Posted on 07/05/2005 7:44:32 PM PDT by nj26
The White House and the Senate Republican leadership are pushing back against pressure from some of their conservative allies about the coming Supreme Court nomination, urging them to stop attacking Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a potential nominee and to tone down their talk of a culture war.
In a series of conference calls on Tuesday and over the last several days, Republican Senate aides encouraged conservative groups to avoid emphasizing the searing cultural issues that social conservatives see at the heart of the court fight, subjects like abortion, public support for religion and same-sex marriage, participants said.
Instead, these participants, who insisted on anonymity to avoid exclusion from future calls, said the aides - including Barbara Ledeen of the Senate Republican Conference and Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader - emphasized themes that had been tested in polls, including a need for a fair and dignified confirmation process.
Mr. Ueland acknowledged that he and others had been working almost since the vacancy occurred last Friday with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation to persuade conservative activists to steer clear of divisive language.
"Every contact we have with these folks is 'stay on message, stay on purpose,' " Mr. Ueland said. "The extremism of language, if there is to be any, should be demonstrably on the other side. The hysteria and the foaming at the mouth ought to come from the left."
In other calls, emissaries from the office of Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, are urging conservatives to stop discussing individual nominees, especially Mr. Gonzales, whose views on abortion and affirmative action are viewed with wariness by some conservatives. Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman working on the confirmation, joined some calls, participants said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I was part of those battles back in 1999/2000 -- pretty lonely as Bush supporter when I first came on but like now I didn't back down. I got in some heated arguments but did that in the CA Recall as well. Difference is that I DIDN'T change my screen name to hide who I was like some of these posters with older sign-ups have done.
What I don't remember are people threatening to leave the Republican Party or not donate if (fill in the blank). They were out and out not Republican which I respected because they didn't pretend to be Republican in order to say they were leaving. Must admit having people say they would vote for Hillary because of her stance on anything makes me wonder about a Freeper. What I don't like are people out stirring the pot to start something and post rumors as facts. That's what Democrats do and as I told someone recently if the shoe fits wear it and they didn't reply back. If someone accused me of being a Democrat, I would have gone through the ceiling. :)
As an example, I may not agree with Willie Green some of the time but I respect him because he has stayed the course and never wavered, hasn't changed his screen name, and is the same as when I first saw him post. I respect any person's right to their own opinion but I do not respect a person's right to spin for their own agenda like the RATs.
Have a good one!
Not in light of the presidents recent remarks...
As I said in an earlier post, the presidents remarks were in defense of a friend (and current attorney general) The president clearly gave his reason for defending Gonzalez. Why should Bush have to play the silly denial game about potential nominees to the detriment of all I pointed out above, all because he wants to defend a friend.
The president's comments only made it MORE LIKELY that conservatives will continue to discuss it.
Conservatives should discuss the possibility that Gonzalez would be the nominee irregardless of Bush's remarks today about his "friend".
I'm tired of applying preparation H to my ass because of the "Lets get along with the Democrats" mentality. The GOP needs to learn to do the will of the people who put them in office or the fascist "For the Party" Nazi Democrats will regain control because the Republican voter base will become apathetic. Why should I keep voting straight "R" if the RINO's keep doing the will of the Democrats. The only thing that will reward me for my effort is for Bush to appoint a Supreme who is conservative and a constitutional originalist. Nothing else will appease me.
We don't know the same about you either. And since your comments would be enabling of a Gonzales nomination, whom the Dems seem reasonably comfortable with, I'll let others draw their conclusions, using the logic you've just laid down.
Doesn't take much to find out that the law he ruled on Texas was a bad law and anyone that is a strict constitutionalist would have thrown it out! But not on here, he was a bad justice because he wasn't an activist judge in Texas.
So you're calling Priscilla Owen an activist judge? The Texas statute required lower courts to grant waivers to minors if the minors meet certain criteria. It did not require them to grant such waivers if the court fails to specfically find that the minors don't meet the criteria. Yet that's exactly what the Texas supreme court, with Gonzales joining the majority, ordered a lower court to do.
I know that in writing his opinion, Gonzales put on a big show of how he had misgivings about the law, and didn't necessarily agree with it but ruled the way he did anyway. But the mere fact that he characterized himself as a "strict constructionist" doesn't mean he was. As Owen noted, the majority in that ruling overturned 50 years of precedent regarding standards of evidence coming from lower courts.
As a conservative, I might relent on Gonzales, IF there's a third opening and Bush has place TWO solid conservatives on the SCOTUS, but not until then.
Isn't that special?
Then the Senate Republican leadership and the current occupant of the White House can be changed.
I guess too much grief from the plebes is giving Our Rulers some indigestion.
Bush yesterday criticized people who expressed their concerns regarding Alberto Gonzales as a Supreme Court nominee.
This is ominous.
The fact that he and Bush are friends has absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications for office.
I guess Bush isn't getting the message and this illegal invader problem which the leftist press continues to falsely label an "immigrant" problem is essentially a Federal issue.
The Federal Government has the authority and power to stop it, and to bring pressure to bear on local jurisdictions which ignore Federal laws on illegal invaders by withholding Federal aid funds.
Gonzales is clearly a proponent of this program as he has refused to effectively utilize the power of his position of attorney general to take steps to stop this situation.
He must never be appointed to the Federal Bench.
As Bush appears deaf to complaints about Gonzales, we must bombard ALL our Federal reps with letters opposing Gonzales to the Federal Bench. When writing Repubs, identify yourself as a Republican. When writing Dems, do not mention any political affiliation, or describe yourself as an "independent".
So did I. And I agree wih you.
Bush has another Hispanic=American with solid Republican credentials on his list - he should use him and stop imposing his personal affections on what should be a ourelky political selection.
Frist has once again demonstrated he is a perfect @$$.
"if anyhting the shrill attacks on gonzales ahve made his nomination more likely, not less"
If Bush were to nominate Gonzales just to get back at those "noisy right wingers" in the Pub Party, then he's not a conservative Republican concerned about the philosophical bent of the Supreme Court and how it will vote in the future. Rather he would be one who would nominate for spite and because Gonzales is his loyal friend. How about his loyal constituency that put him in office? His old man picked a loser (Souter). Bush may be a chip off the old block and do something similar. That's unknown at the moment, but don't knock conservatives for being suspicious of what Bush Jr. might do, as it's been done before by his old man. We'll see, but don't slam your own kind for being worried about where Bush might go. Many think Bush is long on compassion (I see he is giving another gigantic chunk of our taxpayers' money to Africa), and short on conservatism. We'll find out all too soon where he is at philosophically re the Supreme Court nomination. I hope and pray Bush is more concerned about the welfare of his country and his party over his loyalty to an old friend, when that old friend is likely a moderate like O'Connor.
Dear G.O.P. The compromise over judicial nominees foisted by a "few good old boys changing nothing" on many of us who are believers has already caused us to withold donations. The simple answer is hell no. I for one, do not want anyone other than an individual on the court in the mold of Justice Scalia and Thomas. Someone less determined to screw down the liberal nonsense will not cut it. Thank you and find your courage, G.O.P.
I haven't been paying real close attention, in that I haven't heard the supposed "shrill rhetoric instigated by the right wingers." But my thoought is that the left-leaning press is inclined to solicit comments if none are forthcoming, and then to paint whatever is said in the most shrill light possible.
In other words, the press can make hay ANY time a Christian-based group expresses ANY political view. That's just the way it is.
And now the press gets a bonus - it can write a story about how the GOP and the president are attacking right-wing Christian groups. Even your comment could be spun by a creative press as an attack against conservatives, by a GOP representative ...
Conservatives who foolishly thought Gonzalez was going to be the nominee have been going ballistic and trashing him in the press.
What was said that amounts to trashing?
Good morning. Yes, you have a good point. However, my particular concern is that people here on FR are allowing themselves to be manipulated by the New York Times.
Ahhh - you'll drive yourself batty trying to correct shrill rhetoric here, or from the NYT ;-) Or from Focus on the Family for that matter.
GWB does a good job of expressing his criteria, and his moninee will be known in due course. Meanwhile, it is perfectly natural for the rhetoric to ratchet up.
Hehe. Okay.
Perhaps I do tend to over react when it seems that someone is telling me to stand in a striaght line. 8^)
I certainly hope for the best.
That "girl who hates us" analogy was pretty good. - I'm going to use it in the future.
Mine either. I get more and more disappointed in President Bush. Where's all the fire he had last time around? We need a revolution.
AMEN. You sure got that right. I am tired of politics.
"I swear I want to SUE a Politician that lies outta one side of their yap to get elected and turns around with the Trust Me coming outta the other side of their yap."
It was done, in the 1920s. I don't know the case, but the case was dismissed because the judge said only a fool would believe campaign promises.
Oh, yeah....that's real smart politics.
Everytime you attack Gonzalez, you hand the Democrats a cudgel to beat over the head of the nominee, by saying, Gonzalez was too moderate on position a, position b, and so on...
I always enjoy both of yer posts ,[BTW , we're not going to mention that our wonderful USofA is awash with illegals,so I won't mention it] (whistling,dee wee oh happy as can be oh)
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.