White House warns holdouts

U.S.News.com ^ | 10/13/05 | Kenneth T. Walsh

[Leatherneck_MT]

And if she turns out to be another Ginsberg, Bush will be long gone (or not worried about his political future since he can't be re-elected anyway), and these Senators will be left holding the bag.

Pretty brave stance by someone who has nothing to lose.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Reid has not said he will vote for Harriet. Nor has the Left lined up behind anyone it is too busy fanning the flames and watching the Right cut itself to ribbons.

Coburn, Sessions, and other Senators have asked that the process be allowed to continue. Why is that not good enough for you?

[Cboldt]

I can be convinced to change my mind without much difficulty provided I am faced with facts and compelling logic. None of that has been offered wrt the Miers nomination.

Nope. Not any at all. You dismiss me, I dismiss you. Our "relationship" has not been a pleasure, from my point of view, and I trust you harbor the same toward me. This is called "division," and the "stealth nature" of this nomination is the root cause of it.

[Grampa Dave]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php


Who's Cracking Up?

Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:

The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.


Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:

About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.

I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.


With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.

The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.

So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.

The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.

So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.

But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.

Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.

Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."

Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.

And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.

The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.

But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.

Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).

Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.

Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink

[justshutupandtakeit]

Speculation by the Tribune is interesting but it is only that. I put little weight in it. You are free to make it the center piece of your conclusions though.

As I said before Advice and Consent can take many forms and there is certainly nothing wrong with the President talking to the parties' leadership about this issue.

It is highly distorting things to claim that "highly qualified" nominees are ruled out. That is a total falsehood.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Such a statement doesn't rise to the level of "heresy" it is merely Looney Tunes stuff, a combination of irrationality and irresponsibility.

But it sufficiently discredits your oppostion to Miers so keep it flowing.

[DoughtyOne]

If the left is not opposed to her because it thinks (right or wrong) that it may get some favorable opinions out of her, and the right does not oppose her out of a loyalist position, will that serve the nation well?

[Little Ray]

If she gets to hearings she's in. The Democrats already want her (a definite strike against her) and the Senate Pubbies will drink the Kool-Aid. That is why we want to stop her short of the Senate.

She's been bumped over people who have fought for the conservative cause and originalist interpretation for decades. That's really fair to them, right? Work hard. Establish a track record, watch the President promote a friend, instead. Really encourages the up 'n coming folks.

We also have some (admittedly old) evidence that she is NOT a conservative or an originalist and that she is not consistent in her beliefs. And given the President's choice of friends (Putin, Fox, etc.) his judgment in this matter is suspect.

Finally, it is a matter of opportunity. He got Robers, whom we think is a conservative / originalist. If doesn't go Souter, well and good, the court stops moving left; but we don't know (yet) he won't "grow."
If he does, a known conservative in this nomination at least preserves the status quo. A screw up here means that the SCOTUS is liberal for the foreseeable future. He needed to appoint a known quantity and he didn't.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have no negative feelings about you or anything you have written actually. You show much more courtesy than the Antis.

However it is a misuse of terms to call this "stealth" there is no difference between this and a soldier attempting to minimize his chances of being hit. Nor anything dishonorable or dishonest. Nor is stealth anything bad in any case. Anymore than "shrewd" or "crafty" is bad.

Some want Bush to offer the biggest target possible to the RATmedia and are terribly unhappy he didn't. I don't see it that way. But neither of our opinions matter in this regard. We will both have to watch as our constitution does its work.

[Sam the Sham]

The reality is that the conservative movement is not as dependent on George Bush as the Democrats of the 90's were on Clinton.

[safisoft]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php

Enough with the spam. Start your own thread for this repeated cut/paste. This is the 4th thread you have posted this to. That is known as abuse, even if you do it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Any reader of FR could reasonably believe the conservative movement to be dead. After a week of irrational attacks on Miers such a conclusion is not unwarranted on the face of it.

[Sam the Sham]

You think the conservative movement is George Bush. No. It is a movement, not a cult. It was not created by one man and does not depend on any one man the way the Democrats in the 90's were dependent on Clinton.

The vitality of any movement is it's willingness to talk back to leaders who make bad decisions. Not your kind of canine obedience. Nothing is more destructive of any institution than cronyism and yes-men surrounding the leader.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Left is not on record as of yet but it will find it very difficult to beat up on lil ole auntie Harriet without producing a negative image. I don't believe it expects ANY favorable rulings from her and if they can find anything to oppose her with without looking like total bullies they will.

Nor is the Right going to not oppose her out of loyalty. But there has to be good, solid reasons to do so and they have not surfaced. The junk raised against her here will not rise to that level.

No one has asked for a rubber stamp only that the process be allowed to continue and the attacks on the president stop.

[jimfrommaine]

I think the conservative Senators should counter by saying that the President has lost the support of his conservative base. And by doing so has doomed the GOP in 2006. Unless he resigns so a true conservative, Dick Cheney becomes president.

[steve-b]

Why does this administration target its ass-kicking at its core allies and its ass-kissing at Dems and RINOs?

[handy]

"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider.

Well duh. But if Miers is not confirmed and she winds up being a Souter, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite smart.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Please don't try and speak for me. I do not think any one man is the conservative movement but I do think that a self-annointed group around is not only not the conservative movement but actually has little to do with any practical application of conservative principles.

The thought put forward by them cannot get 10% of the electorate to agree with them on its best day more like 1%.
People seem oblivious to the fact that FR is probably the most conservative 10% of the nation. We are the "lunatic fringe" of rightwing politics. To believe that the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe is going to make GOP policy shows a great lack of realistic thinking.

Of course the Left is orgasmic watching the "conservatives" join their attempts to destroy the President.

[Gondring]

The President backs down because the Senate deems the contest "too inflammatory." Just a big fat disappointment. Why the hell should I support ANYBODY with this lack of conviction to the Constitution?

Exactly. If he fought it--with conviction, by proposing a candidate who would support our Constitution (leave the issues out of it)--then the American people would see the Left (including the Gang of 7) obstructing the Constitution.

[Itzlzha]

The border of this country is not an issue. The whinning (think they know everything but Bush doesn't) people are.

Oh really?

I guess that a COMPLETELY porous border, where ANYONE/ANYTHING can come across, is a GREAT strategy against a foreign/DOMESTIC enemy that relies on unconventional tactics and blatant stupidity to exploit weakness and attack us, THAT is a sign of "GREATNESS" to you; a "successful" policy?!

Geez...

...you "Big Gulp" Republicans are really showing your colors...and they are NOT the colors that Conservatives will follow BLINDLY!

Your post is EXACTLY why W's "Trust Me" is NOT going down well with Conservatives, along with some OTHER "gems" he has pulled on us!