That's been obvious. What's not obvious, after further thought, is why not leave the SC at 8, leaving the tie breaker to Roberts? Put up a conservative nominee and wait until hell freezes over, or logjam breaking senators are elected. 
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.
Will you tell me what was the Senate count of Republicans to Democrats when Clarence Thomas was confirmed? Will you look that up for me and post a ping when you get the numbers? Also, what was it when Scalia was confirmed? Thanks in advance.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm sure its been covered somewhere in these 800 posts, but if a SCOTUS nominee is rejected in committee, he is still sent to the Senate with a negative recommendation.
That's been obvious. What's not obvious, after further thought, is why not leave the SC at 8, leaving the tie breaker to Roberts? Put up a conservative nominee and wait until hell freezes over, or logjam breaking senators are elected.
NOW can we get back to how a 777 might be barrel-rolled ??????????????
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
A Supreme Court nomination goes to the floor for debate and a vote even if it's voted down in the Judiciary Committee; it just gets a negative referral..
Sheeesh, who in their right mind would want to be President any more?
Pray for W and Harriet Miers
I disagree with you, and I agree with Sloth.
What's the point in having a "majority" if people like McCain and Specter are playing control games with their bloc of liberal Republicrats?
It isn't worth holding the majority, if your party loses its mind and becomes incoherent. As Winston Churchill said in similar circumstances, "Pray, take away this pudding; it hath no theme."
Further to the point, Newt Gingrich delivered the GOP control of the House and Senate together for the first time in 40 years, by having a coherent, conservative agenda which he and his fellow House Republicans put forward in the teeth of all that self-celebratory, headline-manipulating, mini-agenda-huckstering, news-cycle-controlling Clinton permanent-campaign machinery.
Newt STUFFED the Clintons......and the Clintons had the White House, Reno Justice, both houses of Congress, and Snakehead, and Dickie Morris, and the solicitude of the MainToad Media.
Newt won because he was
COHERENT.
well, that wasn't really an opus... he's not leaving but coming back... what would that be called? Let's call it a "Howe" in memory of Steve Howe, who came back to baseball about 7 or 8 times after being kicked out for drug usage about 6 or 7 times
I agree it's ugly as sin, but it's NOT the best we could do - it's the best cowardice has offered.
You are absolutely right.
If you're in a fight like we are now with the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, and with Hillary and the Chameleon 'Rats in the "middle", you must stand up and be counted, you must show the people what your positions are and that you're not afraid to engage for them.
If that means asking some potential judge nominees to fall on their swords in public, so be it -- but get "the two Ediths" in there, let the Democrats do their bad thing, and let the people see them doing it. People aren't stupid -- they'll see that the 'Rats aren't yelling about some Social Security payments or membership in some stuffy country club that didn't admit Jews in 1961 or what the nominee thinks about the Ninth Amendment. They won't be fooled.
To disarm the Democrats, you sometimes have to invite them to take their best shot. Because sometimes you have to be willing to take one, and to ask somebody to take one, so that you can get to what's next, after the bad guys have made their play and shown themselves off for what they are.
Fight, don't run from a fight. Never let them win by menaces what they propose to take with blows. Make them fight you for it. If you have principles, you must let the people see that you have the courage of them.
There's a monkey's paw on the presidency somehow -- we should be making mincemeat of the 'Rats in the Congress and mopping up the floor with them all over American life. Something is wrong with this picture.
Just my uneasy feeling. Something's wrong.
The arithmetic in the Senate was certainly a major consideration, but Bush and the Senate GOP leadership still flinched. Unnecessarily, in my view.
...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.
Oh, well, hell -- I guess we can all go home now.
Guess we ought to stay there on Election Day, too. After all, Bush has got it all under control, and nobody needs us.
Have some more Kool-Aid, harrowup. Try the grape.
My thought exactly, but with the riff that putting up a conservative nominee or nominees and sticking to your guns and daring the 'Rats to make asses of themselves also increases your odds of having more friendly senators.
People don't answer uncertain trumpets. Good way to lose in the midterms, is by trimming and backing up instead of confronting threats by 'Rats and RiNO's.
I just got off the phone with 'someone I trust', and the word is, the White House is looking for an issue or reason which would allow Harriet Miers to bow out gracefully.
The latest vote count in the Senate suggests that enough Republican Senators will join Democrats to defeat a Miers nomination. There is interest in the Senate in assigning "lame-duck" status to President Bush to enhance their chances in the mid-term elections. They think they can accomplish this by sending him a defeat on Miers. Absent Miers, Bush would not send up anyone at all and allow O'Conner to complete the entire Supreme Court calendar.
Roberts has backfired on Conservatives; his strength has discouraged potential candidates from wanting to follow him and be compared to his brilliance.
Nobody who can be confirmed wants the job, or to go through what they would have to go through to be confirmed.
Of course, FReepers are free to believe I just made this all up if that is their wish. I could not care less. The word is though, that Miers may be withdrawn by the end of the week.
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.