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 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.
And baby---you would have my vote LOCKED DOWN! :^)
You lost me. If O'Connor goes home to be with her ill husband, the Supreme Court goes from 9 to eight. With no new confirmed nominee, then any 4-4 tie decisions mean that the lower court decision stands. There is NO tie-breaker by the Chief Justice, he is just one of the eight votes if there remains a vacant seat...
dvwjr
I knew there had to be a reason you're so obnoxious.
Despite your cold-water-tossing, Bush knows that his legacy is the prisoner of his ability to work with his base, and that he can't throw it away, or he'll wind up like Gerald Ford. He doesn't want that, but he hasn't yet accepted that he can't push Gerald Ford policies and still engage the Right.
So, yes, conservatives can still have an influence, even on the Republican Yacht Club, as long as we still keep having elections.
Pace you.
Actually, I don't care whether you "consider" it or not. I'm not turning in a loan application here, lady. I'm telling you what I think, and I'm telling it to everyone on the forum. So stop with the patronizing attitude.
....you are going to have to do a better job of selling it.
Sell, schmell. I'm right or I'm wrong. What's to sell? Selling is for Willy Loman, and look what it got him.
Karl Rove strategizes because he has inside information on how the Senators will vote, results of the vetting process, considerations of other issues, etc. He and the President make their decisions based on more information which you do not have.
Then why are you here? You don't have it, either.
According to your lights, you shouldn't be on FR at all, because after all, the lights are on in the White House.
Bilge.
You don't know .... Rove and Bush do ....
You know, you only need to make that "argument" once (appeal to authority, actually -- not an argument). I got it the first time. We understand your position. Bush up here, little ants down there.
Now, you can continue to hurl insults,....
Insults? Really? Insults?! Quote one. You were the one who started the scoffing and sneeering, by the way, in reply to my call in my posts #831, 834, in reply to a post of yours previously to Sloth, in which I encouraged President Bush to confront both the Democrats and the Republicans who are playing games and courageously put his agenda forward, and ask his appointees boldly to step up to the line and join battle with the retreating Democrats. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, no uncertain trumpets, and all that. And your reply was to snark, and to point to Bush's briefing book. Which he doesn't read, by the way.
.....and I am sorry if I made you angry, ....
Ad hominem.
"You're just saying that because you're angry (emotional, out of control, unable to think, immature, undeveloped).....if you weren't angry you wouldn't think that."
Happens not to be true, but nice try.
I see no reason to discount the President and believe you.
False dilemma. You don't have to "discount" the President to deal with any of the criticisms of his choice. More to the point at hand, which you've been leading us away from self-protectively, I replied to your asseveration that Pukin Dog and his "source" who wants to lurk in the shadows, dispensing Rove's message onto Free Republic anonymously, are correct when they say that potential judge nominees passed over by President Bush are quailing at the thought of facing Senate Judiciary. I pointed out, perhaps less than suavely, that you had bought that untested proposition from Pukin Dog's secret sharer (to borrow the term of art from Joseph Conrad), but nevertheless you are quite severe with people posting their opinions and suggestions quite openly. IOW, you are being inconsistent, and you accuse us of wild guesswork. In your #841 you scoffed,
All of this armchair strategizing is based on supposition. You suppose that the nominee would stand up to be trashed, you suppose that the Republican senators would vote to confirm (which didn't work too well with John Bolton) and you suppose the television networks would show a woman being browbeatten.In fact, you ask us to follow your strategy based on faith that it will work. If I have to have faith in someone, I will stand with the President, rather than someone strategizing on his computer.
URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts?page=841#841
Your entire argument boils down to "the President knows what he is doing, and you aren't President, so you aren't qualified to judge, or even to second-guess."
Is that what you told people when Bill Clinton was in office, getting serviced by Monica and selling his office to the Chinese?
.....but I see no reason to discount the President and believe you. That's just the way it is
Pat answer, but I think your appeal to authority is pretty well challenged here, both by my appeal for better leadership from the White House, and by the reaction the President and his minions are getting from the sincere and committed conservatives on Free Republic.
You might want to start working on a better answer.
By taking them on, you acquire momentum, and that itself is worth something.
Put the other way, the only sure way to fail is not to try.
The country needs associate justices who are proof against the rot and unlikely to be rolled by the blandishments and the unethical, illegal back-stairs lobbying. I don't think Miss Miers qualifies on that count, given her political background in the 80's.
Bush has Brutus's fault, not Cesare Borgia's. Borgia was arrogant and assumed he could elevate Julian II to the papacy without putting a deadly weapon into his hand. He affected to despise Julian, and the new pope made him pay for that.
Bush assumes that because he's in the open and a straight shooter, that everyone on his staff is like that, too. Not necessarily so -- maybe they're just hard workers who know how to keep their heads down. Anyone think of that?
We haven't the first, foggiest idea what Harriet Miers's deepest values are. Except that she gave money to Al Gore once, and once was on the Dallas City Council.
I saved myself some time and stopped right there.
I think that is what Custer told his troops at the Little Big Horn.
I thought it was. "Where the hell did all those Indians come from?" In any event, I don't consider GWB to be Custer nor assume that he would suffer the same fate.
I wasn't referring to W., the people playing Custer's part are those such as yourself that say, put up our best, even if it appears overwhelming so,that that candidate will go down in flames.
Excellent but sad post, welcome back.
You are defeated before you even start. You can theorize all you want, but there is no dishonor in defeat if you are pursuing principled aims. And you know, the underdog wins more often than you think. That's why they play the game.
Custer lost the battle, but the Indians lost the war.
Churchill: " Politics are almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times."
How are you so certain that Ms. Miers will be bad for the country?
How are you so certain that Ms. Miers will be good for the country?
I trust the President.
Did you trust him when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill? Or the prescription drug benefit? Trust but verify. We have conservative judicial nominees with proven records. We don't have to take a leap of faith. More than likely, Miers will be on the bench decades after GWB has left office. How will we hold him accountable then?
Oh you may have a chance sooner than that, if the Rove sh*t before the Grand Jury blows up in W's face. But barring that, I guess you can go down to Crawford and takes Cindy's spot in the ditch.
You failed to respond to my questions. Did you trust him when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill? Or the prescription drug benefit?
But barring that, I guess you can go down to Crawford and takes Cindy's spot in the ditch.
Changing the subject with a snide comment doesn't work. I support the war in Iraq and as a Vietnam veteran, I consider it an insult that you would link me with Sheehan, Fonda, and their ilk. I know when I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to personal attacks rather than discuss substance.
I didn't agree with the signing of those two bills. How does my disagreeing with W. on those two instances disqualify me from trusting the man in this particular instance?
Did you vote for W. in 2004? If you did, you voted for him after he had signed those two bills. You in effect voted for a man that you don't trust.
Changing the subject with a snide comment doesn't work. I support the war in Iraq and as a Vietnam veteran, I consider it an insult that you would link me with Sheehan, Fonda, and their ilk. I know when I am winning an argument when the other side resorts to personal attacks rather than discuss substance.
I regret if you consider my suggestion of how you can hold W. (accountable) after he leaves office as being offensive. It was not meant as a personal attack.
Could W. have gotten a better candidate? Without a doubt. If Pukin Dog is correct, then Miers is the best that could be gotten under the circumstances.
At any rate, I do feel that in the Rove,Plame,Libby,Wilson matter, we have a really nasty problem ahead. That is going to make the current squabble over SC nominees seem irrelevant in comparison.
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.