Posted on 10/04/2005 8:05:40 AM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
Rush Limbaugh is none too happy about President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, saying it’s a selection "made from weakness.”
"There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it,” Rush told listeners of his show, America’s most widely heard talk radio program.
"It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness.
"There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the Court. This is a nominee that we don’t know anything about. It makes her less of a target, but also doesn’t show a position of strength.
"I have a tough time believing that if the White House didn’t feel embattled over all of this stuff with Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq and these poll numbers, the choice would have been somebody different, somebody that could immediately be tagged as an originalist, somebody who was in the same mold of Scalia and Thomas, who the president once told us were his ideals for the Supreme Court.
"The Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Miers right now, led by dingy Harry (Reid), the Senate leader. He likes her very much. Almost like he’d like to marry her, he likes her so much.
"And when you start hearing the President’s opponents start talking about this in the way they’re talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
"But the main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.”
Rush said Miers’ nomination "disappoints” him because he feels Bush might be losing a historic opportunity to take the Court in a definitely conservative direction.
"As I’ve said, the Court is the last refuge for the left. It is where they hope to institutionalize their beliefs and get their beliefs out of the arena of debate.
"This woman could end up being fabulous,” Rush acknowledged, but asked: "Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”
Leaving the Federal ballot blank doesn't get the point across. If you want to demonstrate to the establishment politicians that you aren't going to vote for them anymore, then you've got to vote for a conservative third party. When the politicians see all those votes they didn't get, they'll be falling all over themselves to prove they're conservative enough (assuming enough people vote this way).
That cannot be said often enough or loudly enough. When you're the hammer, who cares what the nail is thinking of doing?
There is no point that can be made. The dem and pub sheep are willing lemmings.
You're right! Just caught the end of his show today, and Rush was saying Bush didn't like confrontations, never vetoed anything, but would get back at the left with Miers. I think he called her a "trojan horse." We'll see. To me, any ABA supporter is an establishment lawyer.
Mary Matelin was on H and C last night, and said Miers was a "bulldog".
She said she was one tough lady to get past. If that is so, and she is a true constitutionalist, she may be what we are praying for. She's an evangelical, and Dobson also said that he "knows things about her" he wouldn't reveal, but he backs her strongly.
I think W believes in her. My worry is that his belief may be misplaced. I guess only time will tell, because I think she will be confirmed.
A lot of conservatives seem to be spoiling for a fight. Rush's philosophy, like mine, is that it is always better to deal from a position of strength. His reservations seem to be more on the psychology of the pick, that not picking an obvious conservative signals weakness to the Dems, which is always bad when dealing with vultures.
I think Bush must have had his reasons for this undercover pick - perhaps he may have been told that the RINOs would scuttle a truly conservative justice. Bush is not confrontational - he talks tough, but favors end runs. He's a little machiavellian, but has been fooled. But he can also do some fooling on his own.
We need to recall things like this. Even Reagan made mistakes. We either learn from mistakes and avoid them, or, we pretend that they were never made, and continue to wallow in mediocrity. Liberalism is a mental disorder and, furthermore, even exerts its evil on those of a conservative nature but who fear that the squishy middle cannot be convinced of the correctness of conservative ideas.
Great comments.
Typical.
I think it's the Dale Carnegie stuff he's read. Carnegie is great for the working world but stinks in certain cases regarding politics. Win - lose is the harsh reality at times. I like to win. The Right need to be more aggressive. Etc.
But the democrats are the minority party. Who cares? What would be so wrong with a bloody brawl and bullying the right selection through the process? We've earned the bully pulpit. Why so much fear of using it? Worried about the angry mob of squishy middle soccer mobs - worried they'll tar and feather you?
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.