I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers.

[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.

[Howlin]

If Bush pulls Miers and doesn't nominate anybody else this year, I'll be right back here to apologize.


That's a promise I'm not scared to make.

[Howlin]

I don't think it's you. :-)

[Pukin Dog]

The best answer I can give you, is that I am not in the habit of taking phone calls before 6am to discuss the weather.

[jla]

I am NOT one of those NOW women but I do see a scent of sexism in the accusations.

Then please be specific. Because for the life of me I can't see where a group of people who oppose Miers can be sexists if those same folks avidly supported other female judges for the SCOTUS nomination.

[NPeery]

Thanks for your insights. However, it makes me discouraged at the weakness of conservative leadership.

[pollyannaish]

I have no idea of the validity of PD's source. But I will say this LOUDLY and say it anytime it needs to be said:

IF SHE IS WITHDRAWN (unknown at this time) AND THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T PUT ANYONE UP....IT WILL BE BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYONE WHO IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE JOB.

I am so frustrated that people don't seem to understand that PO, JRB, ML and the rest may NOT WANT THE JOB! Just because we want them to sit up there and get their lives trashed doesn't mean that we can force them to.

Yeesh! Get a grip people. I am really angry about this today. It is so flipping stupid.

Just how hard is that to understand? So the President decides to protect Miers because she is going down...and let O'Connor finish the term because it isn't urgent. That seems realistic.

But...we just don't know at this point.

[Pukin Dog]

What Laura Bush did, was allow her personal frustration to get the best of her. She aired her emotional state on TV, instead of her intellectual knowledge that no administration has been more friendly to women. She just proved that when pissed-off, none of the accomplishments this administration has made matter to those who just want to see a woman and a friend get the job.

I am supporting Miers, but Laura Bush aint making it any easier. But then again, I might not have to support her much longer.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

it makes me discouraged at the weakness of conservative leadership.

Weakness? Or weakness of their position?

[Warren_Piece]

Thanks. I hope your source is wrong, lying, or floating a trial balloon. This sucks. This is going to turn out to be a HUGE disaster all around, and the pro, anti, and wait-and-see people will all point fingers at one another, and they'll all be right.

I NEVER thought I'd see conservatives behave this way (all sides). This has been a real eye-opener for me.

Pride is the greatest sin of all, and discretion is the better part of valor. I'm not saying that this fight shouldn't have happened; I'm saying it could have been handled better. This public bloodletting is not becoming. We will lose many supporters over our behavior.

I can't even pick a side anymore - I'm ashamed of all of 'em.

[NittanyLion]

Laura Bush's disaster this morning is common knowledge.

If it's common knowledge, how about providing a name? No need to protect sources if everyone knows about it, right?

[Pukin Dog]

"Just because we want them to sit up there and get their lives trashed doesn't mean that we can force them to."

Worth repeating. And repeating, and repeating again.

Thank you.

[sanjacjake]

I agree,,if we had the Senate leadership that we voted for
it would not be necessary to go through all this...OK,
let's get her confirmed...then if it pops again..go to
all out war ...but the poor nominee will take a..
Kennedyschumerdurbiinralphneves..whipping and we sure
as hell better back the guy/gal..up...Jake

[Pukin Dog]

Its already a disaster, no matter how it turns out.

[Pukin Dog]

The day I post a name will be the last day you or anyone else gets information from me, because I wont get it.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Its already a disaster, no matter how it turns out.

Only if those on our side chose to take their marbles and go home, because they don't get things exactly as they wanted.

[BufordP]

...and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administration’s term is up...

Which according to your previous arguments leaves only Alberto Gonzales.

"Pay me now or pay me later."

[Pukin Dog]

I don't think your point can be made strongly enough.

I think FReepers have forgotten that the NY Times thought it was completely acceptable to attempt to discover the adoption records for John Roberts children.

There are people in America who don't even KNOW they were adopted. Can you imagine if information like this were to come out during a Senate confirmation?

No, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, but just use your own imagination. Who the hell would want the job?

Hmmm. Interesting that Rush Limbaugh is leading with Laura Bush's comments this morning, for those who might think it wasn't a big deal?

[jla]

I am so frustrated that people don't seem to understand that PO, JRB, ML and the rest may NOT WANT THE JOB! Just because we want them to sit up there and get their lives trashed doesn't mean that we can force them to.

Then why hasn't a single one of them stated this publicly? And the only nominee I had seen, though not verified, that withdrew her name for consideration is Priscilla Owen.

[Republican Red]

I don't think the "sexism" charges are for being against a woman for Supreme Court Justice. On the contrary, many of the biggest critics of Miers support Owens and Brown.

The sexism charge is for the type of attacks Miers is facing. She was Staff Secretary for the White House. It is a very powerful position which requires an intellect. The staff secretary is the last substantive control point before papers reach the Oval Office. Critics have seized on the word "secretary" and have accused her of being not qualified because she was one step above the White House maid. The word "secretary" used with a woman means clerk. If a man was "Staff Secretary" it would not be assumed he was a glorified file clerk.

I have read and heard comments on Miers hair, make-up and clothing. I do not recall Roberts being judged by NRO on how grooming habits.

Tony Snow was just ragging on Miers for being able to make a sweet potato pie. Why that little factoid is even being discussed is a mystery. Did the cooking habits of Scalia and Thomas ever get brought up?

Miers has been called every name in the book because she is not married. Somehow an unmarried "spinster" is just not qualified because she doesn't have life experience. I have also read on FR that she is just a Texas bull dike. Did Souter ever get judged on his marital status?

I think everyone is open to a woman being a Justice on the Supreme Court. The sexism charges are leveled on the mode of attack against Miers.

[SE Mom]

You wrote exactly my thoughts on this entire situation- it's a mess on all sides..and no one is looking like an adult, let alone a statesman.