"George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible. He made a mistake. But it's a mistake which can and should be rectified."
Exactly. Bush shouldn't ignore the fact that he's losing his "Halo Effect" from this. If he rams Miers through every conservative commentator that's against this will judge him just as tough as they would if he were a Democratic President. He will have totally lost his base of support both intellectually and electorally.
So that's what happened to Paul Hackett.
That's the whole enchilada in a mixed metaphor nutshell.
The president is too short sighted in this. His conservative base has been given precious little to rally around lately. It iswishy washy moves like this that will cause the GOP to lose control of the House and Senate next year. Give uus something to sink our teeth into and LEAD!
Actually I think Thomas Sowell supports her, somewhat. But the list is still long.
That line really is hard to ignore, isn't it? He must have bit his lip hard when he said it to prevent the involuntatry laughter.
Here's part of Andrew Sullivan's take on it today:
In the matter of the Supreme Court, Bush's fundamental motives are sticking a finger in the eye of his intellectual supporters, and keeping a crony so close to him that his executive running of the war on terror will never be subject to real Congressional oversight. (Miers is insurance for the executive-branch-worshipping Roberts). Kitty Kelley notes how this president has sealed off from the public decades of presidential data that are vitally important to making democracy work. But this president is and always has been as much a dauphin as a president. He's responsible for a dynasty as much as a democracy. Miers is the dynasty's constitutional guardian - as well as potentially a minimalist Justice, in line with Roberts. No other candidate could fulfill both roles. Bush, in other words, is treating the Court as a means for personal protection and dynastic noblesse oblige. The question is simply whether the GOP wants to become the vehicle for a crony-ridden aristocracy or something more transparent and meritocratic.
If Sullivan is correct, Bush is trying to tell the grassroots with this nomination that he doesn't need them anymore, and that they can go do it flying. Not a message to give Congressional Republicans the warm fuzzies.
I'd say Miers is more smoked brisket and Lone Star--which I would prefer to filet mignon and Dom.
Miers got her undergrad degree in mathematics and packs a 45 revolver--I'm interested to hear the hearings.
Seriously I think that way too many conservatives have lost (or never had) a clear conception of what a Supreme should be. Miers is a logic and detail person, not a ideological fountainhead, and thus may be perfect for filling one of the nine seats.
I love Chuck Muth. I've been getting his newsletter for years.
Blasphemy! Ban his columns from FR! Traitor! Inside the beltway elitist!
We worked for six years to get a Republican President and Senate precisely to put a majority on the Supreme Court and Bush, Frist and McCain hand it all back to the Dems. I, for one, am one da#$ed tired Bushbot.
Rainy days and Mondays, and conservative kindred souls
slanging back and forth, well, they always get me down.
Nothing to see here, let's move along.
Good grief, where are the hearing starting and then a vote? I am so sick of hearing all the whining I could barf.
A good argument, except that the Presient has the right to nominate whom he pleases and the Senate has the right to confirm or not, and that neither is bound by the wishes of the "conservative movement." If that movement were strong enough, it would have elected 51 senators whose votes could be taken for granted not only on nominations but on a raft of other issues dear to the conservative heart.