Posted on 10/13/2005 5:47:35 PM PDT by baystaterebel
White House officials have a message for conservative Republican senators who have expressed doubt about supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
The West Wing types argue that she will turn out to be just as conservative as President Bush says she is, and voting against her would be an embarrassment over the long term. This message is intended for holdouts including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider. This could cause a backlash against these legislators from conservative Bush supporters at the grass roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
Something's wrong somewhere when a Republican president wouldn't relish a bloody, high-profile political fight against the likes of Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and Joe Biden. Heaven couldn't hand deliver such unpopular and unattractive foes. An ideological showdown with President Bush and Priscilla Owen (as an example) on one side, holding firm to constitutional principles, and Dunce Cap Row (the Senate judiciary committee Democrats) on the other, would result in floods of phone calls & e-mails to senate offices, running 4 to 1 in favor of confirming Owen. The base would rally. We here at FreeRepublic would be united instead of torn asunder. 'Rat senators from Red States such as Landrieu, Bill Nelson, and Conrad would be begging the Democrat leadership to back down. I'll never understand why the President didn't hit Schumer right in the teeth with an ideological baseball bat on this one.
You didn't answer my question about Gonzales v. Owen. Which is the strict constructionist? How would tell?
I hear you. I feel like the wool is being pulled over our eyes on this one. Not good.
Get over it and start worrying about what you are doing to the base.
The party has the duty to woo the voters. Make promises and deliver, holds the votes. Make promises and welch, you take yer chances.
What the GOP is tone deaf to is operating on higher principle. It's become a clique, popularity club, whatever.
I have never seen such a bunch of whiny children.
Yep. that warms me up. Makes me feel gooood all over.
No one has been "betrayed" however there are those attempting to democratize the process of selection. Some apparent believe THEY are selecting Justices rather than, as per the Constitution, the President.
The Lynch Mob mentality which has arise in the ultra-ultras around here shows plainly why the process was carefully placed out of the hands of the voters. Since Senators are now elected by the People, unlike the President, that process has gotten a little more politicized. That was a mistake.
It is amazing that the Antis believe THEY are supposed to approve of a nomination rather than, as per the Constitution, the Senate.
And I don't think anyone's saying that now.
Aaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah.
Thanks for the humor.
I AM DOING THAT ! But I may have misread your post.
You're joking right?
"Well I don't know about the rest of PA. but this one here is NOT voting for Santorum.... He has proven to me that he needs to be replaced"
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD ... NO!
There is ONE ... count it ... ONE CONSERVATIVE in the Senate from the northeast. He is an endangered species and deserves every chance possible to get re-elected. Destroy Santorum and conservatism in the entire northeast dies.
"watch what happens when you don't represent the people that put you in office"
oh, I see, so you will put a liberal Democrat in there who get a 0% American Conservative Rating instead of a 95% rating like Santorum does and you'll feel right at home knowing you have a proven enemy in your Senator instead of an uncertain friend.
Please - I gave money to Toomey and it wasnt enough, even 50% of the GOP *primary* voters take a RINO over a Conservative. YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET ANYONE AS GOOD AS SANTORUM IN PA AGAIN IF YOU LET HIM LOSE THE ELECTION!!
Ha, ha. Man, oh man. My friend you don't even know who is on the president's side. By you're definition of all criticism = treason, the president has about sixteen supporters in the country. If you're the sort of advocate Bush is going to have to rely on to make the case for Miers...prospects look good for a defeat of the nomination.
I agree there's no reason to trash either Bush or Miers (or is it Meirs?) So far, I don't see any reason to stand up and applaud the nominee, either.
As for shallow lives... this is an extremely important matter for people like me who rabidly supported the President's campaigns, in response to his promises about the type of Justice he would put on the Court.
The Court was my number one voting issue.
Because he'd rather play ball with him.
Why how could that be? I guess the Antis will call them RINOs even though some thought Miers should be pulled and replaced by Sessions.
Funny, because it is true.
"And in a couple of years, when it turns out she is a scalia or thomas, at least in result, the conservatives who weren't against the nominee from the beginning would look at senators who voted against her because she wasn't conservative enough will have lost some credibility."
That is why most Senators are either supportive (giving the President a chance), and/or 'wait and see'.
The only thing that would be REALLY galling would be a Senator who voted FOR Ginsburg to come out against Miers and try to explain the higher scrutiny needed for a Bush pick over a Clinton pick.
We NEVER should have let Ginsburg get on there so easily.
Right, those malcontents were out walking precincts in 2000, 2002, and 2004--for W. I guess they hated the president secretly. That makes them official af_vet_1981 traitors, I guess.
I happen to be in the "hold your nose and very reluctantly support her because the president has made a big bloody mistake and I don't want it to turn into a huge, smashing defeat" crowd. Half the time, I feel like I'm compromising my principles to go even that far. And I ran hundreds of volunteers for W in the last two elections and am a party official.
Do you see a problem that this is the strongest reaction I can come up with in favor of my president? Or does that make me a af_vet_1981 'traitor' like most of the other folks on this thread?
Honestly, your posts on this thread are so over the line that I suspect you think you are being funny. On the other hand, I fear you are not.
I ignored it on purpose. The issue-switcher tactic is boring.
That would be difficult to justify since most of them supported Breyer and Ginsburg.
In order to support the POTUS and Rick Santorum, so I disagree with that premis of yours
YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET ANYONE AS GOOD AS SANTORUM IN PA AGAIN IF YOU LET HIM LOSE THE ELECTION!!
I agree. If Santorum goes down the PA GOP powers that be will field nothing but RINO's.
This was a chance to fight back against the Borking tendency and force the left to stand tall and confirm like the pubbies did for RBG, or else show the public how THEY are the problem....yet Bush blew it.
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.