Miers withdraw plays into the hands of the Democrats

Senate Democratic Communications Center ^ | 10/27/05 | Senator Harry Reid

[Tarnsman]

Reid on Miers Withdrawal Thursday, October 27, 2005

Washington, D.C. – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on Harriet Miers’ withdrawal of her nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.

“I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.

“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

[CSM]

"Bottom line ----
Looks as though this was the plan all along.
I fail to see a screw up thus far."

I think you may be on to something here.

[Finny]

Tarnsman -- THANKS for that! I almost replied to the poster along the same vein. The all-or-nothing "principled" conservatives lack big-picture principals. If they had had their way, "principled" conservatives would have voted for the excellent Tom McClintock, and even if he'd gotten every registered Republican vote in the state, he would have lost because of a little thing called MATH. Arnold won because appealed not only to truly principled, far-thinking conservatives, but to wishy-washy, short-term-thinking Democrats as well. Would McClintock have been the better Governor? Probably. Did McClintock have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in the best-case scenario? Nope, because Democrats wouldn't have have voted for him, and there are more Democrats in California than Republicans these days (didn't used to be).

Which means those "principled" conservatives would have given us Bustamonte, a horrific liberal, which means that this November, there's NO WAY we'd be voting on Arnold-backed propositions 74 - 77 which, if they pass, will begin a devastating hairline crack in the Liberal powerhold in this state, and give us some hope. Thanks to RINO Arnold. So-called "principled" conservatives are idealogues who refuse to acknowledge that a RINO Arnold, RINO though he may be, is a thousand times better than a congenital liberal like Bustamonte.

All-or-nothing conservatives who self-righteously call themselves "principled" are deluding themselves. They are not principled; they are prideful. Big difference, with very different results. The truly principled conservatives are the ones who do things like vote for the RINO because they know that if they don't, they guarantee victory for a philosophy infinitely worse than the RINO.

[Tarpon]

I like your reasoning <:)

[CitizenUSA]

Tarnsman wrote: "The "all or nothing" crowd has cost the Republicans California, and now they are about to do the same with the SCOTUS."

First off, the so-called right wing extremists aren't typically an "all or nothing" crowd. What we DO want is our leadership to achieve SOME of the things they professed to stand for when we elected them.

Secondly, Californians have every right to elect whoever they want. If the majority wants to run the state into the ground, that is their right. Again, there are millions of conservative Republicans in California, but they are the minority. Sorry, but majority rules.

Do you really think the hordes of Democrats in L.A. and other big cities would choose a Democrat-lite party when they can have the real thing? Even worse, do you really want the Republicans to sell themselves as something they are not (like the Dems) simply to win elections?

[medscribe]

The so-called base made it personal by insulting Miers and dragging her name through the mud, never giving the woman a chance at the hearings. You think that Dubya's going to "reward" the base for such behavior? Look for a much more moderate female.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"I doubt that Bush is going with a less conservative pick than Miers"

Miers is openly pro-life, and has a record of fighting for pro-life positions - not that it matters now.

I hope that he nominates another pro-life judge, but I don't see how. The President lost the respect on the far-right, and the RINO's are looking to make a stand to separate themselves for the President. The bottom line is Bush doesn't have anyone he can trust in his party.

We shot ourselves in the foot.

[CSM]

"Where is Bush going to find the support in the Senate for a Conservative Judge?"

Since when is the Senate tasked with approving the nominees political ideology?

[CitizenUSA]

Finny wrote: "Which means those "principled" conservatives would have given us Bustamonte, a horrific liberal."

WRONG! The Democratic voters would have given you Bustamonte. Geesh.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Since when is the Senate tasked with approving the nominees political ideology?"

Ask Bork!

[mancogasuki]

"I'm convinced now, that this was a set-up all along, to embarrass President Bush.

He set himself up? At least not intentionally. lol And I don't think Card is smart enough to have come up with this "jem" of a debacle.

I, for one, hope they can find a candidate that has the strong credentials and record to be able to interpret and argue the constitution. We deserve no less this time around.

[CSM]

Ah, the nominee that was rejected by a liberal democrat controlled senate. Now you state that there is no way a conservative nominee can be confirmed. Are you admitting that the Repuplican controlled senate is actually a liberal republican controlled senate?

This entire debate is a sure sign that we are seeing a historical shift in politics. The Democratic Party is dying on the vine, the Republican Party is now moderate, the Conservatives are unrepresented. Yet Conservative Principles win every time they are presented to the public. What will the new Conservative party be called......

[RedEyeJack]

"Miers was Harry Ried's idea"

But George Bush's nomination.

It is done now... How do we keep this from tearing us apart? We still need a nominee who can be confirmed and we still have moderate Republicans who will safely jump to the dark side if they think we have gone too far. I see 51 to 49 as the best for a strong conservative with Snow, Collins, Chaffee, and DeWine voting with the Dems. That is a razor thin margin.

[Interesting Times]

The so-called base made it personal by insulting Miers and dragging her name through the mud, never giving the woman a chance at the hearings. You think that Dubya's going to "reward" the base for such behavior? Look for a much more moderate female.

No, the vast majority of the base *didn't* make it personal. They pointed out evidence that Miers was by no means a conservative on a wide range of issues.

Also, your suggestion that Bush is going to choose the next Supreme Court nominee based on some sort of snitty pique at conservatives is hardly a compliment. I think they call this "projection."

[mancogasuki]

Yes, and let the war games begin. Just don't forget we have the Nuke option on our side. This time pull the trigger. Amen.

A recess appointment to the Supreme Court? If you want to win the battle but lose the war this will all but guarantee it. Every Republican candidate for the next decade would get tainted with the "extremist activist" brush.

I, for one, want a candidate we can elevate thru vigorous argument & debate. Don't hand the Dems the "I told you so" card..it's a loser...for us.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"Are you admitting that the Repuplican controlled senate is actually a liberal republican controlled senate?"

I don't have to "admit" anything. I Know and have said that we may hold the majority in the Senate but we don't have the control that people claim we do. The RINO's who have joined the Democrats hold the power (Gang of 7). I wouldn't be surprised to see them start flexing their power now that the Republicans are eating themselves.

[SkyPilot]

Miers withdraw plays into the hands of the Democrats

Bovine Scatology!

Sen Kennedy, CNN, DU, and all the Libs are Screaming! that the dreaded "Right Wing" has won--and Bush "better not nominate a hard right Conservative--or else!!!!"

[SkyPilot]

Amen--and great screen name.

[Finny]

Finny wrote: "Which means those "principled" conservatives would have given us Bustamonte, a horrific liberal." WRONG! The Democratic voters would have given you Bustamonte. Geesh.

Really? Then why isn't Bustamonte the governor of California today?

[Tarnsman]

"The Harriet Miers confirmation process has been one of the most unusual and troubling Supreme Court nominations in our modern history. The loudest voices heard in this process were the voices of the extreme factions of the President's own political party. They had a litmus test, and they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet that test even before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice heard. That's not what the confirmation process is about, and their litmus test is not what the Supreme Court is about. The more Ms. Miers' record indicated that she might in fact be personally committed to the basic constitutional rights and liberties that make our country what it is for all Americans, the more committed those extreme groups and their partisan voices in the media became to prevent her nomination from being confirmed by the Senate. Most of us in the Senate were ready to give Harriet Miers a fair chance and a fair hearing. We wanted to have a dignified process in which the evidence would come first, and then the decision, and Harriet Miers deserved that chance. It's disingenuous for the President to suggest that Senators' insistence on White House records was somehow responsible for the withdrawal of the Miers' nomination. If the President were willing to stand up to the extremists in his party, a realistic compromise could easily have been found on this issue. The fact that the White House and Senate Republicans were not willing to stand up for principle and fairness against the extremists in their midst should be disturbing to all Americans. But now we have all seen that fringe of our society at its worst, and we know that their agenda is not the nation's agenda. President Bush has an opportunity now to unite the country. In choosing the next nominee, he should listen to all Americans, not just the far right. If he does, we can have a smooth and dignified confirmation process and avoid the kind of harsh battle that the extremists on the right seem bent on provoking. President Bush should take whatever time is necessary to find a consensus nominee to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the Court. Justice O'Connor is willing to serve the Court and the nation for as long as it takes, so there is no need to rush to send a new nominee to the Senate. Hopefully, the next selection will share Justice O'Connor's values and her commitment to the nation's progress in achieving equal rights for all." ~ Senator Ted Kennedy Notice the themes that I pointed out at the start of this thread. We will hear more of this as the next nominee is named. If it Janice Rogers Brown (my hope) the Democratic Senators are going claim that Bush has surrendered to the extreme wing of the Republicans. Just watch.

[Sloth]

So give yourselves all a pat on the back, secure in the knowledge that you have given the Democrats a bat to beat over the head of the next nominee.

The President gave them that bat.