I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers.

[Pukin Dog]

I decided to end my self-imposed exile from posting due to information that I received this past weekend from ‘a little birdie’ in Washington, which I subsequently had confirmed by another ‘insider’ if you can call him that.

You know I won’t tell, so don’t bother asking me for names, links, or further information. I trust these individuals, and have received accurate information from them before and shared it here on Free Republic. Of course, all are free to either accept or reject what I am about to share, but if you know anything about the Dog, I don’t change my mind often, and my only goal is to pass on information that can help support the Conservative agenda.

Issue 1.

Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bush’s list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the ‘stars’ who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.

More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.

Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.

Issue 2.

Arlen Specter is in my opinion, a traitor to the Conservative movement. He has made it clear to the White House that he is determined to protect his legacy, by NOT supporting any name among those who might make it possible to overturn Rowe V. Wade. What that means, is that had Bush put up someone who might make us proud, Specter reneged on a PROMISE to support Bush’s judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorum’s) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specter’s pending chairmanship in favor of John Coryn, or an extension to the term of Orrin Hatch.

The removal of Specter from the Chairmanship would have been disastrous, because he would have remained a committee member, and would have sided with Democrats against the President’s selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specter’s health issues at the time these decisions were being made.

One could argue that it might have been best to send up nominee after nominee, even if eventually defeated, but remember that O’Conner is only around hoping for a quick confirmation so that she can be with her ill husband. Bush was under the gun to come up with a confirmable candidate, or risk a Supreme Court not running at full strength as important rulings came under review.

I am told that Arlen Specter has gone back on every single promise he made when his chairmanship was still a question, and feels untouchable now that he is ill, because any punitive measures taken against him would be seen as ‘less than compassionate’ by the MSM and Democrats, who admittedly would have a field day, were Specter punished for his duplicity. The sad thing is that after “Scottish Law” or even the “Magic Bullet theory” that some think that anything that Arlen Specter says can be trusted. Sure, he supported Clarence Thomas, but does anyone believe that Specter would still be a Senator if he had not?

Issue 3.

Let’s face it; our Republican Senate is an embarrassment. From the weakness of Frist, to the petulance of the dude who ‘thinks he is leader’ McCain, down to his McCainiac compadre Lindsey (tinker-bell) Graham, to the nut from Mississippi who thinks he can actually get his leadership position back by actively rebelling against the President, we aint looking to good at all.

Our Republican Senate has as members at least 7 Democrats who could have never gotten elected as Democrats, who nonetheless support the Democrat agenda whenever they can get away with it, which unfortunately due to the weakness of Frist, is all too often. I find myself wishing Tom Delay would run for the Senate against Hutchinson, just so we can have someone in the Senate not afraid to break some heads to get things done. Why can’t we have a Republican Lyndon Johnson when we need one?

Because our Republican Senate is so weak, President Bush cannot rely on them for much. He could not have gotten majority support in this current Senate for any judicial nominee that would have made us proud. The usual suspects have made it clear to the President that any nominee who would have put their re-election prospects at risk would vote against that nominee. The bottom line, is that the Republican Senate is made up of too many who want the job, but not the work. The only job they see before them is that of getting re-elected to another six year term.

Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Owen, Alito, or anyone else you want to name, would have been defeated, and probably defeated in committee, in order to save other Senators from having to vote them down on the floor. Of this, I am now convinced. Only two names were considered allowable for Senate confirmation; Miers and Gonzales. When Bush met with Senators, he was reportedly told that these two names were the only ones that stood a chance to be confirmed, but Gonzales would face pointed questions about Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and the administration’s policy on torture. It would have been ugly, but he would have been confirmed against the added damage done by dejected a dejected conservative base, and liberal attacks on the President’s agenda. There would have also had to be a new search for an Attorney General, which would have been just as ugly.

Had Bush put up selections that would have been defeated, the chorus of ‘Lame Duck’ chanting coming out of Washington would have drowned out the President’s agenda. A defeat in the Senate would have also signaled to Congress that they were on their own, and no longer had to back up, support, or even listen to President Bush. They would have been free to play the political-calculation game that the Democrats have been playing for 6 years; avoiding tough votes that would be used against them in a future campaign.

So, what’s the bottom line?

The bottom line is that Bush did his best to give us what we want, in a way that will not hurt the prospects of the Conservative agenda. The primary thing that must be considered, is that the Congress can NEVER be put back in Democrat hands, for that would destroy all progress made up to now. Our day will come, but this aint it. If we had a Republican Senate made up of real patriots without the odd liberal in Republican clothing, things would be a lot better.

In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst.

It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time. This fact is not the fault of the President. Indeed it is OUR fault. It is us who have supported less than the best candidates for the Senate. We are responsible for Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, Graham, Lott, Frist and other persons of questionable courage. We should not be blaming Bush for our own votes. We selected the people that the President must rely upon to move his agenda forward. If they are losers, then he loses too.

Though they literally suck, we are stuck with these people because we must keep the majority to keep our agenda alive. There have been worse moments for us, but none would be worse than than the day we lose the Senate our House majorities. I now believe that although Bush disapointed many of us, that he did the very best he could do without destroying our momentum.

Yes, like Rush Limbaugh said, it was a choice made from weakness.

But the thing to remember, is that it was not Bush’s weakness, but our own, and that of the people we have elected to Congress that made this happen. Had they been strong, Bush could have selected anyone we wanted.

Because of what I now know about how and why Harriet Miers was selected, I withdraw my earlier statements against her, my statements suggesting anything less than my strong support of the President, and finally, my self imposed exile from Free Republic.

Pukin Dog is back, so deal with it.

[B Knotts]

Wow.

Well, if he withdraws her, or if she withdraws herself, and he puts up JRB or Luttig, there are a lot of us out here who will happily go to bat for him, to help combat the DemocRATS and RINOs.

[sinkspur]

If he withdraws her, I'm done with them all.

I'm not done, but I hope Bush sticks it to these wailers by just not nominating anybody else. Let O'Connor stay, or let her go and get these 4-4 non-decisions for a year.

They are intent on humiliating Bush and Miers, and they may very well get their wish.

If they want to cripple Bush, he can just act crippled, and let the Supreme Court have eight members for the next three years.

[XJarhead]

Correct, but they should have done so with tact, and in private.

"Tact" and "Coulter" I'm not sure are two words that ever belong in the same sentence. Though technically, I suppose they weren't. Anyway, I think those initial charges by Ingraham and Coulter right off the bat needed a public response to make sure they didn't stick. I understand your point, but frankly, some of the responses have been so frothing at the mouth that not alienating those people seems about impossible at this point.

I'll give Limbaugh credit for seeing the bigger picture and backing off. It is entirely possible to disagree and express disappointment without being destructive, and that distinction apparently has been lost on some.

[sinkspur]

Frankly, I dont know how Bush fixes this.

The rats like Coulter and Frum are going to have to crawl on their bellies. That's what I would make them do, if they humiliated me and my nominee like this.

If they don't, well, the Supreme Court doesn't have to have nine members, does it? I'd tell Sandra to go home to her husband, and we'd have deadlock for three years on the SC.

[Miss Marple]

Well, here's the deal on Laura's comment, which I happened to see this morning. She was responding to Lauer's question on whether the attacks were sexist, and she said it was possible that some were.

Well, when I have time I am going to go through all of the comments from Frum, Kristol, Coulter, et al and put them together. There was a defnite hint of sexism, to my way of thinking, and although I suppose the case could be made that these were flippant comments, it did seem to me that the same type of comments wouldn't have been made about a man.

I was a geologist back when very few women were. I know that men don't always recognize offensive comments until someone points them out. I am pretty thick-skinned about stuff like that. But honestly, PD, gripes on this forum about her marital state and eyeliner were pretty sexist, if you ask me.

[Shazolene]

Good reply (#986) to a great post.
We really need to stop doing the bidding of the Dims and the MSM. We are being successfully manipulated.
Even without an 'inside' source, this scenario just makes sense.
BTTT

[Pukin Dog]

I agree that many(including myself) went a little nuts after hearing about Bush's selection and reacted before thinking.

But I don't know that Coulter, Ingraham or even 'yours truly' should be held to the same standard as the White House. They get paid to think about these things, I don't. I get paid to not make mistakes in a cockpit. On the Internet, you can expect me to sometimes be dumb as a post. Bush gets paid to not make mistakes in the White House.

[ssaftler]

Well said, Dog! My opinion is that, not only is Miers confirmable, her choice put Dirty Harry Reid in a no-win situation. Since he signed off on her, any attempts by the loony left (see Drownin' Ted, Bouncin' Check Boxer and that ilk) to stop her would make him seem as ineffective as ol' Doc Frist.

Granted, she ain't the best we could have, but one has to believe that J.P. Stevens will be outta there within the next year or two, and THEN we can go for the battle.

[Pukin Dog]

But honestly, PD, gripes on this forum about her marital state and eyeliner were pretty sexist, if you ask me.

Yes, but like I told Jarhead, we are allowed to do or say dumb things because we aint running the country. Bush, and those who speak for him are paid to get the big things right. When they dont, (or dont make a good case that they do) you can expect some of us to go off the deep end.

[XJarhead]

Fair enough. The problem is that when someone like Coulter or Ingraham goes nuts, they have an audience and their comments can generate further opposition. A private rebuttal doesn't do much to stop whatever groundswell those inflammatory comments might create.

And a pissy as the White House's reaction was, it still had some effect. It's pretty much muted the criticism about the school she went to and her gender.

[jmc813]

Now they are trashing the First Lady

You don't think that Laura's sexism comments today were moronic?

[deport]

I know that men don't always recognize offensive comments until someone points them out.

---

Probably true in many cases... I have to be hit over the head sometimes to understand... But when a woman makes the comments then it most assuredly has to be intentional or else she's dumb as a bat or maybe not feminine at all. Just my crass opinion of course.

[Always Right]

I kind of miss the part where people were trashing the first lady. Most people just thought it was a dumb response that did not help the cause.

[Miss Marple]

Well, do I get points for trying to be diplomatic? If not, I'll go with the "dumb as a bat" category. :-)

[deport]

LOL........ well this is one choice I'm not going to make but then I didn't think sexist comments to be coming from you about Ms. Miers.....

[Prost1]

I noticed you were back so I searched your name and came up with this post....

FR is so rich with threads it is hard to see all.

Years ago I met LBJ's cousin, Elie(?) Johnson "biggest drunk in Waco County!", but like his cousin a clear thinking politician. In one day I learned more about the workings of government than you can get with a BS degree.

I find nothing in your post out of context with the descriptions I received 30 years ago.

Therefore, I am persuaded by the analysis and logic.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Where do we go? Hopefully NOWHERE.

If I read your opus correctly W. made the best decision under the circumstances. If W. had a Senate with spine in it, he would possibly have chosen someone else.

I am going nowhere, I will stay Republican no matter who W. picks. I trust him to make the best decision possible.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

As you and/or Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the Senate you have, not the one you want....

I love that statement!

Says the truth very succinctly....

[pollyannaish]

I'm going to leave Ed Gillespie aside for the moment and address the Laura Bush angle.

Laura Bush is not a politician. She is a person who gets shoved in front of the train now and again in an effort to help her husband. She has made it VERY clear that she hates to speak in public, she is an introvert...and prefers the life of a quiet, well-read, librarian. She has admitted, on more than one occasion, that she's really not good at the political thing. She has fully assessed her strengths and weaknesses. But she does the required job because she loves George...and she understands honor and duty.

So, it drives me nuts when the press intentionally (and I believe it is intentional on EVERY level) to drive a wedge between her and the President...and then uses it to drive a wedge between the President and his conservative base.

On the personal wedge: It drives the press nuts that this relationship appears to be a LOVE match, not a political match. That is a very rare thing in Washington and highlights for the country to see the innate chinks in the Clinton legacy as well as the Clinton ambitions.

The enemies of the Bushes would love to do nothing more to break that particular angle...paving the way for the next Presidential race. Note that the Globe has started to pick up on this. It used to be an untouchable subject. It's only just started. We are going to hear all kinds of accusations, which will eventually seep into the mainstream press about drinking and fights and disarray. Why? Because it serves the purpose of their enemies.

Secondly, it is a cowards way to essentially use a "your momma" approach to fighting. The press tried to use Laura this morning to further hurt the President with his base. That's a pretty despicable thing to do. Even if Laura didn't help matters by falling for the bait and adding fuel to the fire, to mix my metaphors.

Finally...I don't think President Bush has any politically powerful loyalty in any sector to rely on right now. Not in the Senate, not in the house, not in the press, not in his base. He pretty much stands alone. So, in my opinion Laura's comments neither helped as the WH hoped nor hurt him as his political enemies hoped.

What he does next will. I honestly believe this situation would destroy most. I am NOT looking forward to what comes next—but I do pray for him regularly. Honestly, I think that is the last refuge the man actually has.

(Sorry for another long post on your thread. I've just had a couple weeks to step back and watch this in an attempt to get a handle on all the angles. Now, I've got a lot of words, not to mention theories, to use.)

[A Citizen Reporter]

When you go through those comments, be sure not to miss these from a transcript of an interview Frum did with Hugh Hewitt last night:

"DF: Two points. One is I think the filibuster deal was a good deal, and I think it worked for the Republicans, and we saw that with Roberts. But second, Hugh, I think we're going to discover Harriet Miers is the toughest confirmation. I don't think she's going to win, and if she does win, it's going to be after a horrific and expensive and costly political fight for the president.

HH: But I have to press you, David, because the assertion that he could have won with Luttig or McConnell is central here. I don't think they had the votes to get one of my top three. I think that what happened was a calculation, that they had to go with the best choice that they knew was acceptable, and so there's a disagreement here. I just want to know...

DF: You know, I think on that factual point, I think you're wrong. I don't think there was a calculation. Actually, I think this was a very impulsive decision.

HH: Again, I'm going back, David. I'm pushing you on the Senators.

DF: And because the vice president...look, the vice president has been under surgery. Karl Rove has been distracted by this stupid and unfair inquiry, but he's been distracted, and he's also had medical troubles. So who was making this decision? It wasn't Karl, and it wasn't the vice president. It was Andy Card and the first lady, and the president, and Condoleezza Rice.

"HH: You're taking me out on a limb, David. I'm not going to go with you. I mean, that's a big limb.