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 ...
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."
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.
What is an ultra-conservative?
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.
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.
ping
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?
"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.
I concur...
And the Bushbots can get LOST!
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.
They are itching to lose a fight.
I have no idea. I'm just as flabbergasted as everyone else.
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.
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.
He started the ball rolling and now has passed it off for others to whip up the rhetoric.
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.
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.