Posted on 10/16/2005 12:08:21 PM PDT by Westpole
President Bush has blundered badly with the nomination of Harriet Miers. It isn't just the profound split within the Republican Party that is damaging. The presidency itself is weakened because his judgment is now doubted within his own camp.
The Democrats always doubted his judgment, indeed his intellect. Now the same doubts are being expressed on the right. What is it about this nomination that can so undermine the presidency? The main problem with Ms. Miers nomination can be summed up simply - she is a "weak sister".
People respect bold action even when they don't agree with it. The Democrats mostly voted for the war in Iraq even though they opposed it. A bold move by a President will usually be deferred to. But there is nothing bold in this nomination. The very character of the nominee that is emerging is that of a follower not a leader.
Some may believe the strength of the opposition to Miers comes from people with misgivings about her views on Roe or her clandestine leanings on any number of other issues. But that is not what is giving the Bush presidency problems. Mr. Bush could have gone in one of two other directions;
If he nominated a conservative intellectual leader the right would have cheered and the left would have played the same cards they have over other conservative judicial nominees. Their opposition would only have made the President look stronger not weaker. Had Mr. Bush nominated say a leader with centrists or even liberal views the right may have objected but he could claim that "balance" on the court is a an important principal for American stability and his willings to put stability over his party's wishes would have made him look bold and certainly in the media wise. In either case the president would be a bold thoughtful leader but Mr. Bush did neither. He nominated a camp follower, a weak sister whose best quality is her loyalty to him. If confirmed the Democrats would hope the loyalty was binding as long as it was convenient. Whereas the right would hope she would just follow Justices Scalia and Thomas. So what Mr. Bush has done is force both sides to wonder which leader this follower will follow. No one is comfortable with making that speculation for a justice of the Supreme Court. And everyone senses a missed opportunity to increase the intellectual heft of decision making in the country's only forum for which there is no appeal.
I think you need to reparse this. I don't know enough about Miers. Therefore, I have enough infomration to make a solid decision, which is NO!.
This thread is a great examples of the disorder known as Bush-botitis. Symptoms include, but not limited to:
- blind loyalty to all things Bush (Bush 41 praise is a sign of Bush-botitis in extremis)
- citizens who dare question the decisions of the infallible Bush are immediately judged to be any or all of the following - traitors, DUers, elitists, neocons, Buchananites, dunces, etc. No exceptions made for radio talk show hosts or conservative pundits, polliticians, and writers.
- magical thinking (Miers is great because Bush says so. Bush can't appoint a Scalia because RINO's won't support it. Bush will tell conservative senators to support Miers or pay a severe price. Historical examples include: CFR stinks but must be OK because Bush didn't veto. Illegal immigration huge problem but Bush must know what her's doing. Bush can't stop pork barrel spending because of the WOT. )
- thin skin and poor sense of humor are often associated with this disorder
Look, most normal people can understand the difference between "The people are in charge" and "I personally am in charge". If you can't tell the difference, and if you use some smirky remark as a way of advertising your inability to do so, then don't complain when you get smacked down for it.
As IF! All in all it's a boring discussion. You really don't have anything to say to defend your viewpoint, do you? Just the typical talking points that everyone has been over a hundred times...
Tell you what, you keep posting and pumping your own thread. As I mentioned before, you are boring (just repeating so you don't miss it).
Actually, so is projection. They love to insist that their opponents are whiners for simply exercising their duty in a free republic to keep public servants accountable, but they don't realize just how whiny they sound by doing that.
....And symptoms on the other side include Punditbotitis. A form of sponsor driven mind control that is resistant to a cure and has evolved and replaced the original condition known as the ABC/CBS dear in the headlights syndrome.
What is laughable is your ignorance of the facts. I never said Miers is more qualiifed then Rehnquist. That's your spin. I said when Nixon appointed Rehnquist, he had never been a judge. Same is true with Miers. FYI. After Rehnquist moved to Arizona, he was in private practice for almost 20 years, became a well known GOP party legal hack and then assistant US-AG. Then came the SCOTUS. In reality, in time spent in the legal profession, Miers has more experience then Rehnquist.
I haven't seen you post anything except comments about Inquest.
Take your conservative bashing over to DU where it belongs. If this nomination has done nothing else it has split the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement wide open and has opened the probability of a Dim comeback in '06.
The spin makes my head hurt. Just make up your mind, please, and take one side or the other. Just not both like a high school debate team member who forgot which slip of paper he got.
as if we care what you think
I would say that is a very cleaver form of intimidation and an attempt at sidestepping, and yes disrespecting the laws as set forth by the founders.
It ain't going to happen.
Thanks!
Add this to to Bush-botitis symptom list:
delusional thinking e.g. ...And symptoms on the other side include Punditbotitis. A form of sponsor driven mind control that is resistant to a cure and has evolved and replaced the original condition known as the ABC/CBS dear in the headlights syndrome.
Cicumventing a process. An equally constitutional "process" would be for Bush to withdraw the nomination. Constitutionally, neither option is any less valid than the other. The only difference is that the second one is not the one that you'd prefer.
That's because I'm going to wait for the confirmation hearings BEFORE I decide about Ms Miers.
That was kind of you.
Which part of, "advise and consent" makes you uncomfortable? The part where common people try to get in on the act? I personally feel uncomfortable with that being left only to the Senate. Inasmuch as my role is limited, constitutionally to advise only, (freedom of speech, consent being given to the Senate solely) I shall avail myself of the opportunities available.
Meirs was a poor choice.
Your welcome. All delusional people enjoy hearing themselves.
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.