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.
Your thoughts?
Any sensible person/president would have contacted each of these people and talked to them in advance to see HOW MUCH they really wanted the job, and I'm betting Bush had several (though probably not all) who said, "Hey, buddy, not me. Not now!"
I can't even pick a side anymore - I'm ashamed of all of 'em.
Lighten up Francis...and I am ashamed that YOU are getting YOUR tits in an uproar!
Yes, there were malicious lies being spread about Roberts. I recall more than once reading of speculation that he might be gay. And the NY Times trying to wrest the adoption records of his children, as if there was something amiss about he and his wife taking in these children.
An openly conservative nominee would have created a very bloody fight, which to be honest is what we were all kind of looking forward to—with both the left and the right believing that most Americans are on their side. IMO, we both may be fooling ourselves a little bit. But, I have been wrong many times and may be underestimating the interest of the non-politically active citizen.
I believe some candidates just didn't want to stand squarely in the crossfire. Once the dynamic on the court HAS changed, the fight will be less aggressive and those same people might consider the job again.
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.
I believe you. Here's the good news -- the person who comes after Miers won't have the same problem as the person coming after Roberts. We'll be thankful for any person with the strength of character to state their positions on the Constitution over a lifetime. Any person who has written a paper or stuck their neck out in the name of conservatism, will be a hero.
Look up 'reply guidelines' and where has Howlin went beyond that? Well I will answer it for you Howlin has not.
Man you are way out of line.
Wolf
Clarence Thomas and Robt Bork were pre-Clinton and their hearings weren't exactly free of personal attacks.
Very good pts. Ones that I don't at all dismiss.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Hillary Knew, David Knew, Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark"
Billybob, if you believe what Pukin Dog posted here today, along with what John Fund is hinting at - something very real and very consequential is going to occur without her ever taking the stand.
This place was much more fun when democrats were the enemy.
BTW, slightly off topic: the keywords that have been added to this thread are some of the funniest I've ever seen.
John...I'd think the 50s to be inc in "modern times". Especially juxtaposed with the era of this nation's founding.
Of course, some of those attacking Miers were doing so on the basis that she was an alleged "affirmative action" pick, and some (like Coulter and Ingraham), on the basis that she didn't go to a good enough school.
I don't think the Administration was attacking everyone who questioned Miers as sexist or elitist. But I do think they had to respond to those particular attacks.
Why do you think that Linda Chavez had to withdraw her name? Why do you think that Bernard Kerrik is not heading Homelanad Security? Do you not remember the DUI that almost got the President de-railed?
If you go back 45 years, John F. Kennedy could nominate his BROTHER for attorney general, and the press was mum on cronyism. Kennedy could do all sorts of scandalous and reckless things, but not a word was ever printed.
This type of scrutiny and character destruction has been increasing since the Reagan era, and the press has perfected it. The minute a nominee is named, reporters comb through school records, courthouses, and church registries. They pretend they are "just trying to let people understand who the nominee is" but what they are doing is digging for dirt. They interview everyone from the Sunday school teacher to the barber. They ask schoolmates to tell about times the candidate got in trouble. Heavens, Roberts' home town in northern Indiana was attacked because it was too white!
Back in my childhood, Supreme Court nominations were no big deal...they made a 30-second mention on the nightly news and that was it. Now, because the left has politicized the courts, every single nomination seems like a constitutional crisis.
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.