Posted on 10/06/2005 6:51:14 PM PDT by George Stupidnopolis
In the blue corner were the Democrats. Utterly bereft of issues, the old guard of the party had been usurped by the likes of Michael Moore, Geroge Soros, Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean. All they could do was whine and complain, their every move contributing further to a reputation of stagnation, false posturing and utter wuss-hood.
In the red corner were the Republicans. They didn’t look as fit as they had a few years previous, a visible paunch and a few bruises were evident, but for the most part the oddsmakers bet 100 to 1 that the right cross would render the left hook impotent. All that George Bush had to do was to nominate a proven warrior for Supreme Court Justice. We just knew he would honor his promise to provide us with a cultural commando in the mold of Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas. He wouldn’t dare roll the dice or abandon a working strategy. He would never take a dive.
Like most people whose feet are firmly planted on the right side of fence, I wanted a fight. It seemed we had the liberals on the ropes, and this was to be the battle for the crown. We wanted to see Biden, Feinstein and Kennedy brutalized and bloodied. We wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological cities and sow the ground with tequila salt.
Instead, George did the unthinkable. he didn’t take a dive, but with the surprise nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Miers, he might have done something far worse. In socio-pugilistic terminology, it appeared that Bush “took a Souter.”
Or did he? I’ve been thinking about this in the days since the nomination, and suspect there might be a grand plan behind Bush’s pick. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I’m beginning to think that the President adopted a very devious “strategery” to make the left look like fools, to force them to hang themselves with their own rope.
In the immediate aftermath of the nomination, Democrats were thrilled. Unable to contain themselves, they ran to the ever-supportive network cameras. They gave Miers praise - Harry Reid acted like he was ready to marry the nominee he himself had suggested. They puffed their chests over the fact that they’d made Bush back down and select a nominee of the wishy-washy O’Conner genre. They believed that low approval polls, two hurricanes, an ongoing war and non-stop media propaganda had forced Bush to comply with their wishes.
Not being a far-seeing bunch, the Democrats perceived Miers as a moderate. They saw here as someone who was once a Democrat, that had given $1,000 bucks to Al Gore. They saw her as someone who could be swayed by the leftist pressures of Washington DC, who would eventually crumple under the pressure and side more and more often with the liberal members of the court.
At this moment the likes of Reid and Feinstein are wishing they could take back their initial gloating. The press, eager to help the left, trumpeted the news that Miers is moderate. The general public now believes it. What the Dems didn’t know, and didn’t bother to check out, is that it’s becoming clear that Miers is extremely anti-abortion.
Liberals have but one true issue. That being, their support for the pro-choice movement. They’re obsessed with the topic. Armed with this fact, and again, I’m hoping this hypothesis is correct, Bush may have painted a master stroke.
If Miers is as strongly pro-life as reported, what are the Democratic members of the judicial committee to do? They already given her praise, and the press has already convinced America she is a moderate. If the Democrats approve her, allowing an up or down vote, they will have abandoned their pet issue and will suffer at the hands of disgruntled lefties in the 2006 Congressional elections. If they don’t approve Miers, fearful of antagonizing their base by disregarding their most cherished talking point, they will be painted as the ultimate obstructionists.
Remember, thanks to the left’s own words and massive media support, America now sees this woman as a moderate. If she is forbidden a fair vote on the basis of a single issue, the public will feel Democrats truly have no mission in life but to disagree with Bush. This will galvanize the Republican base (and more importantly, the always disgruntled and fickle independents) to vote against Democrats in 2006.
Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would have indeed been to the death. The all-important swing voters, the independents, would have been convinced by the media that the nasty Republicans were attempting an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to the left. While I’ve not yet determined if Bush is brilliant or a bumbler, I am intrigued by the impending fireworks
If the President is truly attempting this strategy, it is a bold gamble. If he is, and if it works, he will KO the Democrats without ever throwing a punch.
Many of us would have preferred a fight. We wanted to give the left a black eye, to see them lying on the canvas beaten and destroyed. We wanted to win the battle.
But maybe, just maybe, George Bush is looking to win the war.
How would THEY know this and WE wouldn't?
I agree---but Rush has been working at being a conservative commentator for years. He constantly talks about his passion for it. I just don't see anything remotely comparable in Miers' life--at least with respect to upholding the Constitution.
That is baseless mean trash talk. I hope you get zotted.
This kind of trash could only come from someone who was balless to begin with.
If this were MY forum, you'd be gone.
Here's a chap just spoiling to get de-testiculated.
She grew up in the Roman Catholic church, which would have made such a thing difficult to do. I think we would be hearing from her or from her friends about it, if it were true.
We aren't all capable of becoming something new when we're 60 years old. But more to the point, from what I've read, her real abilities lie in administration and attention to technical details. These are great skills and at the level of White House Counsel require great intelligence--but they aren't the things that you look for in a SCJ. I've read most of the admiring articles---and not one of them mentions her vision, her ability to cut through complicated legal arguments, or her persuasiveness.
The boorishness was when jerrypo used crude language to state he was sure she was in that position. And even with a polite "I wonder if she might" I would want to have better evidence than the time period she lived in, before floating such a speculation... good grief.
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.