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 ...
Having worked for a very large corporation, and watch the senior management of this multi-billion dollar organization drive it into the ground, I find it easy to believe that a real bozo could have been promoted to the jobs Miers held. Attention to details, and getting things done are administrative staff pluses, that's not what you look for for senior leadership, or analysis positions.
If you are keeping a list, don't forget the whiff on Campaign Finance Reform.
When you have been compromised to the edge of the precipice, it's time to stop compromising and time to start pushing back hard.
I don't either. What I don't understand is fighting a battle like that in an election off-year. Isn't the time to have that fight during the primary, where the guy whom we choose to carry the standard in the general election is selected?
At this point, we already selected our guy, and he won the general election. There is no more conservative option available right now. The makeup of our elected officials is not going to change. So the only fight we can really have right now is between elected Republicans and elected Democrats. And to the extent Miers isn't what we wanted, she likely is a lot better than what the Dems would have offiere.
Weakening Bush now doesn't strengthen the conservative wing of the party. The only people it strengthens are the Democrats. The time to fight the battles you wish to fight is in the primaries in 2006 and 2008.
I think you are right. Every time we "compromise" we lose something and the other side gains something. We never seem to gain anything from our "compromises."
What's the point of being a Republican if it's merely Democrat-lite?
I've been referring to myself as "the dark side." It limits the label to the Miers matter, and injects a bit of levity here at FR, which is sorely needed.
Bump. I'm right there with you. You a beer drinker?
The GOP-hack side of this debate, the neocons, or "base" or whatever label they think is most glorious, they do not have my respect, and the approach they are advocating for this nomination, hide data to develop a subjective sense of the nominees judicial philosophy and legal acumen, is anathema to the Republic. I'll have nothing of it.
Don't get me going on letting the 60 vote barrier stand as one of the criteria for limiting selection, not the "DEMs are so mean, good people won't serve" arguments. Those are fabrications out of whole cloth. Even the wimpiest conservative would stand up the these lying DEM scum. This is a Republic we are fighting for. Better this way than the other one.
And, the Repubs can't win UNLESS they are honest about being conservatives, and honestly govern conservatively. While it isn't written in stone as another post stated, it is written in the party PLATFORM. Reagan stated a conservative platform, and stuck to it, and rolled over the Dems. Both Bushes gave lip service to a conservative platform. Bush I flamed out by parting from his campaign promises in his first term, Bush II waited to his second term to let on that he didn't care about the platform. Note that he only squeaked by in both elections, and did his level best to keep current RINOs in place.
The ones causing the ruckus are those who are trying to hold the Repubs to their platform, which won before, rather than shift to Clinton-lite, which barely squeaks by even doofus candidates like Gore and Kerry.
If I understand your position, a pragmatic gives money to Bush moderate for a 51-49 squeaker, but a foolish person gives his money to a conservative Reagan for a 90-10 landslide?
Call me foolish, but I'll give my money to the conservative.
We aren't talking total silence. The problem with CFR is that the constitution says no law. I contribute to the Club for Growth, as they say what I want said better than I can. The Club for Growth is getting sued by the FEC.
Since your predictions about an absolute Bush defeat in 2004 was totally destroyed.
I don't recall making such a prediction, but 'totally destroyed' isn't how I'd refer to such a prediction considering the 2004 election was a squeaker.
the unprecedented assault by liberals and their media whores
Sorry, but I don't think Bush was attacked any more than Reagan was.
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.
Yes he did say that. But he didn't give up before the fight. And, at Reykjavik, Reagan walked away when he could not get that 50%. Bush seems satisfied with relative crumbs.
Reagan was a principled conservative, there were things he would not trade away. And, yes he did make mistakes.
"Rush isn't the worst of the bunch. Laura Ingraham, Buchanan, and Ann Coulter are worse."
You are correct! I am getting fed up with all of them. Their non-stop negative comments are wearying the listeners. Laura has a "Stop Harriet" petition she is pushing on every program. Let's see if Harriet can make it through the JC farce before we ship her off to oblivion. If she is as conservative as her friends claim she is (goodbye Roe v. Wade!), she should be a winner.
I'd say the Dems are nutballs for endorsing Bush's personal attorney without knowing anything about her judicial philosophy. That's plain stupid.
Suppose Bill Clinton had nominated Bruce Lindsey for the Court. I don't know about you, but I'd be furious, because its obvious that Clinton wouldn't have nominated the guy unless he shared Clinton's judicial philosophy.
My feeling is, that was then; this is now. You have to admit, it's also possible to win with compromise.
I also feel that some gov't spending is better than others.
The most primary issue-the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?
I am waiting for the hearings...I don't find Kristol, Coulter, Will, etc. compelling at all.
The hearings will show us that Ms. Miers can hide her judicial philosophy well. The Ginsberg rule serves that function. The hearings will be a window into her intelligence and ability to compose answers on the fly.
I found the Kristol, Coulter and Will pieces to be seriously lacking (at best), and Coulter's little more that a "Will on speed" with too many insults thrown in. It (all of them, not just Coulter) is really too bad, becuase this is a serious subject that deserves being approached with due respect, but not with blinders.
The Miers nomination should be pulled but the woman's critics are a real pain in the ass on this.
Then? How old are you? It's not like it was the Ancient Regime in France of 1810, for goodness sakes, it was only 25 years ago that the Reagan Revolution won, and only 17 years ago the Bushes started to drift leftward.
Compromise your principles and what have you won?
And a compromised candidate doesn't win easily. Bush41 in 1988 got a 426-111 electoral, 49-42% popular win when people thought he might follow in Reagan's footsteps (No More Taxes). He lost when we found out that wasn't true, and Bush 43 squeaks out a couple against doofus candidates.
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.