Bush at War With Right Over Court Nomination (And why Rush Limbaugh &c are sadly mistaken)

The Telegraph ^ | October 17, 2005 | Francis Harris

[Cicero]

As you point out, Rush has usually supported Bush. Indeed, he has often been criticized by conservatives for supporting Bush more warmly than he should. That gives his current grave doubts about the Miers nomination greater credibility. Rush has never jumped on Bush gratuitously, as far as I can remember.

Neither have I. But the way he has handled this whole business suggests that he is desperate, understands he has made a serious political miscalculation, yet cannot face the idea of backing down. So all we get is talk about repackaging the candidate, or foolish gratuitous insults against anyone who questions him.

Face it, Card and the other Bush functionaries have never addressed this kind of language to Teddy Kennedy, or to any of the other liberals who have outright accused the president of being a stupid liar. But they do it to their own base when they dare question this decision. Even the Telegraph admits that this is unprecedentedly stupid:

"The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation."

[quidnunc]

IVote2 wrote: FWIW, I agree with you. Rush isn't the worst of the bunch. Laura Ingraham, Buchanan, and Ann Coulter are worse. I turned Laura's show off Thursday and Friday because I couldn't stand listening to her comments.

Rush is playing both ends againstr the middle on the Miers nomination. He is tempering his rhetoric in language whicvh will make it hard to pin him down to a particular point of view in the future.

It's called 'plausible deniability' and Rush does it frequently.

[Raycpa]

What is an ultra-conservative?

[Ragnorak]

and the wing which is committed to governing and which realizes that compromise is essential to successful governance.

Compromise is has its place. That place in not interpreting the Constitution and enforcing the rule of law.

Bottom line is that if the Dems gave the identical statements to support a Clinton appointee and the identical attacks against other Dems who opposed that nominee we would all be laughing ourselves to death.

Try this intellectual exercise-- defend Janice Rogers Brown as a nominee and list every fact, accomplishment and argument that you can to support her. Now cross off each item on the list that doesn't apply to Miers. Are you beginning to see the problem?

[ThePythonicCow]

But I do object to the president appointing his personal friend and lawyer

It is said that the only people you can trust when you become powerful are those you knew before. I presume Bush really wanted to avoid another Souter, and that he figured the mistake there was taking someone who was not closely known by his father.

If Bush called this one right, and Miers is a solid voice and vote on the court for the Constitution and the rule of law and the proper role of the court in our government, then this pick could have been Miss Beazley, the younger Scottish Terrier living at 1600 Penn Ave. for all I care. I ask only that said Judge sits a long time and remains true.

[quidnunc]

Cicero wrote: As you point out, Rush has usually supported Bush. Indeed, he has often been criticized by conservatives for supporting Bush more warmly than he should. That gives his current grave doubts about the Miers nomination greater credibility. Rush has never jumped on Bush gratuitously, as far as I can remember.

Yes he has, and in spades.

A couple of years ago when Rush's radio show was in the doldrums before he reavealed he was deaf he went on a week-long tirade against Bush.

I am of the opinion that it was one of the attention-getting stunts he pulls during sweeps ratings week.

But whatever the reason, he was really vicious towards Bush and there were some knock-down-drag-out fights here on FR about it.

[Colonial Warrior]

ping

[jveritas]

The one Conservative talk show host/analyst/pundit that matters most to the White House and the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. I guarantee for you that Rush was contacted by the White House so many times in the last two weeks and that is why he has been "soft" back paddling on his original and vocal opposition to Miers. Expect Hannity and other to follows suite.

[Cicero]

I must have been out of town. I completely missed it. Did he offer a reason for this attack, or did he just say that Bush is evil and leave it at that?

[gpapa]

"came out of the box so cynically"

And all the time they thought they had everyone in the "box." Way to go Mr. Card, you played the game of blind man's bluff and lost.

[JSDude1]

I concur...

And the Bushbots can get LOST!

[Maynerd]

It is said that the only people you can trust when you become powerful are those you knew before.

Your logic is sound but your premise is faulty. Miers and W's relationship bloomed once he become governor and not before. Laura apparently knew her at SMU but it is unclear to what degree prior to W's rise to power.

I am concerned that Miers is a superb disciplined sycophant and that W assumes too much.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record."

They are itching to lose a fight.

[Jim Robinson]

I have no idea. I'm just as flabbergasted as everyone else.

[quidnunc]

Cicero wrote: I must have been out of town. I completely missed it. Did he offer a reason for this attack, or did he just say that Bush is evil and leave it at that?

It was over the farm bill or some other thing like that which would have been passed over a veto anyway.

I posted a Chicago Sun-Times article by Tom Roeser to the effect that conservatives should lay off Bush, which ended up with over 2000 replies.

[hispanichoosier]

Can the "ideologues" get over 50% of the total votes in general election?

Yes, if the ideas we present our packaged correctly. For example, attempting to pass a law against partial-birth abortion was a great strategy. The term "partial birth" itself was a masterstroke; who wouldn't be against such a procedure?

Pragmatic and compassionate Conservatism is the best formula for winning and achieving our goals little by little.

I agree. The President's appeal to an "Ownership Society" is excellent. Too often, however, those who preach "pragmatism" are merely hell-bent on giving in on issues that we "ideologues" view as non-negotiable.

[ThePythonicCow]

Are you beginning to see the problem?

No - I don't.

Whether or not a good case can be made for Miers is only of transient concern, good for a couple months of lengthy threads on FR.

Whether or not Miers is a solid vote on the Court for the Constitution will be of serious impact for decades.

The past record shows that we all, including some of the brightest pundits amongst us, have poor track records at predicting the force that a Judge will become.

I ask that Bush pick someone that he knows, as certainly as he can know, will be a force for the proper rule of the law and courts, as described in the Constitution.

I could give a 'rats patooie (sp?) whether it is someone I have ever heard of or can make any case for or against.

This is Bush's call, and I have no way yet to know if he got it right or now. I can do nothing but watch and wait, and quit posting to these silly threads <grin>.

I can see enough of Miers to believe it is possible that Bush got it right. Only if I were certain that Miers was a leftist, another Ginsberg incarnate, would I be at the fence of the White House, pitch fork in hand.

[Hattie]

Rush is playing both ends againstr the middle on the Miers nomination. He is tempering his rhetoric in language whicvh will make it hard to pin him down to a particular point of view in the future. It's called 'plausible deniability' and Rush does it frequently.

He started the ball rolling and now has passed it off for others to whip up the rhetoric.

[EagleUSA]

As a committed idealogue (and Rush fan), I believe that it is the "moderates" and other RINOs who threaten to wreck the GOP.
-----
Absolutely true. These anthing-but-conservatives are the bane of the party and sadly, in many demonstrated regards, our President is one of them. His pick of Meirs was very political, and certainly not practical. What the critics don't understand is that there is NO ROOM FOR ERROR on the Meirs seat. NONE. And GWB ups with a candidate that is less than what that seat demands -- the critics are not criticizing Meirs, per se, they are criticizing the application of a candidate that does not have the credentials of Constitutional law, the experience in front of the SCOTUS and the known, well-demonstrated conservatism that so many other candidates do indeed posess.

THAT is the complaint. And it is very reasonable and grounded in fact and logic.

[ThePythonicCow]

I am concerned that Miers is a superb disciplined sycophant

I agree that is a risk. There are risks I can do something about, and there are risks I can't. Best to focus my energies on the former.