Split on Right a Chance, Choice for Democrats (Dims rejoice over split in the Right)

Washington Post ^ | Sunday, October 16, 2005 | Charles Babington

[indcons]

The conservatives' noisy split over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination has largely obscured the fact that Senate Democrats could control her fate in a way that was never possible in the confirmation battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. While the turmoil on the right offers Democrats a tantalizing opportunity, party strategists said, it also will confront them with a difficult choice: Confirm a conservative with close ties to President Bush, or oppose her and join ranks with hard-right activists who historically are their archenemies. For now, Democrats and liberal groups have been content to stay mostly quiet and watch Bush tangle with a restless corps of usually supportive conservatives who oppose Miers's nomination. But with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings beginning next month, Democrats acknowledge they will eventually have to move off the sidelines and begin making a case for or against the president's personal lawyer and White House counsel. That decision will be far more difficult -- and decisive -- if the conservative schism persists and prompts a handful of Republicans ultimately to oppose Miers's confirmation. If six of the Senate's 55 Republicans do so, the nomination would fail if all 44 Democrats and the chamber's Democratic-leaning independent also voted nay.

[hosepipe]

They might split but they'll be back when Hillary runs..
WITH A SIX-PACK and a pizza.. or maybe a case..

[Cicero]

Decisions, decisions.

[DuckFan4ever]

Defeat this unqualified nominee if she doesn't withdraw. It's asking too much for even the hardest core Bush supporters like myself to stomach this.
If President Bush wants to do an affirmative action appointment, at least make it someone who is at or near the top of the profession(Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens). I don't care if it does weaken the Bush Presidency more, I'm disgusted with Bush giving up his principles like this.

[Cboldt]

The fact that the DEMs don't want to have this fight tells me they are weak.

[Simmy2.5]

All my friends think Meirs is TERRIBLE! The base certainly feels the same way! We're not abandoning Bush (especially on the WOT). Just that, for this ONE decision, we are against him. He promised us a Scalia or a Thomas. What do we have? Big question mark. Only thing we have going for her...trust? Why should we take a chance on a candidate that seems to make only DEMOCRATS happy?

Just because we are Republicans, doesn't mean we should support every decision Bush makes. After all, we make fun of liberals for following the Democrats blindly. We shouldn't do the same thing. But make no mistake, that doesn't mean we are 'against' him either. It just means that, well, we're not going to just 'trust' that Meirs is a good candidate either.

[MNJohnnie]

Dream on Washington Poop. As vigorous as the debate on the right is, if the most strident Anti-Miers is nominated in 2008, I will be working just as hard for them as I currently do against them. I am a Freeper and a Conservative because I have certain core values and principals. Those values do not change just because I disagree with my allies on this issue or that issue. For the Dems to gain the support of Conservative, they would fundamentally have to change their world view and abandoned their neo-socialists agenda. That is not going to happen. The fact remains that I will always find more to agree with even on the far right "Pat Buchannnan" wing of the Conservative movement, then I will ever find with any of the current crop of Democrat Leaders. No matter how good their rhetoric sounds from a Dem, the taught will always remain "Is this person going to put the next "Jamie Gorelic" type political ideologue in a position of responsibility If I elect them? As Rush Limbaugh would say "it's just not safe to vote for Dems anymore.

[jstolzen]

No, the fact that the Dems don't want this fight means they are HAPPY with the Miers pick.

[nwrep]

I agree. We may disagree with each other on this, but we will never back the treasonous bastards in the Democratic Party.

[Cboldt]

the fact that the Dems don't want this fight means they are HAPPY with the Miers pick.

They can be happy for more than one reason.

[MNJohnnie]

No, the fact that the Dems don't want this fight means they are HAPPY with the Miers pick.

No, the reason the Dems are not fighting is they are happy to stand aside while they think we are committing fratricide. Old saying in politics, "If you opponent is busying digging themselves into a hole, get out of the way". Once the Hearing begin, you will find out the Dems don't care about Meirs one way of the other except as a chance to defeat the Republicans on SOMETHING. Democrats have no thought beyond wining the most immediate fight, they are completely tactical in thinking and spare not a thought for strategy. They have no principal beyond their self-agrandizement. Their only position on Miers will be use it in a way they can win political points. The reason they are being quite is they haven't figured out their best political play. The only Dem to say he liked her, Reid, back tracked on his statements the very next day.

[Atchafalaya]

...of batteries?

[trubluolyguy]

You know what? There was one hell of a fight in the Republican Party between 1975 and 1980 to. I wouldn't call what followed a good thing for democrats.

[hosepipe]

[ ...of batteries? ]

nope.. Louis Jadot Cabernet...
They are republicans you know, not democrats..