Posted on 10/28/2005 10:32:46 PM PDT by gpapa
The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.
She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.
Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Can President Bush trust his supposed 'allies' in the Senate to fight for a strong conservative nominee? That remains to be seen.
The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.
She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.
Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.
Liberal Senators have already gained from the time lost with the Miers nomination and they have every incentive to stall on the next nominee, to make sure that nominee is not confirmed before Congress adjourns at Thanksgiving. The longer they stall, the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court -- and she is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.
Obstructionist Democrats in the Senate have had their hand strengthened by this episode. Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.
What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?
If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.
The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democratic administration under Clinton.
While Senate Democrats have not hesitated to obstruct the Senate from even voting on some of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts, Republicans gave an overwhelming vote of approval to even such a far left Clinton nominee as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves. If they thought that such cooperation would be reciprocated when their party controlled the White House and the Senate, events have shown that they were sadly mistaken.
Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so.
Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes -- even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed.
That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.
Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.
But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?
Or is looking "statesmanlike" in the liberal media more important to some Republican Senators, either for its ego boost or for its practical political value in running for re-election or for the Presidency in 2008?
Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/10/29/173424.html
Practically speaking...and of course practicality has no place in politics today...Who gives a rats rump if they stand up and fight?...
I say bring it on...let the true conservative electorate see what this cabal of Rhinos is all about...
Bush is near a lame duck...why should he even give a crap?...
Sink, Swim or get the hell out of the way...
PS TO BUSH: Close the damn borders please!!!!
I think President Bush does give a 'crap'. There is no reason he should be a lame duck but he does need support. He wasn't reelected with 62 million votes to be a lame duck. If nothing else, in case we forget, there is a War on Terror to fight, and that is no joke.
I thought Sowell was placing blame on the Miers nomination itself, rather than the opposition to it.
upchuck- How do you read it?
That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.
Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.
But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?
bttt
My other point was that Iris7 seemed to be saying that Sowell was being critical of the opposition, but I read him as being neutral.
The whole hysteria over the Miers nomination, from day one, was because some of you wanted a BIG FIGHT. You don't really give a damn about winning; you want the FIGHT! Well, guess what? WE HAD THAT FIGHT IN THE 1980S!
Bork was sent down and got BORKED. Next up was Ginsberg, but ooooooooops, he had been a pothead college prof, so he was withdrawn. Next? Kennedy. Kennedy looked like solid gold on paper; a true blue Conservative. Oooooooooops...he wasn't and isn't. So much for vetting in the Reagan White House.
And yes, "practicality" has a LOT to do with politics, even though you are incapable of seeing it; or are just refusing to.
O'Connor desperately wants to leave. She was promised that a speedy replacement would be found and so, she promised to stay until a new justice was confirmed. She won't stay forever and what happens when, not IF, another justice dies or leaves? The Dems don't care! They'll string it out until '08 or beyond, so that a Dem president will them pick who sits on the SCOTUS.
Everyone knows who the RINOS are and even some who aren't RINOS; but, whom you and those who refuse to learn the true meaning of what that term is, yet throw it around blindly. The electorate does NOT see things your way and there aren't as many running off the cliff, "TRUE" Conservatives out there, as you imagine.
The president has three more years in office. He shouldn't be a "lame duck" now, but YOU and the Dems are doing the best you can, to make him one. And you can't tell the president to "sink, swim, or get out of the way"; he ain't leaving. What part of the president isn't a benevolent dictator, who can do whatever he damn pleases, escapes you?
If by opposition you mean the unspecified conservative groups he mentions below, I wouldn't quite call it neutral. I'm not sure what to call it, to be honest.
Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
He certainly does not assign to them any blame or irresponsibility for the revolt.
Maybe I'm reading too much into what he wrote, but he seems more sympathetic than not. The biggest leap I can make is he thinks the conservative opposition blamed the wrong source for the nomination. Should they not recognize the real source of the problem, and bring pressure to bear on their Senators, they're likely to be even unhappier at the next nomination.
Yes, they have. I regret that we don't have a smarter president...one who wouldn't take the recommendation of Harry Reid and run with it, instead of trusting his own base.
Not that Bush is dumb...but the move he made was, and it certainly wasn't "brilliant"...
Yeah right, this war to be added to the endless list of ongoing wars, such as War on Drugs, Crime, Poverty, Illiteracy etc.
It seems that each time a new administration comes into office they create their own little war to take the limelight while they and their cronies loot and pillage our collective resources. Anyone criticizing their stealth agenda is accused of everything, short of treason, because their criticism is done while we "are at war".
When was the last time we actually won a war of any kind?
The crux of the problem.
Well, we as in the military, that would be Iraq,[the war after all was won, it's the media's presentation of the peace that is the problem], Desert Storm and Viet Nam. We, as in the people and or politicians that would be Desert Storm. Not all that long ago!
You seem to skim over that we are now a majority in the senate. Different ball game! Your argument falls apart.
They'll string it out until '08 or beyond, so that a Dem president will them pick who sits on the SCOTUS.
At the very next recess, W could appoint Alan Keyes, that's if he uses that authority others have used. Again, your argument falls apart.
. And you can't tell the president to "sink, swim, or get out of the way"; he ain't leaving.
We just told him Miers was unacceptable,and he backed down. Again Sis, your argument falls apart.
We're starting finally to progress despite your incessant demeaning of the base.
Baloney. The next attack will be on the Pubbie Pussies in the Senate, or they may as well all just go home, stop wasting our time and money and leave us alone.
Time to unleash the Furies or stop bugging us about why Republicans are so damn wonderful.
W is a born again Christian, his next step should be to be a born again conservative.
You've got to be kidding. I don't give a crap about the War on Poverty, Drugs, Crime, whatever. However if you don't think the War on Terror is real or necessary you're nuts. Be careful you just might be working in the next building that gets slamed into by a hijacked 747.
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.