Posted on 10/28/2005 3:23:24 AM PDT by WaterDragon
OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.
The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork...(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Bush won this round. He put up a Religious, Anti Abortion nominee who the Right slammed down.
Because the left didn't say anything, IMHO the Religion and Anti-Abortion knock is now of fthe table.
Putting up someone who is judicial now will force the RATS to bring up other issues.
I've been thinking the same thing.
Good point. Hugh simply fought a good intellectually responsible literary fight. But, he never admitted that Meirs was not the best choice. KLo at NRO has the right analysis of this affair and puts Hugh in a segment where he just backed the wrong horse. Voters will only remember W's next choice and if it is a great constructionist, Pubs will not suffer in '06-08. Peter Brown in the Orlando Sent. today, has a better analysis since Dems will probably wince when W's next choice comes out and if it is Luttig, Brown, Owen , Williams, will coalesce all conservatives. The liberals' worst nightmare.
Then you must be highly intelligent.
No, but thank you for the compliment. :)
It just makes sense. We're not alone either. Medved and others have said the same thing.
I don't have great hopes for it, but it is time for GWB to call the bluff, announce a conservative nominee, and watch the Rats spin and fizzle with a one-month filibuster, refusing like little children to provide an up-or-down vote.
Making the Rats engage in a lengthy and embarrassing Senatorial filibuster *is* the nuclear option, IMO.
How about, "He's a conservative and an originalist."
We haven't tried that one lately.
What do I think about all this, Killborn? Of course plenty of people have been leery of Bush on various things. Conservatives aren't easily satisfied. What one wants, another doesn't.
But NRO has acted exactly like liberals thoughout this brouhaha...smear tactics, misrepresentation and outright lies. Their targe is Bush, not Miers. David Frum has hated Bush since he worked for one year as a speech writer in the White House and discovered that no one thought he was brilliant. He was loose with the facts then, too, and Harriet Miers was the one who repeatedly sent his speeches back to him for correction. Bush refused untruths.
I think the judges the antiMiers have been braying for will, if one is appointed, turn out to be Souter. Bush's father let someone else pick a Supreme nominee and that was Souter. That's why Bush picked his own -- Miers. She would have been great. Those out there questioning that know nothing about law or anything else and don't care. Get Bush is what they want, even if it gives us a Democratic Congress and Prez.
Good to see you back, fella! Good to see your name at FR!
Peggy
I liked Hugh better when he wasn't so obviously a fanboy.
That's pretty funny, since she was nominated in the first place because the Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process!
Like it or not, Hewitt is exactly right here.
The next time the Democrats beat the hell out of one ours with personal attacks, we will be hypocrites if we call them on it.
I saw that point dealt with by a lawyer somewhere--wish I could remember where. He said that although the case will be introduced soon, it would be very unusual for the opinion to be handed down before next Spring, and O'Connor can't vote on it unless she's actually on the court when the opinion comes down. So there's an excellent chance she wont' get to vote. Maybe Congressman Billybob could help us on this?
How many of Bush's other nominees have been "picked to death by the right?"
As for the Senate--I suspect at least some of them are going to start to take us a little more seriously, and stiffen their spines.
Wait--there's a huge difference. In our case, we want a conservative President to use a conservative litmus test.
The problem with the Dems is that they want a conservative President to use >their< litmus test. It would be as if we had demanded that Clinton appoint pro-life, pro 2A judges, and ignore the wishes of >his< base.
"..at least as strong as Thomas' or Rehnquist's or O'Connors"
Can you back that up?
Also, none of them were affected by the cronyism issue, which for me was a major consideration. Even if she were another Scalia, it would have set an awful precedent.
[emphasis added]
Like I've said many times before, the process forced her withdrawal. The Pres. doean't give up this easily, nor do I think that any woman called a "pit bull in size 6 shoes" would. It's only when the compromising of confidential information would have led to Senatorial confidence that Miers decided not to compromise the process.
I think she would have been a fine justice but my paranoia in all things won't let me rest until I get 100% confirmation that she is an originalist. This is the same with any candidate the President puts up. Even if FR is ecstatic, I'd still have some doubt reserved. You are right on the Souter point. We don't really know how this process will turn out. We don't have anymore evidence that Miers would be or not be a Souter than that anyone else on the short list would be or not be a Souter. For all our sakes, I hope this turns out for the best.
Her treatment was quite shameful and many FReepers are jumping on conclusions based on evidence that wouldn't convict a jaywalker. It doesn't prove that Miers wasn't jaywalking but it's still scanty enough to alow further inquiries and evidence. I feel really bad for the PRes. I feel relieved that he din't look too dejected yesterday but who knows. IF I were in the Pres. position, I'd come out with guns blazing. But he has too much class, character, patriotism, and forgiveness to engage in petty vindictive behavior like publicly blasting the opposition or nominating a Souter just to teach his detractors a lesson. Pres. Bush has been backstabbed time and time again by RINOs, Dems, and now his hardcore base and the punditocracy but he just brushes it off, prays for strength, and moves on. I hope he'll come out of this stronger and nominates someone to appease the beast. :) That way he can focus on more important issues.
One characteristic of this Administration is the constant delays dropped into his way to impede his agenda. First RINOs, then a hurricane, later indictments, and now Miers. A few more events like this, he might as well just retire and take anyone who wants to implement the Bush Agenda with him and force an early election. Might as well have a new guy in charge if he won't ever get his policies implemented.
That's my rant. Good to see you again too!
Tom
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.