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.
Issue 1 in Pukin's rant was what I have been posting since last Monday when all hell broke loose. The other likely candidates (one of which was my pick) either may not have passed the vetting or turned the offer of a nomination down. Why? After seeing what the demos/rinos/msm attempted to do to Roberts.........could be intimidating to those who did not wish to drag their families through it. Look what they wanted to do about the Roberts' kids' adoption FGS
But most of all, I was amazed at the immediate piling on of Meirs by people who make a fine art of research while shunning the knee-jerk reaction typical of the left. But it's obviously a human thing.
Pukin, grow a thicker skin. Your "rants" count for a lot to many of us whether we always agree or not. That gives you a perhaps unwelcome responsibility. :o)
Historically, Republicans have controlled their RINOs by insisting that they vote with the party on critical bills or other votes. The rest of the time there is a tacit understanding that they can vote against, because their votes are not needed.
This is one of those votes where at least some of the RINO votes are needed. There's something badly wrong with the leadership and with party discipline if they can't call in those chips.
Part of the problem lies with Frist and his predecessor, no doubt; but part of the problem also lies with Bush as the de facto head of the party.
The GOP ... we are experts at stealth conservatism. Trust us. Send money.
Your comment about more than one of our favorite potential nominees turning it down is also something I have heard from someone I know in DC. So that is two independent sources corroborating this.
I guess my problem is: when Scalia and Reinquest(sp) were nominated we didn't own the Senate either and with Thomas we fought and so why can we not fight now?
I'm told I can pick that up at Walmart? But yeah, I need it.
Miers should follow the Roberts template.
Maybe he should change his name to Pukin Cat! ;-)
You have to do the math, Dog. (Understand, I am talking about Bush nominating a QUALIFIED, SCANDAL-FREE nominee.) Well, I have done the math:
1. Chafee: the most likely turncoat, but by no means a definite vote against.
2. Snowe: she's a follower, not a leader. Might vote against if the liberal Maine press hounded her enough.
3. Collins: same thing, but less likely than Snowe to vote against.
4. Warner: slim possibility that he would vote against.
5. Specter: a slimmer possibility, and actually not likely given the riot act that was read to him when he was allowed to take the Chairmanship. (And remember, Specter was NOT part of the "Gang of Fourteen")
That's five (5) votes against, and only IF ALL FIVE go against a President of their own party to vote against a qualified nominee simply because the DEMOCRATS say that that nominee is "too conservative". The odds that ALL FIVE would join hands is very slim, especially once WE got rolling.
Cheney is the 51st vote in the unlikely scenario that ALL FIVE of the above RINOs turned Judas. We win.
(By the way, NO WAY does McCain vote against a good conservative nominee - - the guy wants to be President and he isn't a complete idiot. He may have been skittish about the "nuclear option", but he supports conservative nominees unabashedly.)
Graham and DeWine will vote FOR a qualified conservative nominee, guaranteed. (Hopefully by now most people understand the genius of the "Gang of Fourteen" deal, and appreciate Graham and DeWine's sacrifice in agreeing to become ringers in that amazing neutering of the Democrats' filibuster threat.)
Lugar and Hagel don't worry me too much. (Voinovich does worry me somewhat due to that little problem he has with "mental stability".)
Remember, we are talking about a QUALIFIED, SCANDAL-FREE nominee here. Do you have any idea how vociferous and passionate the support for such a candidate would be? Everybody here would get Bush's back and take a bullet for him in order to make sure that a solid conservative nominee was confirmed. I believe that in the end, the wishy-washy RINO Senators noted above would have ended up far more scared of us than they are of the dying, socialist "mainstream" newsrooms.
It is a real shame that Bush punted on the most critical decision of his Presidency. I have done the math and it DID NOT have to come to this. The whole thing makes me want to throw up.
This was a terrible nomination. The hearings will once again be a meaningless and uninformative TV show starring a bunch of blowhard Senators, and in the end we conservatives will be left with nothing else to do but cross our fingers and hope that Miers turns out to be no worse than O'Connor. Wow. That's just great.....
That is NOT what I voted for.
That is pretty much my take on the whole affair as well. Good analysis.
Beldar did a good job in putting up the links, and his views were of value, in my view hyped, but of value. He instigated my own research. He did his job. Honest effort, even if opinionated effort, should be encouraged, not traduced. It is the useful and salubrious fuel which helps to illuminate the public square.
I might could be convinced. I was encouraged to see her 2nd amendment views, and you've posted some thoughts worth considering.
Er...rope-a-dopii?
I don't know ya from beans, feller, but your willingness to make a public recantation over an issue that's had this forum boiling for days says something about you right off.
Don't know quite what to make of it at the moment, though...so I'll stay tuned.
There may have been more that I missed, but I don't think it could have been more than a sentence or two. Batchelder was the only one he mentioned by name.
As I am a believer that we are all responsible for our own reality, THIS statement is quite true.
Although we sparred a little over this, I never was opposed to Meirs, How could I be, I don't know what she stands for. I was disappointed in Bush, and felt this pick did not do him, or conservatives justice.
Now, I still don't feel great about it, because whatever she is, she will be there a long time. The downside is very severe if Bush is wrong. I might feel better if I had your source, but I don't, so I'll just have to continue working on my golf game instead.
For all the Opus bashers, I like to bash a good narcissistic Opus as much as the next guy, and maybe I'm getting soft, but Opus is also a very fine wine.
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.