Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
There is no basis to extend a "cronyism" accusation to the President; he was elected. Melanie Morgan, on the other hand, got her job due to her husband being the program director. Do you not see the difference?
I admit that she rubs me the wrong way at times. To me, she drags the show down. I understand that you disagree about that.
Would Melanie be Lee's sidekick if she were not married to the program director, Jack Swanson? I doubt it.
I'm not sure what your point is re: "you can try to tune the SC out, but it might come back to get you". I don't want to tune it out; I want our President to nominate candidates whose qualifications extend beyond "I know her heart, she is an Evangelical Christian, and that's enough for me". Geez, if that were all that was necessary, he could appoint ME to the Supreme Court.
Bush nominated Miers to avoid having to rely upon the Gang of 7 for support.
Can't say that I blame him for it, at least not as much as I blame the McCain-led Gang of 7.
And McCain wants to be President, eh?
Funny how conservatives would rather drown a lame duck than go after the gorilla that stands in the way of having right wing *extremists* on the court.
Bush sucks, go McCain isn't much of a helpful stance.
I can see the Frum smears aren't going to stop, and calling attention to any just makes you guys pile more on.
Well, I guess I'm not on the list of 'distinguished conservatives'.
I call on Harriet Miers to STAND HER GROUND!
Bump to support Harriet Miers!
It's called freedom of association, and it's as American as the Boy Scouts.
So we have someone who doesn't understand freedom of association casting judgement on the Constitution and whether Miers will be able to interpret it.
They're not there. Just the same list of names you posted. Could they be non-existant?
I'm not going to knock Starr though: his "support" for Miers is obviously lukewarm and constrained, and I respect the guy for "taking one for the team" during the Clinton years. He obviously doesn't want to take another position that'll get him in hock with another WH.
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
I didn't read any statement in there that she was qualified to sit on SCOTUS---did you? I can talk all day about what a fine husband and dad you are, and still pass you over for promotion.
Me too. His deal was a power grab to try and leverage himself into the Oval Office in '08, at Bush's expense.
Strange that conservatives would rather kill a lame duck like Bush than go after a presumptive candidate that stands in the way of having right wing *extremists* on the court.
Yes, she most certainly does have such qualifications. That is the fallacy of this whole argument.
This argument is not about Ms. Miers abilities. It is about power. The so-called conservative punditocracy and its thundering herd of reactionary followers want the power to determine the nominee. They want to strip the President of his Constitutional power to make his own choice.
Furthermore, by calling for her to withdraw prior to the senate hearings, they want to strip the senate from its Constitutional power to advise and consent.
It is purely about power. One of the annointed whom the so-called conservative punditocracy had on its short list was not chosen. So they are having a hissy fit.
If that's the best defense the pro-Miers camp has then it's pretty obvious that Miers is not the right pick for the Supreme Court.
Did you see they brought out Alberto Gonzales to be one of her cheerleaders!!?! They thought he would excite the conservative base?
Also on your list - Thomas Sowell did say she could be good, but he also criticized her selection, but said we shouldn't 'nuke' her nonetheless.
I will say this, both Fred Barnes and Michael Medved have been enthusiastic about urging her nomination.
Hi there... not sure where you heard that from, but here is David Frum's online column:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
And here's what he said in his recent essays:
"IF I WERE HARRIET MIERS ... I really would ask my friends to keep their mouths closed. Every time they speak up, they only remind the country of what is wrong with this unwise nomination."
"There has not been a moment since October 3 when I have not felt sick and sad about this Miers battle, but today may have been the worst day yet. This morning, the president mobilized Laura Bush to join him on national television and accuse critics of the Miers nomination of "sexism." Reading the transcript of the interview, you can feel this kind and gracious woman's disinclination to speak an untruth. "It's possible," she says. "I think it's possible."
"What a terrible and false position to put the first lady in! And what a sign that the White House has finally understood that it has lost the argument over this nomination."
"Under these circumstances, the least bad solution is for the president to withdraw this nomination now, before he does himself and his party further and growing harm."
.
Hope that helps... Mr. Frum does not seem that supportive of Ms. Miers nomination to me.
What I get a kick out of is the argument by some of Miers' supporters who have said basically, 'if this nomination is withdrawn, Bush will probably retaliate against the conservative base by nominating Alberto Gonzales.'
So their argument is that we are supposed to accept Bush's "trust me" defense because if we don't like his pick he'll 'screw us.' The lack of logic and reasoning from many of Miers' defenders drives me nuts!
It sounds like you are conceding that Bush's pick of Miers was cronyism.
I'll remind you that while Melanie's husband IS the Program Director, the General Manager of the station is the one who calls the shots. He FIRED Melanie if you'll recall until the station was swamped with calls, emails and FAXes demanding Melanie's reinstatement.
The fact that Miers said that the Federalist Society was too extreme, but the NAACP was not, disqualifies her from being put on the Supreme Court by a Republican President.
Membership in the Federalist Society should be a REQUIREMENT!
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.