Miguel Estrada withdraws nomination

FOXNEWS | 9/4/03

[Thane_Banquo]

Per Fox News, Estrada has withdrawn his nomination.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

They are either worthless cowards or they are all the same party, or both.

[Cboldt]

DEMs gloating over this would nto play well, IMO. I expect them to prefer to keep the fact that Estrada "lost patience" quiet. The DEMs are, after all, achieving their objective by obstructing the power of a majority of Senators.

[Consort]

Throwing in the towel, or merely threatening to do so, encourages the opposition to step up their efforts. The lack of backbone and solidarity never works.

[Bill Davis FR]

bush should make a recess-appointment...maybe estrada sees bush losing in 2004...bush has done poorly in iraq, the economy and the federal budget...

[cibco]

Might want to watch the language. This isn't DU...

[PhiKapMom]

Those "weak" conservatives most likely are part of the millions of conservatives that stayed home and didn't vote in 2000!

They want to know why the Republican Party is reaching out to bring in new people -- all they have to do is look in the mirror. Their threatening to sit out elections is what is driving the Republicans to look elsewhere. You can only threaten for so long before people get totally fed up.

Without 58 Republican Senators, this nomination would never have gone anywhere. A lengthy filibuster would not have changed one thing and would have polarized the Senate even more and important work would not be accomplished. It is a travesty, but those are the rules of the Senate and I am not sure that nuking those rules for one nomination would be in the best interest of the Senate.

Even the Hispanic community did not get behind Estrada like I thought they would. People need to quit having tunnel vision and look at much wider picture of what is best for the Country instead of their own agenda in some cases.

You don't win every battle you enter and never will in politics, but you want to win the war at the end which is the election. Making the Senate go into an all out filibuster with Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorist threats, the economy, and anything else you could name on their plate, would not have been smart for the Republicans. Sometimes you take your losses and live to fight another day.

My opinon I know goes against the grain of a lot of folks on here but that is the way I see politics. Confrontational, in your face politics, gains very little and in my belief harms your cause.

[steveegg]

I would comment, but my "self-censor" is preventing me from saying any more than DAMN IT!

[StriperSniper]

[WatchOutForSnakes]

I think you have it wrong. The STRONG conservatives are the ones threatening to "throw in the towel" as you call it. Maybe we have just had enough of FAKE conservatives.

[truthkeeper]

I agree. This is appalling.

[Cboldt]

I generally don't take the threat (to not vote GOP) as any more than the expression of anger. That is, many people threaten, but I know at least one (me) who pulls GOP even after expressing frustration over GOP flip-flop (e.g., we're gonna disband the Dept of Edu. No, wait, we're going to expand its powers).

Rather than dismiss the person making the threat, it's better, IMO, to assess the substance of their complaint.

Look for common ground, not divisive ground.

None of us should have any concern about stepped-up liberal efforts, they are more entertaining when they are animated.

[WatchOutForSnakes]

I can. Frankly I hope Estrada told Bush and Frist to stuff it.

[Modernman]

Republicans always back down in a fight. This is becoming a sickening trend. The White House let this poor guy twist in the wind with very little support. If the President wants to appoint someone to the federal bench, he should throw the full weight of the presidency behind the nomination. Otherwise, what's the point?

[DodgeRam]

The only problem with that is they never got tough. This is the senate repubs fault, and bush's for not taking the fight to the democrats.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...They want to know why the Republican Party is reaching out to bring in new people ...

Oh, everyone knows why they want new people to join the party. Because they have betrayed and abandoned the ones who got them into office in the first place.

Face it, they just want to be democrats. It's too much effort for them to stand up for republicans and show some courage.

[PISANO]

They ALWAYS do. (WIN) I foolishly thought that if EVER the GOP had the Presidency and both houses things would change. I have been very dissappointed. The gimmies are masters at the GAME of politics and this INJUSTICE will fade quickly. As you said the Dems WIN.....again.

[PhiKapMom]

You are so right! I keep hearing recess appointments bandied about on here and it is obvious that these folks have no knowledge of recess appointments. They are temporary not permanent appointments!

I think recess appointments should be used with caution and not used for judicial nominations that are contentious.

Whatever happened to the rational discourse with facts that used to be on this site? Seems more and more I am seeing people that don't like what happened, threatening not to vote. If Estrada decided to pull his nomination, what was President Bush supposed to do -- lock him up and demand he stay in the fight! Some things are not worth it to an individual to keep fighting for and this may have been one of those for Estrada.

I want to shout -- LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! Going into 2004, the fact that the DemocRATs defied the will of the majority in the Senate on judicial nominations can be used against those same DemocRATs.

What if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans were in the minority, and a DemocRAT President nominated a judge that they didn't want -- what do people on here think would happen? The very same thing!

But then I remember some of those great filibusters of the past where Republicans talked and talked for hours to hold up something they didn't like. Some of those fililbusters were funny -- loved to hear what Strom Thurmond had to say!

[Consort]

Those "weak" conservatives most likely are part of the millions of conservatives that stayed home and didn't vote in 2000!

Yes, they are the Clinton Conservatives (as opposed to Reagan Democrats) who help to enable the Clintons rather than sending them back to Arkansas. They can not be relied upon to keep the Democrats out of power. Many Conservative voters have serious "blind spots" and tend to act weird if they don't get their way.

[Zack Nguyen]

Confrontational politics is rarely necessary or advisable, but occasionally an issue comes up that is based purely on principle. On such issues there can be no giving in. Putting pro-life, pro-family conservatives on the courts is one of those issues. The principle of the Senate performing it's advise and consent role is one of those issues. Keeping Ted Kennedy from having defacto control over court nominations is one of those issues.

Democrats understood all this. A rash of pro-life, pro-family judges is entirely unacceptable to them. To them it was a matter of principle. They stood as their ideology professed.

To Republicans the battle was about politics and elections only. They were willing to lose. The Republicans failed. The country is worse off.

[cyncooper]

I kept my note all this time to ping you when Estrada was sworn in, but that is evidently not going to happen.

I am very unhappy with this turn of events, and obviously, I was wrong.

The Republican Senate blew this-----big time.