Posted on 10/25/2005 11:57:05 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
< /snip>
Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.
< / snip>
More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)
If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.
< /snip>
First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)
Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...
< /snip>
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The man who's in the office should learn to respect it.
I heard that Susan Estrich decided Miers might be ok. I've not read her comments...I'm going on hearsay.
If so, it worries me. Estrich, despite her really, really weird voice, is a slick customer.
She is also a died-in-the-wool democrat. I remember how mad she got on FoxNews on election night when there were still a few states in play. She and Bill Kristol got in some shouting match and then Brit Hume put her in her place. She was livid.
In proverbs the bible talks about "saying nice things to those who don't like you etc". I would say to Miers.... when you get to committee, and when Kennedy says good afternoon Ms Miers.... she should say "Mr. Kennedy, this is truly an honor. Your family has been so much a part of shaping this country. I always admired your brothers, and I admire the countless hours that you personally have spent working for the American people. It is truly an honor to have you evaluating me for the Supreme Court. It will go down as a high point in my life and carreer." And that should be the tone, for the whole process, while she doesn't tell them anything. In my opinion, that is her only chance.
I think you're probably right, but couldn't she find someone to read the newspapers to her? ;-)
I totally agree
:)
Oh one of those gotta have a goatee, to be cool with the Upper West Side crowd, Republicans.
Whew thank God the President ignores the Upper West Side, which you are so dying to be cool with.
You are an incredibly patient and forbearing man. :)
Oh please kent, stop sending the love letters to shapka.
You wouldn't want to be accused of cronyism, do you.
Your mother must have been an incredibly patient and forbearing man, as well.
If we agree to battle on unprincipled grounds, because those are the grounds the DEMs choose, we've lost.
It's just a matter of time. Building on past bad precedents (not objecting to Ginsberg as a matter of principle, tolerating "stealth" answers, submitting to the DEM battleground of issues advocacy instead of the traditionalist-modernist judicial philosophy battleground) will not succeed in advancing the conservative agenda for the long haul.
I think Miers is to the left of O'Connor, on the law. And so, in that regard, she has to be vague - because if that came out in testimony, not only would we wacko-ideologues be upset, so would the "follow Bush" crowd.
You may be right...
Shapka, hate to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around Manhattan.
This is because of his low approval rating, and the answer to the childish, sarcastic refrain "Oh Bush will never get re-elected".
"(After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)"
Does anyone really believe our congressmen even have principles or policies - other than to get reelected?
Along those lines, I expect the only thing they're watching is his popularity. Below a certain point, association with him becomes a liability.
So as the remainder of his term self destructs, they'll probably bail on him.
If the dems are smart (and admittedly that's a big "if") they'll run to center during the next election cycle; spout a few platitudes about "good government", fiscal sanity, lower defecits,etc. and clean up.
Guess this is all part of Bush's "brilliant strategy", huh?
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.