Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 11, 2005: A SINKING NOMINATION There has not been a moment since October 3 when I have not felt sick and sad about this Miers battle, but today may have been the worst day yet. This morning, the president mobilized Laura Bush to join him on national television and accuse critics of the Miers nomination of "sexism." Reading the transcript of the interview, you can feel this kind and gracious woman's disinclination to speak an untruth. "It's possible," she says. "I think it's possible." What a terrible and false position to put the first lady in! And what a sign that the White House has finally understood that it has lost the argument over this nomination. By asking the first lady to defend the nomination, the White House is implicitly admitting that the president's word alone has failed to carry the day: That, in other words, when he said, "Trust me," conservatives said "No." The first lady's appearance was a dangerous confession of personal and political weakness by the president - one that will be noticed and exploited by the president's Democratic opponents. Even more ominously, the Today show interview announces a new strategy of trying to win the Miers nomination by waging war on the president's core supporters. In the first week of the battle, the White House sent out James Dobson to woo evangelical conservatives. That didn't work out too well. So now the White House has switched strategies. It has turned its back on conservative evangelicals and is instead using Laura Bush to woo suburban moderates. But remember: Laura Bush is on record as a supporter - not just of abortion rights - but of the Roe v. Wade decision. Interviewed on the Today program in January 2001, Mrs. Bush was asked point blank about the case. Her answer: "No, I don't think it should be overturned." Is it credible that Mrs. Bush would be endorsing Harriet Miers if the first lady thought that Miers would really do what James Dobson thinks she'll do? It is madness for a 37% president to declare war on his strongest supporters, but that is exactly the strategy that this unwise nomination has forced upon President Bush. And every day that passes, he will get angrier, the attacks will get fiercer - and his political position will weaken. That is why it is wrong and dangerous for Republicans to say, "Let's wait for the hearings." Even if the hearings start in the next couple of weeks, as the White House now says it wishes, the Miers matter will extend itself at least into November. That's a month and more of the president's team accusing the president's supporters of sexism, elitism, and who knows what else; a month of rising tension between this president and the conservatives who elected him; a month in which the president's poll numbers will drop even further. The longer it continues, the costlier this battle will prove for the president. And if forced to its ultimate conclusion, the odds are rising that this is a battle that will end in ultimate defeat for Miers and for Bush. Under these circumstancs, the least bad solution is for the president to withdraw this nomination now, before he does himself further and growing harm. Many readers have asked what they can do to help achieve a good resolution of this crisis. Here are a few suggestions. First, please send an email to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham thanking them for their brave stance against this nomination. These two broadcasters have been tireless and fearless on this story - but they are under intense and increasing pressure, and it makes a huge difference to them to know that their work is heard and supported. (And let me add: It has made a huge difference to me as well.) Next, communicate with the Republican Senators on the Judiciary committee. Lindsey Graham has already committed himself to the nominee, but the others have not - and Brownback in particular seems to be leaning negative. It will again make a huge difference to these senators to know that conservatives across America will support them if they stand up to White House pleasure. Finally, some friends and I have drafted a petition to the president that we will shortly be putting on a webpage for all who wish to sign. Here's the draft text: "WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn. "The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative philosophy. "The next justice should be seen by all as an independent custodian of the constitution, untainted by any hint of secret pledges or political obligations. "The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and juridical excellence. "For all Harriet Miers' many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself. "Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. President Bush has a wide range of truly outstanding conservative jurists from which to choose. We believe that on second thought he can do better - for the Supreme Court, for conservatism, for America." Comments on this draft text are welcome, but PLEASE do not yet send signatures. When the site is ready to take and forward your message to the White House, I'll post a note and link here at NRO. Don't worry, we'll act fast.
More bullshit from this clown.
Sorry. I'm not biting.
You think Colin Powell was a good SoS? Jury's still out on Condi, but i think GEN Powell is woefully inadequate.
Rumsfeld is a pretty good, but not great SECDEF.
I am unimpressed with Gale Norton and Ann Veneman for Interior and Ag Secretaries respectively.
The ONLY things Bush has done right have been conducting the WOT, getting out of Kyoto and the ICC.
EVERYTHING ELSE has been screwed up, to put it charitably.
He still has a virginal veto pen and I have a real hard time taking him seriously when he and this congress are outspending even the Clinton Years.
We've had his back a long time and in return we have been treated shabbily.
I smell a lame duck that put himself in the cooking pot. 'Pod.
Before I read one word from conservative pundits, I also felt sick about this nomination. I believe Miss. Miers should have enough loyalty to the President to withdraw her nomination. I don't trust her..for various and thoughtful reasons...and one which has not been explored by the pundits is her church affiliation. I am all too familiar with it and even if they are generally pro life, they continue to vote very democratic and see no conflict between their personal faith and the democratic party. Actually, I think President Bush let Laura decide who should be the next nominee and Laura picked Harriet!!!! Fess up Mr President
It is to your credit that you would disavow such statements. I will not return your insults with like kind.
Sadly, that is exactly what the Mier's supporters on this board think we should do. And if you don't stfu (as you say), or agree with them, then get ready to be trashed.
As one who was "trashed" yesterday, and had my posts pulled while those who are pro-Miers can and are continuing personal attacks at will...let me confirm that you are now in for a world of hurt from the "Cult of Bush" with no recourse except support from like-minded FReepers, and the security that comes from knowing you are right, and that your values and principles are worth more than blind loyalty! (and if this is considered a "personal attack", then I guess it "depends on the meaning of 'personal'")
An excellent post of yours at 29!
I'm sorry, but the people who choose to deny it are deluding themselves.
Laura Bush has been around the block a few times, she knew what she was doing. And I am sure she was prepared for the question. She and GWB are looking for cover from the great unwashed masses of pro-choice suburban women and what better way to go about it then to hint that the respected and thoughtful conservative opposition is possibly sexist?
Couching something as "possible" doesn't take the sting out of it. It puts more sting in. If I say it's possible you are a pedophile, are you going to dismiss it and say to yourself "it's ok, he only said it's possible." No way. I was called a sexist, that much is very clear to me.
What should she have said? How about:
"I don't think so. We have these debates from time to time and they are healthy for the party and for democracy. But I don't think it serves anyone to get into name-calling."
She chose instead to go into attack mode against us, something they wouldn't even consider when it comes to the Dims.
>>>Maybe we're "stuck on stupid" for standing up for conservative principles instead of cheering every dumb move by the GOP leadership.<<<
No. These days, if you are "Stuck on Bush and the GOP Leadership" you are Stuck on Stupid.
Your post is ironic, considering the post of one of your fellows right above it.
Before the end of next week, the Miers nomination will be put on the judiciary committee calendar.
She will be voted on the week after Thanksgiving recess.
Miers will be on the bench before January.
(if I'm wrong - sue me ;-)
If Bush thinks that the soccer moms are going to come to his rescue, then he's sorely mistaken.
Can you say "catastrophic political miscalculation?"
I've tinkering with what I think could be a test to justify "trust in stealth." The object is to grasp the ramifications of "strict constructionist" in President Bush's rhetoric.
The term "strict constuctionist" is broad sweeping, indefinite. It tends to paint a view that conservatives find attractive, we are emotionally attracted to "strict constructionst," and yet we don't probe much deeper. Judicial conservatives (Federalist Society adherants, if you will) want what -THEY- see as strict constructionists. But what does George Bush consider to be a strict constructionist?
Would President Bush say that Gonzales is a strict constructionist? We have a record on Gonzales. So, while we can't probe the record of Miers, we might be able to get a handle on how flexible or rigid the term "strict constructionist" plays out from President Bush's rhetoric.
I see Gonzales as a judicial activist. The link below explains how I reach that conclusion. He and Owen were on opposite sides of the parental notification case in Texas. Tha case is a clear window on the interpretation of "strict constructionist." Either Owen is a strict constuctionsit, or Gonzales is, but it is not logical that they both be.
The sophists will argue that the court let the law stand, no legislation from the bench. Or that the court didn't strike down the law, so there was no judicial activism. I say read the case and draw your own conclusion. By the sophists definition, the Florida Supreme Court was not activist in the 2000 election. But in fact, it was. And so was the Texas Supreme Court in parental notification. IMO.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500960/posts?page=70#70 <- link for the student
Did you even see the interview or are you just spouting your stuff without knowing the details?
>>>Frankly, if I weren't so concerned that the democrats not retain power because of national security, I would tell you unhappy people to leave. <<<
Frankly, there is nothing for the conservatives to leave. The GOP has already left the conservatives.
:(
Your post does not deserve a response, other than to let you know that I read it.
LLS
>>>Is this a superior time to pick a fight with a President who has a spectacular record of achievement in everything he does? <<<
Spectacular record of achievement? You are joking, right?
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.