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.
When he's being watched. I don't understand the notion that because a politician does the right thing when his actions can be scrutinized, he can therefore be trusted to do the right thing without supervision.
Exactly. Politicians are politicians, and if you want something implemented in government, YOU have to be there agitating for it... otherwise there are a thousand other voices that will be heard in your place. I do fault GWB on this one... we have the chance to really impact the country in a moral direction for the next 30 years, and instead GWB listens to his "pro-choice" spouse (yes, she is on record in this regard).
True conservatives have a right to be concerned here..
We already had this discussion today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1503423/posts
Employees do need supervision, and he is, ultimately, just an employee.
I agree, I just said out loud while watching the news that they are trashing her way too much and out of line with what we know. I am slowly reversing my first opinion to one of support for her nomination. Time to trust in God to set this straight.
On no day of your life do you "supervise" the president, nor does anyone else.
Exactly. There is nothing outstanding about this nominee, except perhaps her ability to reveal little about herself and further her career with some well placed, albeit juvenile, brown-nosing.
Which is precisely the reason, it is a bad move to wait until the hearing to criticize this nomination.
The hearing is not going to improve her resume, nor will it improve her conservative credentials which are non-existent except for her experience working for GW.
Miers is on record as being pro-life. Conservatives have every right to be concerned over decisions that any President makes. However, as in all marriages, wives have a certain level of influence over their husbands. That applies to First Lady's too. The conservatives I know don't go around bashing another man's wife. Conservatives have been spending a whole lotta time speculating as to why Bush chose Miers and most of that specualtion has missed the mark. The final decision on picking Miers was made by Bush.
Another juvenile remark. You're as ignorant as they come.
"Stubborn refusal to change course will cost what political capital was left."
Whose stubborness are you referring to? 'Cause I'm seeing it on all sides here.
LOL, Itchy and Scratchy bump!
You don't know how the Senate hearings are going to turn out. They could improve Miers standing, which is what I believe is a good possibility, or they can damage her chances of getting confirmed. Not allowing the hearings to take place before you trash Miers, is nothing more then a cheap shot. In your case you don't even want to see the hearings take place at all. LOL
You do take these things just a little too personally. I don't think you realize how fanatical you look, objecting so strenuously to such a basic civics concept as politicians being servants of the people.
His work is supervised by his base, as well as by the rest of the country. No one person does the supervising all by himself, but it does get done.
Of course, not in this case, which is why the alarms are going off.
Look, dunce, your use of "supervision" isn't apt. Give it up. You can repeat it over and over but it doesn't work. How many times do people have to tell you before you get the message?
Basic civics concept! LOL You have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't a member of a local school board, or a city council member, or even a state legislator. The position in question, has to do with the most powerful man in the world. You talk as though he must get your personal permission to make a decision. Ridiculous. That's not the way it works. We have elections to determine who advances to a position of public trust. Outside of liberal detractors and hate mongers, I have never heard of a single conservative calling the position of the President, just another public servant. My guess is you're a frustrated liberatarian.
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.