Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by 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 wont tell, so dont 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 dont 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 Bushs 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 Bushs judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorums) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specters 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 Presidents selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specters 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 OConner 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.
Lets 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 cant 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 administrations 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 Presidents 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 Presidents 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, whats 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 administrations 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 Bushs 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.
MIERS: A HISTORY [Jonah Goldberg]
I've heard enough of them from enough different people that I'm willing to make a tentative prediction about how this will be remembered. Much of this is conjecture and hunch, of course. Here is what I think historians will say:
Bush/the White House decided for whatever reason (Senate pressure, polling, etc) they needed to pick a woman. They went through a list and found that many of their top female candidates weren't confirmable or had quantifiable problems (we've heard mention that some had suprising "activism" in their records. I think Brit Hume even said so on TV on Sunday). Meanwhile, by the time they reached Miers' name they'd already bought so deeply into the "logic" of picking a woman they couldn't back out and Bush felt so strongly about Miers and the vetting was so poor they felt she made the most sense as a reliable "stealth" nominee. The added pressure that Bush and others think so highly of Miers contributed to the inability of wiser heads to say "Maybe we should go another way" or "Maybe we should give her a more thorough vetting." Then they cleared her with Dobson and a few other evangelicals who they mistakenly believed were perfectly good stand-ins for the entire conservative movement. When the blowback on Miers hit from the wider conservative world, they were caught off-guard and fell back on bad arguments (she's loyal, she's evangelical, she was a fair and honest lottery commissioner) because they had so little ammo in her record.
Then -- and this is the moment we're in now -- they got stuck in a two front war. In order to placate conservatives they needed to demonstrate that she is really a rightwinger. But for every reassurance they offer to the right, they sow more doubt on the left -- including among squishy moderates like Arlen Specter (who, by the way, Hugh Hewitt carried so much water for against a real conservative). This created an incentive for the squishes and the lefties to buy into the "she's not qualified" argument as a way to seem tolerant to both her ideology and her gender and make Bush look bad. Eventually, the surprises in her relatively unvetted-record added complaints on both sides. She withdrew before the vote.
Obviously this last bit is wild conjecture. But that's my gut feeling as of 1:51 PM, October 11, 2005. And while much of this may not pan out, I think the trust-Bush-he's-got-a-secret-plan theory will not hold up to scrutiny when more facts are known. She may still turn out to be a great justice, but it will have been a Hail-Harriet pass not some brilliant executed strategy.
I dont know who is whispering in his ear, but apparently the sentiment is spreading.......
The silence from the WH is deafening.....
LOL, heck there are women here who one day told me that our calling is to marry, stay home and raise children.
It's more spin. "Harriet was the best we could do." Always blame the RINOs. Here's the solution, you stop supporting the RINOs when the run for re-election. You support Pat Toomey over Specter or Gaffey over Chafee in the primaries. I can't accept that Bush supported Specter and now Chafee and now Bush's people blames them for having to put through a mediocre candidate.
If you're not Brit Hume, you must be Jonah Goldberg :))
and what's wrong with that :)
Ah cute, hadn't seen that before.
Dring most of the 20th Century, except for the Presidency, we had what amounted to a one party country, namely the Dems.
During the 60 years from 1932-92, the Dems controlled the House of Representatives for all but two election cycles and the Rep majority during those two cycles, 1946 (about 50) and 1952 (less than 10) were both small and short-lived compared to the Dems. During the 1930s their majority rose as high as almost 250 more Dems than Reps. During the 1960s and 70s the Dems held majorities of 150 on three different cycles and held control of Congress for 40 straight years. The Rep majority from 1994 to 2004 pales in comparison in terms of majorities and control. Today it is a high water mark of 30.
In the Senate the Dems held sway in all but two cycles from 1932-1978, i.e., 1946 and 1952 with Rep majorities of less than 10. In contrast, the Derms held huge majorities for much of the period with the 1936 cycle seeing a Dem majority of almost 60 senators, i.e., there were only about 20 Rep senators out of 96. The Reps held the majority in the Senate for three successive cycles, 1980-1984, but the majority never reached 10. The Dems then resumed control from the 1986 to 1992 cycles with majorities no less than 10. The Reps regained control for the past decade with the exception of 2000 and the Jeffords switch. Today's 11 senator majority to the Dems (not counting Jeffords the independent) is the high water mark since 1928 when the Reps had almost a 20 seat majority.
Is it any wonder why the Dems, especially the old-timers, believe they are entitled to hold the reins of power? And why the Reps are tentative in using their small but current advantage? The Dem hubris predates Nixon by decades. Roosevelt essentially destroyed the GOP for almost 60 years. I get the feeling that many of the old time Reps would like to return to being the minority party and the young ones don't have any appreciation for what it took to get that majority.
It is laughable to hear the MSM and the Dems talk about the rights of the minority and the need to involve them in the process. If the situation returned to "normal," such talk would be non-existent. This is what makes Conservatives so angry about this nomination. The Reps control the WH, the Senate, and the House and still lack the cajones to exercise power and take on the Dem minority.
I knew it!
If someone (Arlen Specter) is not a part of the Conservative Movement, how can he be a traitor to it?
"Actually, I prefer Capitaine.
But at least you aren't calling me "Surely".
Mark Levin on Hugh Hewitt:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500742/posts
Mark Levin on Hugh Hewitt:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500742/posts
We disagree about this Supreme Court nomination, but I'm really, really sorry about Delta Air Lines, man. It was a fine airline, much as Continental was before Frank "Chicken Lips" Lorenzo (Frank be Predator, behold, Frank went to Harvard Biz -- behold his greatness, the aura of his mano, the mightiness of his loins!) got hold of it, he and his equally thin, taut, tan, and chicken-lipped goferboy, Phil Bakes. They stunk up my home town for years while they were ruining Continental and screwing its longtime employees.
Delta was the only company I ever heard of whose employees put their own money in a sack and dragged it up to Sea-Tac to buy their boss a new Boeing. And not a stripper, either -- a brand-new 757, a $30 million airplane. Damn!
What the . . . . You mean there's something else?
For the record, absolutely nothing in the world is wrong with that...I just don't think other choices are wrong either :)
bump
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.