goes to the whole problem of the RINO thing. If we defeat RINO's in primaries, we may lose in the general. And that may mean we lose the majority, which it is important to hold. As bad as the Senate is now, the idea of Harry Reid controlling the agenda and democrat-led committees ramping up investigations on everything from Abu Ghraib to Enron Redux is simply not acceptable.
So, this is what Bush has had to deal with, and is still burdened with. We can't hold power without the RINO's, but with them we find much of the agenda sabotaged. I don't know a realistic way to fix this, but it is the problem we face right now.
Excuse me? Where have I portrayed it as something we CAN'T do Or SHOULDN'T Do?
I'm telling you what I think the analysis is behind the scenes, and I think it's a lot higher than possible defeat of a nominee. I also stated the administration needs to take that gamble and FIGHT BACK against the bullies in the Senate or ELSE in two years time they will find these same weasels renaging on funding for the war and demanding they all come home anyway.
How am I possibly advocating the defeatist attitude? I've done the opposite.
Sorry I didn't know you were gone. Been off the board pretty much since Thursday. Glad you're back.
No, that's not good enough.
More Reps - Party discipline = More backstabbing RINO's.
The Shrews in the Senate need to be tamed, until that happens, more numbers won't cut it. It needs to be a combo of the two.
True, but I fear you are outnumbered. Olympia doesn't sem to care what you think.
I'm not unsympathetic. Evan Bayh ignores all of my calls.
Common Tator, if you can tell me how the Dems enforce party discipline, I would much appreciate it. (My own guesses have been that anyone who steps out of line (a) has his firstborn sacrificed to Moloch; or (b) has his kneecaps shot off.)
Seriously, I've had a couple of thoughtful answers that may account for aspects of it, but I'm still looking.
Valid point. Except that Specter is a souless liberal who never keeps his word. That would have been a handy piece of info before Bush supported him.
I think Bush knew this but thought he could win Specter over by know. He should have learned from the Ted Kennedy fiasco that men without souls, are incapable of gratitude or honesty.
I'm sorry if you took that from me - I agree it sounded so - but I have been reading this defeatist crap all night, so please excuse me.
The Hound
Well, PD, I'll have to take your word for most of what you wrote here. But the above statement is not true. Arlen Specter has never been a conservative. He can't be a traitor to something he never espoused.
Other than that, I'm glad you've seen the light on the Miers nomination, because there's a lot to be said in its favor. From what I've read of her so far, I believe she's as likely to be a reliable conservative justice as any of the "star" judges mentioned by conservative pundits.
I also like the fact that she would bring a healthy touch of the common man and woman to the court.
Lastly, I think people should get down off their high horse about her intellect. The woman has degrees in mathematics and in law. A degree in mathematics is hardly the sign of a dim intellect. Her professional resume is solid and very comparable to many other Supreme Court justices.
What I really think is that the President knew Specter was a weasel, but he was needed as a warm body to attain the majority. The most important thing was to attain the numbers to get the committees and the agenda.
Party discipline with a spine?
I agree. Who the heck is Trent Lott telling me anything? And Bill Frist? I was sorely disappointed when he became Senate leader.
I wish Delay was in the Senate. You know, he helped get the votes for the relaxing of oil refining plants regulations the other day (it passed 212-210). Even after stepping down from his leadership position, he's still in charge.
What I really think is that the President knew Specter was a weasel, but he was needed as a warm body to attain the majority. The most important thing was to attain the numbers to get the committees and the agenda.
I don't believe for a minute he selected Miers to avoid a battle or did so out of weakness. He and Rove have disarmed the rats at every turn during the mid-term elections and this selection has stopped them in their tracks once again. To have Reid come out and endorse her makes it so much sweeter.
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.