White House warns holdouts

U.S.News.com ^ | 10/13/05 | Kenneth T. Walsh

[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.

[TAdams8591]

"It is remarkable that a tiny minority many of whom have never supported the President on anything THINK it can speak for conservatives and attack him."

Oh, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingrahm, Peggy Noonan, Bill Crystal, Charles Krauthammer, John Fund, and Ann Coulter etcetera, etcetera have NEVER supported the President on ANYTHING???

Stop it. We are NOT attacking the President. We strongly disagree with him.

[empirekin768]

It's hard to consent to a person who has no applicable record. This is the nexus of the delimma.

Look, forget about whether the opponents of Miers are right and you are wrong or vice verse. Recognize the political reality that these opponents are core base voters just like you and they are numerous and growing in quantity. Even if you like Miers' record and think she's a dandy pick, please recognize that a large segement of our base vote does not and likely will not. I have yet to see a single person opposed to the pick, who has been persuaded by any of the arguments advanced by the WH. All I'm asking, is you consider the implications for this. Elections didn't come to an end in 2004 and Bush is not the last president we'll ever have.

[Itzlzha]

LOL!

Would that be a "BORK-A"?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah defending the President the party elected is dragging down the party. Laughable.

[sinkspur]

If you let them, they'll end up depressing base turnout so much they'll effectuate the impeachment of their hero.

Bwahaaahaaa! What other wet dreams have you been having lately?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not at all but your comment does indicate you know as little about the Hitler Youth as about the Constitutional process of selecting Justices.

[trubluolyguy]

I disagree with President Bush quite often. I just don't betray him or give aid and comfort to the enemy because I love my country more than you hate President Bush.

---

I disagree with my family members too, does that mean I hate them?

[Stellar Dendrite]

LOL!

[rbmillerjr]

Zeig Heil.

[afnamvet]

As in Vietname, they are being killed more effectively because our enemies have allies within the country.

Don't bring Vietnam into a disagreement over a supreme court nomination.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No there are actually very few of the Ultra Ultras who are hysterically anti-Harriet. After every GOP Senator votes to confirm then what are you going to say?

[Cboldt]

I ignored it on purpose. The issue-switcher tactic is boring.

You didn't answer it because you don't operate on principle, you operate on politics.

The simple political calculation says you can't answer, because if the President picks the one you said was a judicial activist, you'd be stuck.

[empirekin768]

Is it you're contention that we could do absolutely nothing that would allow the Democrats to gain a permanent advantage and win control of congress? I'm sure you don't believe that. If you agree that there are conceivable scenarios where the Democrats could win the election, I'll say it starts with GOP base voter disenchantment and low turnout (particularly in an congressional eleciton cycle).

[af_vet_1981]

I disagree with my family members too, does that mean I hate them?

Do you try to undermine your father when he is at work because you do not trust him ?

[Gondring]

You assume that the only victory is in getting a nominee through. If your general can see only that outcome, no wonder he's so scared and sneaking around in the shadows. True strategists (strategerists?) can see that by having principles and integrity and standing up for the Constitution--while your opponent opposes it--is a victory overall, even if the nominee is not confirmed. And if you think that it's the Right who'd be making a pawn of that nominee (when it's the Left that's doing the attacking), then perhaps you'd feel that Bush was responsible for Casey Sheehan's death (when it's the terrorists who killed him)?

Your position holds no logic.

[tennmountainman]

Bush promised us a nominee in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. She may turn out to be. But Why take the risk.

[Black Tooth]

Yeah defending the President the party elected is dragging down the party. Laughable.

Ah, you wrote "laughable" Pretty much says you are a troll. Go back to DU DU.

[TAdams8591]

Good one, LOL!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Many of the same names around here have attacked the President on almost every issue. They have formed the core of this Lynch Mob and claim that THEY are to vet these nominees in essence.

[Itzlzha]

No there are actually very few of the Ultra Ultras who are hysterically anti-Harriet. After every GOP Senator votes to confirm then what are you going to say?

Um...time to clean house of all the MORONS who have absolutely NO PRINCIPLES, and are all thralls of the "Cult of Bush"!

Perhaps it's time to term-limit the RINOs that are "Stuck on Stupid", as well as their "co-dependent enablers"!