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 ...
Nope.
Phew ;-)
And .. I agree with your analysis about the RINO's.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503721/posts
If people are going to whine about Rush - then read what he has to say.
This culture flourished even during Ronald Reagan's two terms. When Reagan was elected and Republicans won the Senate, GOP activists urged business to donate more to their party. But a little-known California Democrat named Tony Coelho stopped them in their tracks. As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he reminded business lobbyists that his party still controlled the House and, with it, the committees and subcommittees through which any legislation would have to pass. At the same time, he worked to convince businessmen that Democrats, too, could deliver for them. During Reagan's first two years, Coelho tripled the DCCC's fundraising. So even as the Republican realignment chugged ahead, Democrats retained a rough parity on K Street.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html
This is not Coelho's first federal criminal probe. In 1989, Coelho, then a six-term congressman and House majority whip, resigned from Congress after reports surfaced that he had accepted a sweetheart loan from a troubled S&L operator. The loan helped Coelho buy a $100,000 junk bond, but he never reported it on his government disclosure form. The Justice Department decided not to bring charges against him.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1005051
When one votes third party, they are effectively voting themselves off the island, while at the same time lying to themselves that they've done something worthwhile and at the same time effectively relegated themselves to a party that cannot win anywhere in this country on one issue alone.
I was there in 1976 and you RINO's were calling us nuts and wacko's and extremists back then because we supported a real candidate instead of Nelson Rockefeller's nursemaid, the proprietor of "win" buttons, responsible for John Paul Stevens, a radical leftist on the Supreme Court. I supported Reagan over your pal Leslie King, alias Gerald Ford. The difference in his and Carter's policies were negligible.
If you want to re-write history, fine. Let's give you another scenario. RINO Ford wins and governs exactly as Carter, creating even more resentful Democrats. Your president in 1980 would then have been one Ted Kennedy. That's as credible as any of your scenarios.
Reagan won. Get over it. Now if we can only get this party back to his principles and away from the Bush family dynasty.
How about purist conservative?
Or Puritan conservative to marry some one else's suggestion to a term I've been using for quite a while.
I believe you are referred to in certain circles as paleoconservatives. But I really hate the way the liberals use the term neocons as though they are discussing neoNazis, so I'm not partial to using terms like that.
Me, I admit I'm not a purist conservative. I'm too pragmatic to throw all my money out the window for a glorious defeat. I prefer to follow a sneakier and surer path to victory than marching in straight lines in a red uniform.
However, we probably are in very close agreement on our goals.
I'm watching.
What is he going to fix? Is he going to replace Miers with a nominee acceptable to Kristol, Coulter, Will and others so we all can hold hands during the filibuster? Is he going to become an ideologue, which he never was, nor did he campaign as one.
I can only guess what the real reasons were for choosing her. Since I tend to like Bush and trust his court picks, I guess good things - but it's idle speculation in any case.
But the reasons presented were ... flawed. Someone lost their political compass.
And yes, there are other areas such as spending, borders and education, where Bush is not choosing as we would.
Of course he did. When Carter left office, there were 52 hostages in Iran, and the interest rate was at 21%, and there were gas shortages up the kazoo.
Carter only has himself to blame. His presidency was effectively the most incompetant presidency in modern history.
Bush's doesn't even come close.
I still like "dark side." It's irreverant and injects a bit of humor. Lord knows we could use a little humor around this palce.
I believe you are referred to in certain circles as paleoconservatives.
Ahhh .. the fossil terminology. Well, I can adapt.
I prefer to follow a sneakier and surer [path ...]
Those two notions are at opposite ends of the spectrum, in case you hadn't noticed.
However, we probably are in very close agreement on our goals.
No? Really? /look of surprise/
I'm sure we're REAL close in goal. That's one of the things that makes this nomination such a bizarre pick. Why split the base? Surely he could not have forgotten his campaign promise, etc. The dark side folks have spent considerable energy speculating as to motive, ivory tower, power gone to his head, misunderestimated how far "trust me" would fly, who knows.
But he's crapped in his bed. And here we are, waiting for data points, or not. Later today we'll get to hear testimonials from Texas Supreme Court Judges. As if testamonials are what any serious observer from the dark side is looking for.
I think the dark side is a good label, BTW, because it can be applied to the Mires nomination issue, and won't get tangled up with dark side folks who resist the paleocon, neocon, etc. labels.
Carry on. Have fun.
Gerald Ford would have supported the Shah of Iran rather than abandoning Iran to the Ayatollah and radical Islam. When Iran's Ayatollahs drop a nuke on us, maybe you won't find the differences between Ford and Carter so negligible.
I certainly don't find 9/11 and 2000 dead in the War on Terror and over 10,000 severely wounded a negligible thing and the critical mistakes that spawned these evils were made by Carter.
We could go on to how Carter wrecked the economy, stopped oil drilling, allowed the CIA to be gutted, and gave away the Panama Canal, etc. to other differences from Ford that you consider negligible.
What you don't remember is that Ford could not have run for another term as he became President before half of Nixon's term was up.
Thus if Ford had been President and done a fair job, he, too, could have "paved the way" for a Reagan run and win in 1980.
So its not just Bush trusting her - I'm sure he trusts Laura too. It's also Bush having a sound basis for trusting her in the area in question.
Oh they do, take a look at Rep. Mike Pence for example (An example of a fine Christian man, that is both Socially and Fiscally conservative :)) he and others like me who are both do not like the compromisers on either issue that tears at our society and which liberal position threatens America's general welfare (not the government program).
I think the term RINO instead of applying to one "kind" of conservative can more aptly be applied to the "pragmatics" over the "idealogues" which would be TRUE Conservatives :), like you and me ;); :).
I believe Bush's main motive was to get a conservative butt on the Court, and that knowing the realities on the ground in a way we don't, because he knows the 7 Republicans who signed on to the Gang of 14 Nuclear Freeze Treaty very well, he figured the odds and like the good poker player that he is, he bet on a sneaky approach with someone he believed he knew well.
He probably also knew that Owens and Brown had opted out of the fight, and he needed someone with the guts to go the distance no matter what the flak.
Women who entered the legal or medical field back when Miers did and even a few years later like I did have an internal resilence and a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" belief in themselves and an internal motivating force that those who came to the table later when most of the barriers were down don't necessarily have.
The "mistake" Bush may have made was wanting to appoint a woman after having appointed a white male. He is egalitarian to the bone, and it is a fact of life with him that he believes America is better off when everyone is in the game and gets to play.
And he is also a savvy politician who calculated that the middle of the road woman's vote is more important to the future of the Republican party that the immediate happiness of your dark side conservatives.
He was probably surprise (I was) by the depth and vitriol of opposition by you all. He was most likely thinking that you may be unhappy now but will start perking up when you see how she votes, and thus be redeemed before the Party faces the next big election.
Anyway, from what I know about Dubya, that's my take.
I'm a pragmatist, but I would never vote like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Alan Spectre, John McCain, Chaffee, etc vote.
So, I won't ever let you use "pragmatist" and "RINO" as synonymous without challenging that.
You may not be (RINO), but the danger with Pragmatism over Principle is that it can lead to (easly lead) to RINOism becuase once you slip and say 'in this circumstance' I have to compromise my principles to get X-result, then that doesn't Really (especially for important issues (whatever that is for you) give you grounds for being Principled on other issues and other circumstances. It would have been better to stand for something on Principle and loose result X (wether power, or an election result, or a good cause done with evil means, etc...) than to gain result X, and loose your pricipled posistion, hence (some would argue your soul ;)):Be whatever you like, but heed my warning: better to loose your whatever you want, and gain your dignity, than to loose your dignity and gain something temporary (in LIFE) :)...
He certainly knew wheter or not each person on the short list was willing to serve. Owen and Brown were nixed by Reid. There is no credible evidence that either declined the opportunity.
And if "the story" is true, then Owen and Brown are "out for good." If so, why isn't somebody screaming? Huh? Not them, of course, but that is quite the circumscription on the President's choices, if you ask me.
I believe Bush's main motive was to get a conservative butt on the Court
I have serious suspicions of cronyism. Pains me to say it, but this bonehead move has to have some powerful motivation, 'cause it just isn't making sense as a pick. It's the last reason I want to put forward, and if she was otherwise "qualified" (in the subjective sense), I wouldn't care at all that she was a crony.
The "mistake" Bush may have made was wanting to appoint a woman ...
Puhleeze. I'd go ape-bonkers if it was Owen or Brown. This isn't a gender thing, in the least.
And he is also a savvy politician who calculated that the middle of the road woman's vote is more important to the future of the Republican party that the immediate happiness of your dark side conservatives.
I think he may be using the "trust me" card for political advantage. He's using it with evangelicals too. I have no problem with him limiting his short list to women, but if for whatever reason it get's whittled down to 1, who happens to be his counsel, has been sicen 1994, where she went to SMU a year ahead of Laura? Ahem. There are better -female- picks.
He was probably surprise (I was) by the depth and vitriol of opposition by you all. He was most likely thinking that you may be unhappy now but will start perking up when you see how she votes ...
When she votes is too late. This is a big deal, it is an important deal. You live in the south? You get the house checked for termites before you send the cash over - even if you're buying from your sister.
The dark side folks are most interested in a transparent process, with a person who can be evaluated to see qualities that make for ... well, I won't describe it, I think you know the qualities - everybody pretty nmuch agrees with what we want for performance. The issues are all swirling around the uncertainty inherent in this nominee.
Are you gonna flame me? ;-)
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.