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.

[Cboldt]

Those knowledgeable of the workings of government understand that the President does NOT control the Senate or the House. He "acquiesced" to nothing since he has no control over the Senate.

The Senate raised a 60 vote hurdle that causes the President to limit his short list. I don't care what label you slap on it, cpaitulation, acquiesence, giving up, weak, timid, political reality, "a good thing" (to parphrase Martha Stewert). The President voluntarily limited his list, and voluntarily engaged in "stealth." He has control over those actions, and they were affected by a manifestly unacceptable "hurdle" to confirmation.

Is that attack more fair? Or is it unfair? Is it just the label "acquiesce" that bugs you?

You don't seem to much mind that the Senate has the President by the short hairs.

[Les_Miserables]

Well then, let's see if we can get him to go kick some a$$ on the southern border....He can't kick something he can't find with both hands.

[Itzlzha]

Do us all a favor and sit home now. We don't want you. We don't need you.

Ah! FINALLY we have confirmation!

The "Big Tent" startegy was simply designed to maginalize the Conservative Base by "Elitist" Establishment Country Club Republicans who only desire better Press coverage, access to all the Tony parties, and to "get along" pragmatically! Oh for the days of Bob Michels again...when "comity" meant sucking up to the DemonRAT masters for some crumbs from the table!

It's been spoken aloud...the Genie cannot be stuffed back in the bottle!

Conservatives are ONLY good for 3 things...

1) Money for campaigns for moderate/LIEberal candidates (look to the Linc Chaffing race in Rhode Island...the RNC and W are actively WORKING against Chaffing's CONSERVATIVE opponent...how's THAT for calculated spending of Conservative $$$ to the RNC?!).
2) Foot soldiers that go out, gin up more voters, and hold signs for the (R) Party CHOSEN, rather than the best/Conservative (the best USUALLY is the Conservative) candidate.
3) Being the "New Black" in politics...being required to put party over principles...promises and "Trust Me" over policies and results, and above all...staying in your place and ON THE PLANTATION! The party of ideas has morphed into the party of CONFORMITY...even toward bad policies and descision!

Thanks for clearing that up...good luck with your "Big Tent"...it should soon collapse around the RINO ears as the paying base bolts for the exit!

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no "minimum" requirement in the Constitution. Even Anti clowns could be nominated.

The "expectations" you speak of have no basis in reality since the expecters DON'T KNOW anything about ANY of these people. They just THINK they know because a pretty blond gives her approval or Rush bestows his stamp of approval. They just follow the crowd in its conventional wisdom.

Fighting Bush is NOT going to hurt the RATS it will help them. Those claiming to be the "base" are, for the most part, anything but. They are a minority even here and a tiny minority in the whole scheme of things yet arrogant enough to believe THEY know more about this than the President. Some have NEVER been supporters of the President and never will be. Some are critical of EVERYTHING he does while pretending to be supporters.

Those who are actual supporters of the President do not believe they have veto power over nominees. They actual trust the man.

Resisting those who would undermine the President and substitute unconstitutional methods, i.e. opinion polls, in this process are not "originalists" by any means. Countering the distortions, lies and viciousness of the Antis is vitally important to strengthening the party against the RATS. Allowing a tiny minority of extremists to take it over assures a gigantic defeat in the future. It is NOT going to be allowed to happen without some of us resisting.

[Sam the Sham]

What American citizens are aware of and rejecting, is that a "business friendly" justice (as miers has been described) would agree with Kelo, which was a "business friendly" decision, after all.

Americans prefer their judges "Constitution friendly".

Very, very good point.

[Itzlzha]

That's right, the RP doesn't need him. And what that portends is lost on you, and the party at large.
Does it every bother you that we can't beat the likes of Clinton, Gore or Kerry by a wide margin?
There's a good number of people sitting at home on Tuesdays in November and you don't think you need them.

See my post 523.

[Barney Gumble]

But if Miers turns out to be a Souter, then those who supported her will be out with the conservative grassroots, not to mention bury Jeb's career and whatever other Bush that has political aspirations.

[Les_Miserables]

Can you explain how Ms Miers can create a track record in a hearing? Do you not understand the problem we have with this nomination? The speculation I have see is that she is "swell". Well what does that tell us exactly? She can say anything she wants in a heating but you know people by their actions and her actions for the last 30 years seem to be more practicing the art of being noncommittal than conservative in any significant way. The hearings will not solve the problem of never in her career really establishing herself as a bona fide Constructionist.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What I don't mind is that there is Seperation of Powers as demanded by the Founders. Sometimes that causes consternation and frustration but to blame that on the President is both unfair and invalid.

Senators are not constrained by any Constitutional mechanism to do what the President wants, any President. And it never has. Lincoln faced many problems due to the Senate's methods and beliefs. They all have at one time or the other.

The President is not a Dictator.

[Itzlzha]

How come we never saw headlines like "White House warns 'moderate' holdouts?"

Well, now...just why should Bush and the RNC attack it's BASE?! Isn't THAT what the "Big Gulp" (instead of Big Tent...that one's MINE, and I want CREDIT! < chuckle >) (R)'s here are saying?

LOL!

[Cboldt]

What I don't mind is that there is Seperation of Powers as demanded by the Founders. Sometimes that causes consternation and frustration but to blame that on the President is both unfair and invalid.

I don't blame the President for erecting the 60 vote hurdle. That's known to be a DEM strategy to limit the power that is rightfully the President's, under the Constitution.

I blame the President for going along with it.

[Cboldt]

Senators are not constrained by any Constitutional mechanism to do what the President wants, any President. And it never has. Lincoln faced many problems due to the Senate's methods and beliefs.

I'm not asking the Senate to ratify the picks. I'm asking the Senate to vote, up or down. Not "what the President wants," but what the Constitution asks the Senate to do.

George Bush is no Abe Lincoln. This nomination is going to tinker with his legacy.

[HarleyLady27]

sorry, its my vote and thats my feelings....you can vote anyway you want...

[justshutupandtakeit]

You should blame the GOP Senators for going along with it. The President has no power in this regard.

[Les_Miserables]

Cute graphic but I'm still trying to figure the message out..Is protecting our southern border a no-no, or trying to compliment Bush's ability to grasp the issue at hand the problem??

[HarleyLady27]

We'll see what he does...but I still don't think he's the right person for the job...

[HarleyLady27]

its you opinion, and I really don't care what you think, its my vote and thats how I'm voting, you vote however you feel...

[Les_Miserables]

Tinker? You are the true master of understatement! Tinker! ROTFL! Like the torpedo tinkered with the Lusitania. Good one.

[Cboldt]

You should blame the GOP Senators for going along with it.

Them too, for letting it stand. I agree.

But it won't get knocked down if every nominee is vetted by the DEMs in advance, and found to be acceptable. And the President has the keys to that tool box. He chose the easy path, what he thought was politically expedient.