Posted on 10/16/2005 6:40:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
The White House branded its increasingly vocal conservative critics as "cynical" yesterday as the dispute over President George W Bush's nomination of his official lawyer to the Supreme Court deepened.
Many Republicans have described Harriet Miers as unqualified for such an important job. They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.
Critics have seized on correspondence between Miss Miers and the Bush family to portray her as a lightweight.
Mr Bush's top aide, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, criticised the campaign by influential party figures to prevent Miss Miers's elevation to America's most powerful court.
"I'm a little surprised they came out of the box so cynically," he told a television interviewer.
The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation.
The White House has suffered a dire six weeks during which it has been criticised for the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and its legislative programme.
As Mr Bush's approval ratings have sunk to an all-time low, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, has faced questioning for his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
To add to the Republican's woes, the party's "iron fist" in Congress, Tom DeLay, has been indicted for criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
He says the charges are politically motivated.
Newsweek magazine noted yesterday that the Bush administration was now being seen as "a political machine that has lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui".
Such talk has increased the Bush team's determination not to suffer defeat on the Miers nomination. But many believe the case against her is already overwhelming.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Yeah, I wrote to NRO and said it was a bit ironic that they were quoting the New York Times editorial to support their anti-miers stance.
Strange bedfellows on this battle, to be sure. I guess that's what happens when your troops start shooting their leaders.
FOTFL!
Bump.
Re: Transcript.
Jim Dobson is a moron. A patsy. He is a simpleton who is played for a fool. And the poor naive types like Trudy who listen to him have been basely betrayed. I have had quite enough of Jim Dobson's politics. He needs to go back to counceling famies... he does exceptional work in that area. But when it comes to politics he is a sucker. I am more disgusted in him and Robertson for being had by this than I am at Bush for doing it. I expected Bush to keep the court Left leaning. I had hoped that the so called leaders of the "Christian Right" had got with the game by now, saddly they are still being played for saps.
Aha, I was the one that pointed out the word specious was meant when another headline used the non-word ingenuine .
Bush is starting to make Carter look like a world leader.
Where did I make this point?
The simple fact is that they control the Democratic Party in a way that the Conservatives do NOT control the Republican Party.
I believe I acknowledged that in my recitation of what Liberals support that finds voice in no less then Durbin's, the second highest ranking Dem member of the Senate, voice while the recitation of what conservative's support is constantly fighting to find a voice within the Republican party.
In any case. you are leaving the religious conservatives out, are you not?
I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Though, I would suggest the term "pro-life" does denote some reference to those of a religious persuasion.
The POINT of my post was to take exception to the linkage of conservatives to the Howard Dean's of the Democrat Party by pointing out what conservatives favor and what Liberals favor. There is no comparison. Not only in terms of one controlling the party and another not which I didn't argue against, but in manner that one ideology is harmful to this country while the other is not.
Conservatives would like to be the main voice of the Republican Party, absolutely Truthful. But pro-Life, Pro- adherance to Constitution, pro-Defense, pro-troops, pro-taxes, pro-smaller government etc...is not on the same plane as pacifists linked with encouraging our enemy to continue to fight while undermining our Constitution, creating dependence on government for need and raising taxes to feed the giant.
The Washington Post had an opinion piece today noting that the court would now have two business-oriented justices (Miers and Roberts). The interesting thing was that, in the entire opinion, it was clear that the writer accepted as a given that the business community, and her peers, all found Miers to be extremely bright and capable, and fully expected her to be able to handle the rigors of being a supreme court justice.
It's been a couple of weeks, and I'm amazed that people still believe that a person with the accomplishments of Miers could be incompetent or mediocre.
And as I tell my children -- you cannot control what other people do, you can only control your reaction to it. Bush did what he did, but it was WE who chose to react the way we did, it was WE who divided on the issue instead of trying to talk through it.
And I am now convinced that a sizeable number of the opposition WANTED this fight, because they are tired of a LOT of stuff Bush is doing and they wanted an excuse to get out and pound him and the rest of the party.
By whom?
James, James Carville, is that you ?
Yeah, and I was one of those that voted for Bush.
You are trying to do, what? Use that figure to suggest all are in agreement over this pick? Laughable.
There is a strong division here over this nomination within the base and denying reality doesn't aid you, the Party or the President.
And, once again, another person seeks to discredit those that disagree over this nomination.
I will ask again. What is her Judicial philosophy. I'm still waiting. Attacking pundits that dissent doesn't mask none is available, does it.
I've seen more rational arguments analyzing Brown's decisions in court cases which call into question how "strictly constructionist" she would be in some areas (or maybe more accurately, how she would tend to rule against the administration in the area of war powers, and might grant too many rights for some conservatives).
This isn't hard since we have no cases to review for Miers. But it is wrong to suggest that Brown was the "perfect" candidate. Some who were happy to have her where she had to follow precedent didn't trust her where she could do what she wanted.
I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with them. But every pick is a matter of trusting someone.
I don't have issue with Dobson.
I simply disagree with him over translating Faith of this magnitude to another human being as prone to error as any other creation.
He has every right to be active in politics, as do I.
James, James Carville, is that you ?
It's the party 'moderates' who've been crapping all over the conservative wing for the last lifetime or so. I'm more than just a little bit tired of 'trust us'.
The Miers nomination is the third strike as far as I'm concerned for the Bush Administration. (Strike One: Rx Medicare Bill, Strike Two: the Highway Monstrosity, strike Three: The Miers Nomination.)
And for sinkspur I say let her have her 'hearings' and I hope that what passes for conservative Republican Senators tear her a new one.
L
Typical conversation:
GW: I'm going to nominate Harriet Miers.
WH Aide: What will the Conservatives think and do?
GW:Who cares. They have to go along, Where can they go?
Having voted for the man as many times as I have been able, (4) I hate to think he would be that cynnical. But this nomination reeks. Especially when there was some doubt (still is) about Roberts.
No matter what you think of Miers, it's nice to hear that Rush is not regurgitating the party line. Since he got in trouble, he's been just another Bushbot zombie. Maybe I can start listening to him again without getting depressed!
Won't be long until Bush will be at war with the right over BORDER SECURITY!
I debated a guy today that is a "harsh conservative", and he pretty much said he was going to vote for Kaine instead of Kilgore in our Virginia election because Kilgore was too soft on abortion (He believes Kilgore supports the "morning-after pill in cases of rape, if the rape is reported in 7 days -- I don't know for sure, but I know Kilgore is a "rape/incest" exception pro-lifer).
His argument was that a republican legislature was less likely to give into the policy requests of a liberal than they would for a fellow republican.
I don't agree with his action, but I do seem to remember that we spent less money when congress was controlled by the republicans and the white house by the democrats.
The argument against that is the judges. If it weren't for the stupid judges trying to be kings or dictators, we could make rational decisions on our candidates. Or so the argument goes.
I am pointing out that that the Democratic Party is not controlled by people of a compromising temper. Surely you are not talking about Hillary? There is not a single Democratic leader who can be counted as being a pragmatist, except maybe Reid becvause of his sometime pro-life stances. In any case, the Conservatives need to realize that most businessmen in the United States are not "conservative." They will gladly take taxcuts but equally gladly take government subsidies and, of course, pander to the social liberalism of the Left wing.
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.