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 ...
Miers was cohead of a law firm and the law firm may have deemed it necessary for their business to make political contributions to the Democrats back when Texas was solidly run by Democrats (before George W. Bush changed the lay of the land in Texas).
So, my question is, were these donations made by her law firm, or at the behest of her law firm so the money donated could be hard money, or were they made by her personally from internal conviction?
You may have a chance to find out when Iran nukes D.C. Me, I'm betting that for all their sins and failings, it's better to have a functioning government than not.
Disagreeing with President Bush about this nomination is far different than betraying him, Sorry.
How about "Limited Government Conservative"? Or LGC for short.
I know, it SHOULD be redundant, but we have to have a way to differentiate between the 'compassionate' (big government) conservatives and the heartless ones ;)
I'm cool with that for the overarching stuff. But for the Mieres nomination, "dark side" is getting to be fun. We aren't stuck with the label for long ;-)
Many members of the Republican conservative base who have worked for the past 20 years, some slavishly, to arrive at this moment, are dissatisfied with this nomination, including myself. A good lot of us, but not all, are Reagan conservatives (though some Reagan conservatives support the nomination).
To suggest all or most criticism is coming from third party members and/or Democrats is flat out wrong.
And you want to take on Iran with 2-3 times the population of Iraq before we have secured Iraq? We need Iraq and Afghanistan flanking Iran in a more secure state before we take on Iran head on.
And no we won't wait for them to go nuclear. Bush didn't sell the Israelis an AWAC for nothing.
P.S. Iran is part of the secret even in success part of the WOT, fomenting rebellion against the mullah rule, etc.
2] Carter's "Panama Canal lost" or Bush's "New Mexico, California and Arizona lost" to Mexicans?
Border control has been beefed up and Immigration Reform Bills are finally up for votes in Congress this term. You underestimate the power of the MSM in killing more meaningful reform before now.
I, too, am dumbfounded at how craven the Democrats have been on border security, but that is the treasonous bed they have elected to lie in. Yes, you are right that Bush is not passionate on this issue, but he wouldn't have been elected in the first place if he had been, and Gore would have been making the decisions.
3] Carter's prohibition on oil drilling or Bush's failure to restart nuclear power plants while we pay $3.00 a gallon for gas?
Since when is Bush supposed to be a nuclear technician and able to walk into plants and throw the rods himself? First, you have to get litigation off the backs of the nuclear power plant owners so they can make a profit generating power with a nuclear plant. They have taken a bath trying to get into the nuclear energy field. My electric bill in California still shows up a charge of 53 cents every month for "nuclear decommissioning".
One of the first things Bush did in 2001 was the Energy Bill and parts of it were finally passed just a couple months ago, because he finally had enough votes in the Senate to eke it out. And he went out into the field in 2002 and bet his Presidency on getting more Republican Senators elected, so he could get judges and energy bills and other things passed.
Bush is starting to make Carter look like a world leader.
Have no fear, history will be MUCH kinder to Dubya than to Jimmy.
But there's a difference between
Hubby's turn for the internet now.
I'll come back tomorrow to answer any objections to my posts.
Night all!
Thanks for a more civil thread than some in the past 2 weeks.
That's not what I said.
MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life?BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists.
"GOV BUSH: The most primary issue-the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it's kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me-some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it's-and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas."
Maybe, but I think it was his pardon of Nixon and the weak 'Whip Inflation Now' approach to economic policy. So, the country cleaned house, and bought the pig in a poke that was Carter
The reason that Ronald Reagan won in 1980 was because Jimmy Carter was such a thoroughgoing doofus, not because Reagan challenged Ford in 1976.
No, the reason Ronald Reagan won in 1980, is that he got the chance to run. He would have won in 1976. He had overwhelming victories in 1980 and 1984. It was his 1976 primary speeches that gave him a leading position in the Republican primary race, as an alternative to the Ford-like candidates. Then he gave the whole country an alternative to Carter and Carter's losing ways. He then delivered what he promised and got the 1984 landslide.
It's Bush who won because the other guy was such a doofus (twice!). If the one guy is a clear doofus, and you aren't sure about the other one, you get a close race, not a landslide. Reagan had two landslides: 1980 489-49, 1984 525-13. Bush had two squeakers: 2000 271-266, 2004 286-252.
Pushing on the judge issue is good election politics, and it wasn't a good idea for Bush to pack it in as it will affect the 2006 midterms by taking the judge issue off the table.
Some more Reaganite(TM) backbone and principle would do Bush a world of good.
Yes we can! Reagan got landslides, Bush squeaked by. Bush got elected because he ran against opponents who showed themselves to be properly classified as Homo Doofus. Carter may have been a doofus, but Reagan did rack up 90% of the electoral votes or more both elections. Had the Dems not drifted into Soros-land, and put up a Zell Miller in 2004, Bush would have lost.
Pragmatic and compassionate Conservatism is the best formula for winning and achieving our goals little by little.
And exactly what goals are those? Shutting off free speech (CFR)? Adding to dependency (Prescription Drugs) and profligacy (68 Trillion estimated unfunded liability for Prescription Drugs)? Federal control of Education? Open Borders?
No, it is clear that Reagans brand of conservatism has the Bush brand of Clinton-lite conservatism beat.
A point which is so astute and so true that it should be tattooed (backwards) on the foreheads of all the idealogue wingnuts so they have to read it every time they look in the mirror.
With the conseratives behind him, Reagan gets two landslides. After shafting the conservatives, Read-My-Lips Bush goes down in flames.
Bush II figures this out, and doesn't shaft the conservatives until his second term.
The conservatives significant contribution to the American Political Landscape is Ronald Reagan. T'was Bush I who gave us Clinton.
Maybe rich kids never learn to dance with the one who brought you to the dance.
Wasn't President Reagan who said that it is better to get 50% of what you want then getting nothing, it was President Reagan the one who started the Pragmatic conservatism.
PS: President Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy, just a reminder.
Rove & Cheney said no on this nomination from the get go and Andy is twisting by himself in the wind now
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.