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.
Nonsense. The President loses all clout when he makes it clear that he will support all incumbents with an 'R' next to their name regardless of whether they cooperate with him or not. Removing both the whip and the carrot from the situation is hardly an incentive. Placing an ideological test on his support would do more to whip Senators into line, but even this is really a side issue. It was plain WRONG to support rinos like Specter. Anti-American. Anti-Constitutional.
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.
Bull. It was obvious to sane observers that the hold on the Senate was going to strengthen. Even if Toomey lost in the general, we'd have a solid majority.
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.
This is so stupid. What is the point of having a nominal "majority" if it's made up of people who side with your enemies? Your logic helped get Jeffords in office in 2000. Thanks a bunch.
I'LL wait for the condensed version of your post.
;-)
Roget that Pukin Dog ~ good job!
Welcome back. I have to agree with every bit of your post here. Sad, but true.
As for the 7 Dems in that gang, I expect such traitorous behavior from Dem-o-RATS. A tiger is a tiger, a Lib is a lib.
Where does it end? Making sure we get conservatives in red states to elect Conservative senators and try to get as many as we can in the blue states.
You have been reading too many fairy tales. I have been in insurance for over 36 years, and can tell you HM is 53 insurance age...PERIOD.
Breaking now on FR. The condensed version:
Super confidential souses admit their inside information on potential conservative judges' bad deeds were obtained in the millwork section at Home Depot..
It was further demonstrated that tinfoil is avaiable at a discount in the hardware aisle if you show them a card from Pat Buckleak and Willy Crystalballs.
Following a week of prolonged huffing & puffing we can confirm that DFU also believes that Bill Clinton is the next nominee for GWB to the SCOTUS because the DNC wants that more than HRc in the WH.
Stay tuned, breathlessly. that said folks, the president told you why he nominated his cousel for the job. believe him and remember that your opinion doesn't count.
Dog, Nicely done! BZ.
Gator
Listening to Tony today he stated that the key candidates had let Bush know they weren't interested in the SC because of the destructive nomination process. Did your sources indicate anything along these lines?
Although I understand their feelings I find that hard to believe...but it did come from Tony.
It is a sign of superior intellect to admit a mistake when informed with better information.
Too many in the world, and here on FR take a position based on limited information, and refuse to budge because of EGO.
My respect goes out to you for your courage.
Thanks for this interesting and well-thought-out 'note from the inside.' NOW it is making sense. Have you sent it to the folks at NR's The Corner? They need some bucking up.
I'm sure you'll get lots of flack from Freepers, I personally am glad to see you back and very glad to read this post. Now I can go back to bashing Bush only for his pro-illegal-immigration stance.
Yes.
It seems obvious now that a lot of folks were given this information over the weekend. It would not surprise me now if the White House is allowing people to talk about it.
In particular, some nominees who had already been through this process once made it clear that they did not want to do it again.
I disagree. How could he be a traitor? Arlen was never a conservative!
"Had to do it when I found out what was really going on, but if I thought it would bring out the long knives, I might have reconsidered"
Instead of butting heads with folks (as we've done on many occasions) on threads like these, why don't you just start your own politics/aviation/military blog? (I'm actually serious)
More than one blogger has made a good start with "inside sources" - if yours are truly of import that offer innovative insight, you'd have a good start.
This way it can be referenced back here and discussed rationally, without regard or reference to repeated or redacted opuses or who's being an ass or not.
That said - I agree that the republican senate as a whole are a bunch of wusses (as they tend to be in off-election years) and that the confirmation process drives potential candidates away from consideration. But this is not new news. I remain undecided/leaning against Ms Meirs - and don't feel your logic - that no other judges could be found that would be "confirmable" - passes a simple smell test (lots of conservative judges out there - they can't all be unconfirmable). It just doesn't add up.
Lastly, your source (unless it is specter himself) can know what specter's agenda is. We can surmise, and probably with a reasonable level of accuracy, but it IS just a guess.
Will you tell me what was the Senate count of Republicans to Democrats when Clarence Thomas was confirmed? Will you look that up for me and post a ping when you get the numbers? Also, what was it when Scalia was confirmed? Thanks in advance.
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.