Posted on 10/28/2005 12:44:42 AM PDT by Crackingham
When President Bush shocked supporters and opponents alike a month ago by nominating Harriet Miers, his White House Counsel, to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, an intriguing conspiracy theory did the rounds in Washington. Ms Miers, so self-evidently unqualified for a seat on the nation’s highest court, was a kind of stalking horse, the theory went. The real Bush plan, masterminded no doubt by his Machiavellian amanuensis Karl Rove, was to put an extreme conservative jurist on the court, someone who would vote to overturn abortion rights, outlaw affirmative action and break down the barriers between Church and State.
The problem was that someone like that would have a very tough time getting confirmed by the Senate. Though the Republicans have a majority in the upper house of the Congress, which must approve Supreme Court candidates, the Democrats, who would obviously oppose such a nominee, have enough votes to block his (or her) confirmation.
The best way to proceed, then, was to put up first a candidate the White House knew would get knocked down. Having “regretfully” and “humiliatingly” withdrawn that candidate, the President could then, with heavily orchestrated reluctance and irritation, put up the suitably qualified favourite.
The Democrats would have a hard time in the court of public opinion if they now took exception to someone who was, whatever their judicial intentions, at least smart, capable and experienced. They wouldn’t want the potential opprobrium of throwing out a second nominee.
Goodbye Harriet. Come on down, Attila.
It was always fanciful. Democrats did not, in fact, have much to do with the defeat of the Miers nomination. It was Republicans who most objected to her. The theory is further undermined by the fact that Mr Rove has been otherwise engaged for most of the past month or so, desperately trying to avoid the indictment that many Washington observers think will be handed down to him today by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor.
But with Ms Miers’s departure yesterday, Mr Bush does at least have a chance to salvage something from the wreckage of a disastrous few weeks. Most importantly, her forced martyrdom was an absolutely essential first step in the President’s broader political recovery.
The greatest danger for a political leader is when his own side turns on him. After the deepening problems in Iraq and the poor handling of the Katrina relief effort, Mr Bush needed his Republican base more than ever — and it was just at that moment that he most enraged them with the choice of Ms Miers.
The opposition had come almost exclusively from conservative Republicans who not only disliked what they saw of her views, but felt she was simply too lightweight to advance the conservative cause. Yesterday they were returning to Mr Bush’s side, at a crucial moment for the presidency. The National Review, a conservative magazine that showered the White House in bile over the Miers choice, said in an online editorial: “Gloating would be unseemly” but “today is the best day Republicans have had in some time.”
And not before time. If the special prosecutor does strike at the White House today, Mr Bush will at least not have to face the fire with its conservative supporters in a fractured and demoralised state.
The Miers withdrawal gives Mr Bush a chance to relaunch his presidency. If he does lose some of his most important advisers to the CIA leak investigation, supporters have been telling him, he must act quickly to seize control of the political agenda again. Picking a better nominee would be the ideal way to do that. If he finds someone more acceptable to his own party it may lead to a fight with Democrats but Republicans will at least feel they have recovered a sense of direction and momentum.
oOPS!
That last post had the wrong quote. I don't know why that happens. It usually happens when I am not looking.
Believe as you wish.
Do as you feel you must.
It's of no interest to me.
I know that!
That is why I posted to you.
I never preach to the choir. It is a waste of time.
I have a feeling this is just the beginning...Conservatives country-wide have finally decided they weren't going to take it any more with the Miers fiasco...There are other issues they have kept pretty much silent about...We'll see...
As I stipulated, they may be less willing to accept policies they disagree with or at least unwilling to take a quieter tone as done previously. Keane has signaled as much.
However, that is different than the outright separation that occured in this instance. The majority of conservatives do not wish separation. They've reclaimed independence to a degree but at same time desire reconciliation because we, I, genuinely like this man and agree with him on some important matters. It'll be interesting to see how this relationship evolves as a result. I think in the long term the President and conservatives will be better for it.
It is not Karl Rove that is giving him bad advise - it is Andy Card - read the following:
In an unusually revealing insight into the Bush White House yesterday, its chief of staff, Andrew Card, expressed concern that the administration was about to swing further to the right with the imminent departure of the president's closest adviser [Karen Hughes].
Mr Card told Esquire magazine that the absence of Karen Hughes - a pragmatist widely viewed as one of the most powerful women in US political history - would allow the president's conservative political strategist, Karl Rove, to extend his influence...
Since April, when Mrs Hughes announced her decision to leave the White House and go home to Texas next month, there have been signs that Mr Rove has had more of the president's ear, expanding his influence to trade and foreign affairs...
Mr Rove has also lobbied to maintain the administration's close backing for Israel, on the grounds that it was vital to secure the party's core support among southern conservatives and win over Jewish votes in Florida and California.
State department officials have complained about Mr Rove's burgeoning empire, arguing that foreign policy has become a hostage to domestic polls.
With Karl busy with the CIA leak business, President Bush is stranded with the "moderates" to advise him!
This doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot because it's his second term. If it was his first term I'd agree with you. And it doesn't really matter if it's true or not. The press will paint him as lame duck without even the support of his own party no matter what. And senate Republicans will have lost a lot of support and stand a good chance of losing their majority. Not that they ever acted like they had a majority to begin with.
Anyway I think a Democrat will be elected to the presidency in 2008 no matter who they run. So I think President Bush should concentrate on the war on terror. If we don't win it now we'll be fighting it on the streets of Anytown, USA within a couple of years of a Democrat (Hillary) taking up residence inthe White House. Call be paranoid but that's what I believe will happen. I hope I'm wrong.
A common mistake made by zealots in this forum is to accuse any who disagree with them of sacrificing their principles. That's BS. They simply disagree with you. Their principles are different than yours.
However, the Republican Senators are now placed in a position of deciding whether they will defend the principles of the Founders' Constitution and back a strong conservative nominee, or whether they will be cowered by the threats of Durbin, Reid, et al.
The Far Left adheres to the "living constitution" school, meaning that, as one liberal university professor proudly boasted a few years ago, "what we have had is a 'sitting constitutional convention.'"
There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny, and that is what this is about.
Of the Constitution, James Madison observed that, ". . . every word. . . decides a question between power and liberty. . . ."
If future generations are to enjoy the liberty previous generations considered their birthright, and for which so many have sacrificed their lives, then now is the time for naming Supreme Court justices who will limit the Court to interpreting the Constitution. If changes are to be made, the Constitution has prescribed the only legitimate method by which they may be made--by act of "the People" themselves through the Amendment Process.
If NRO burnt Miers at the stake, it was using her own words as kindling and fuel. I don't know who they'll endorse, but I bet it'll be someone who's a conservative with more track record as a constitutionalist than Miers had.
Mr True Conservative didn't turn out for Bush in 2000. He was elected because the Green Party siphoned of a large number of democratic votes in FL and the democratic party voted for Bush in West VA.
Mr. Gerald Baker....put down the crack pipe and back away slowly!
You are such a clueless joe you don't even know how foolish you look posting this drivel.
1) Reagan WAS the Right. He supported Goldwater when conservative wasn't cool. He slammed Ford for being a RINO back while everyone on the Rockefeller wing was still sporting WIN buttons.
2) The RINO 'center' trashed him from the '64 election on, not the right, you dolt.
3) He appealed to the American center by stating the facts: government isn't the solution to the problem; government IS the problem.
I hope this post finally shuts you up, but I bet you are just too damn stupid to know better and still try to explain the facts away.
Conservatives attack him daily, and i know, because I defended him.
Since his death, the conservatives have adopted him back because he did do and say some great things, but he could not have been elected without moderates AND LIBERALS, who saw a need for his leadership, and all this happened with a minimum of Conservative support for most of his first term, and only slightly better on the second. I was fighting them them too. Just like today.
The poster is committed to some fanciful rebellion that will teach us our place. As I stated, welcome to try.
I'm more than aware we can at least count on some pushback from the seven that we just defeated. Miers was their nominee and they failed to push her forward. We're in the midst of a battle to determine which ideology will govern the Majority, and conservatives WILL win.
The statement about Reagan was ludicrous, but no more than some of the other ravings I've seen from this poster. I think this poster is now busily agreeing with E.J. Dionne, which says it all about how far off the mainstream conservative road some have traveled in order to support this particular pick.
Give it up.
I didn't state that and you should know better than to suggest it. Evidently you do not.
Whatever YOUR principles may be, obviously I was speaking of the principles of those that objected that were pressured to abandon them to "support the President". They refused to fold. To their credit.
This is the most brilliant theory I've heard!
Since the right took down Miers the media will not even mention anything wrong with left wing opposition to anyone Bush nominates. Since the 14 RINOs and DINOs can read the job approval numbers as well as anyone, there is no way they will vote for a nuclear option.
That means the Democrats can declare any Bush nominee as extreme right as the right called Miers extreme left. The Democrats will then, if need be filibuster, future Bush nominees..
Actualy they won't need to.. Some one will tickle George Voinovich's twinkie and he will put a hold on the nominee. Frist will pout and tell the media there is no way to bring the nominee to a vote with Voinovich puting a hold on the nominee.
Every time Frist thinks about calling for a vote, the Democratic media tell the world that Frist does not have the testicals to call for a vote on the nuclear option. Frist has two options. Fail to call for the nuclear option vote and take the blame for not confirming a conservative. The right will cry.. GET A PAIR!!!.
The second option is to call for a vote on the nuclear option and have it fail thus proving he has no control over even 50 of the 55 Republican Senators. Then the right will cry.. Frist is no leader.
The third option fFist has is to claim "the RINO" won't let me becuase he has used senate rules to put the nominee on indefinite hold. See the failed John Bolton confirmation to see how that works.
Look for a lot of the third option in the days months and years ahead.
With respect, people would differ with your analysis.
We'll see who in the end is correct, but your analysis is no more and no less valuable than those that would offer a differing opinion of the climate on way to confirmation at this time.
What the gang of 14 did last spring was negotiate a compromise. Some of Bush's nominees were confirmed and some were not. The gang of 14 gave both the Democrats and the President part of what they wanted. That is the nature of compromise and the nature of RINOs and DINOs.
In the case of the Supreme Court confirmations the Gang of 14 has already given Bush half of what he wanted. They have given President Bush the confirmation of Roberts as Chief Justice. What sort logic is required to believe that the gang of fourteen will give Bush all of what he wants? Do you really think the gang of 14 will give the Democrats none of what they want? Does that sound like a compromise between Rinos and Dinos to you?
The Democrats want the second supreme court nominee to be a liberal. The Gang of 14 very likely thinks that a Bush defeat on the second court post coupled with the Roberts confirmation victory on the first is a fair deal for both sides. It is not possible to let Bush appoint and confirm a conservative justice to replace O'Connor and a conservative justice to replace Rehnquist and give the Democrats half of what they want.
Do you really think the compromising gang of 14 will let that happen? It will all depend on some of the Rinos voting for the nuclear option. There are at least 4 of the 7 who are committed to oppose it. My head count says there are at least 6 RINOs set to oppose the nuclear option. That is all it will take to allow the Democrats to filibuster.
RINOs and DINOs are always in the minority. It is worth noting that historically they always want to preserve minority rights and power. .
You can argue that my analysis is invalid. But to argue that Bush's second vacancy nominee will be confirmed, you have to believe that the Democrats are willing to see the supreme court go into conservative hands. That Democrats will bow to the wishes of conservatives. That Democrats wil will not filibuster a conservative. And that the gang of 14 will not continue to give both sides half of what they want.
You may think my analysis has no reason to be true. But I have a question for you. Do you really believe that the 7 RINOs and 7 DINOS in the gang of 14 will change their compromise deal so Bush gets everything and the Democrats get nothing?
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.