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.
On second thought, how hard is it going to be to find you in ten years one hour? That sounds like a pretty good bet?
Huh? You lost me with that -- I have no idea what you're talking about.
These personal arguments can be tedious to the rest of us.
The "opus" explains what many of us have already theorized, only to be called various names.
He has presented it in a concise, practical way. And the fact is we'll never win elections any more (except in places like Utah) if we remain as fragmented as we are now. Is it really worth it, or are we able to "move on", (as Dems certainly would)? Democrats get revenge against the true opposition generally...not each other.
..even so, it hit Kristol right between the eyes!
Of course. The very suggestion was ludicrous. We all know life is messy and complex, and a challenge. The trick is that as one ages, to gain some wisdom and maturity about it all.
Thanks for the link!
And then, how much support would he get on other legislation from those people in the next three years?
What are you trying to say here? I am a Republican. what the hay are you?
Given the Mier nomination, you have to wonder about the calculations going on in the more liberal members of the SCOTUS who may be nearing retirement, one way or the other. Go now, before the next election, while the Senate Rats still have the ability to influence the nomination, or wait and hope for Hillary in 2008.
But don't be surprised if she throws a few clarification questions of her own that befuddle the questioner of said 'trap', she is nobody's fool, if her resume reads correctly.
PD-Nice essay and I am glad you ran into your 'friends' in the know.
However, now I am almost scared of our republican senators...surely they cannot be as weak as you proclaim...my goodness...can it be that all of them put their well paid jobs above doing what is best for our country? Scary, that.
'This is technically a de-opus. If he leaves again, that would be a re-opus. Alternately leaving and returning is a rope-a-dopus.'
Ha-HA!
All because everybody is in a fit 'cause their cause celebre' is NOT being represented 'cause Bush did not nominate THIER favorite candidate.
Well, your rationale collapses, because the objection is based on avoiding confrontation with the DEM subversion of the Constitution. The GOP accepts the 60 vote hurdle erected byy the gang of 14. I don't accept that hurdle, and I am disappointed in the GOP for its silent capitulation to subversion of the constitution.
Demeaning Bush and other freepers ain't helpin', and, to be honest, I'd rather segregate them to another website where they can spew their poison and unhappy thoughts to each other...
I suggest reading the GOP aned RNC websites. They are full of happy thoughts. My bitch doesn't demean President Bush -- it is merely critical of this pick becasue this pick is timid. President Bush is a bold man, and I expect him to act boldly.
I subscribe to the principle that reasonsed debate is healthy. See Federalist Society ... open debate benefits all who participate and observe.
A conservative.
you got it wrong - PD entertains us with his style and wit, he is not a drama-queen.....he gives it, and we 'get' it.
so either get on his ping list and enjoy the character, or pass by the post!! you're like some crab ruining the birthday party....
The Democrats are afraid, rightly so, of having a knock-down, drag-out fight against a woman nominee, within a year of a national election in which deceiving a maximum number of women to vote for them is absolutely essential for them. Therefore, there will be no huge fight on THIS nomination. (And the Court will improve by half a Justice -- the half of the time that O'Connor savaged, rather than obeying, the Constitution.)
It is the next nomination on which there MUST be a huge fight. That one WILL change the balance of the Court, for as long as that new Justice shall live, to borrow a phrase. The Democrats will fire all guns and commit all troops to that battle.
Take your hypothesis. Say Justice Stevens chokes on his egg nog and doesn't make it to the New Year. Don't you think that Bush and his advisors have looked at that possibility? Here's how it might play out, if it happens way before the next election:
Bush nominates a staunch conservative, and says he expects that the Senate will fulfill its duty, and conduct an up-down vote on the floor. The nominee would probably win a floor vote, if held. Don't forget that there are two Senator Nelsons, both Democrats, who are up for election on 2006 and who come from mostly conservative states where a vote against a judge "who will obey the law rather than rewrite the law" might cost them their seats.
Let's suppose that Spector turns weasel (again) or the Democrats manage to conduct a filibuster and prevent a vote. What does Bush do? He condemns the Senate for failing to do its duty, demands an up-down vote, and does nothing else. No withdrawal of the nominee, no naming of a new nominee.
The Court will then have only eight Justices. But it has functioned before, at times, with less than nine. And the important thing is that a LIBERAL Justice will be gone from the Court. The Republicans will smile, make that an issue in the 2006 election. Meantime, the ability of the Court to make bad, 5-4 decisions, will be gone.
None of what I've just describes would be possible from a stalemate over the O'Connor replacement. They will be possible if, as you say, Stevens keels over after Christmas. Like I say, this President is playing chess while his opponents are playing checkers.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Hillary Knew, David Knew, Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark"
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.