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 ...
Of course they may trot that out, but that's the time to tell them to take a flying...leap. The primary is the time we're supposed to hash those battles out, whatever some functionaries may say.
Dubya because the nominee 2000 because we were so eager to end the Clinton legacy that we picked the guy we thought would have the most appeal to moderates. Hopefully, we're over that now, and can pick someone who is both electable and truly conservative.
I'm leaning Allen/Rice in 2008, myself.
"Republican" denotes membership in the Grand Old Party.
So, if you "ain't" a Republican, then you "ain't" qualified to actually define anything about what makes a Republican, are you?
RINO (Republican In Name Only) can only be applied to they who would vote something other than GOP if dissatisfied with the GOP's candidate.
Then I'm not Republican. I will never support a party over my principles.
A *week* can be a long time in politics, 25 years is an entire generation plus.
Republicans have been winning consistently for over 10 years; the country is drifting rightward. We must be doing *something* right.
Look Patricia I am not ~attacking~ you, but I will attack Pragmatism:
Firstly I understand that we live in a world that is not totally ideological or theological, but I also believe that as Christians we ~CAN NOT~ seperate any avenue of life from Morality based on the Bible. That is why I believe that is not just wrong to oppose socialism on purely pragmatic (utilitarian) grounds, but also that socialims in fact is ~immoral~ (robbing from someone to give to someone else..the Ten Commandments...thou shall not...). I think you know this one. It is not just enough to oppose liberalism based on utilitarian grounds, you are a Christian so you should know that belief ~MEANS~ something...
Oh as for how this meets reality, true we should and can ~IN REALITY~ only advance our goals to a certain degree (your half-loaf) in most issues, which we should do, but compromise on that way..unless it contradicts with the Bible, does not= or mean that we should compromise ~principly or morally~.
I think we are talking mostly about the same thing and only differ on the application of morality over all of life rather than ~parts~ of it which I would defend against till my dying breath because Christ died + resurected for all of life's mysteries and parts. Oh well I guess we all just come back to the Platonic argument of the defense of JUSTICE as an intrinsic good as well as not only being beneficial utilitarian wise!
Actually, I own a liquor store (no kidding).
Are you anywhere near Connecticut? I'll buy you a six pack of whatever you want (we have about 250 different kinds of beers).
Anyone else out there with us?
It's not. I went back and read it. I understand what you mean. My apologies.
Yeah. Southern Maine. I get into CT from time to time, various parts, depending on the assignment. I've been to the Windsor & Groton areas in the last year. My travel is demand driven, short assignments that pop up with little warning.
Same to you BTW, if you ever get up this way, we could steam a lobster or something.
Anyone else out there with us?
Quite a few it seems. I'm encouraged that the WH is surprised by the reaction. It means the conservative movement was seriously underestimated.
Apology accepted.
Talk about logical falacies!
How does criticism of Miers' nomination equal a victory for Hillary Clinton in 2006 or 2008?
It strains the imagination to connect criticism of Miers' nomination and Hillary Clinton's political fortunes.
A logical fallacy, in deed.
How is it that Bush, or any Republican, deserves such uncritical, unquestioning loyalty and support?
Are those who question George W. Bush to be dismissed as mere cynical nay-sayers?
Is Rush, the most optimistic Conservative voice on the radio, now a just a cynical nay-sayer because he questions the wisdom of nominating a stealth crony?
Puh, puh, puh, please.
I agree with you. What really troubles me is to see people among the right believe or represent that the constitution is a deep mystery accessible only by certain education, associations and activities. That is something I rejected about the left while I was in college. It seems to me that the only intellectually honest thing we can say is that we don't know about Miers. And then I suppose we could debate if a better known person should have been nominated or could be confirmed. At the end of the day, I don't think using extra-constitutional requirements as a basis for rejecting this nominee is a good practice from so called originalists.
It's not that Bush 43 doesn't give a damn about Conservatism or the party platform, it's that Bush 43 has his own brand of Conservatism.
The Democrats don't like it because they've spent 60 years just talking about it, while President Bush turned it around into bold action and actually has accomplished what the Democrats spent 60 years flapping their gums about.
Further, you're not crazy about it, because you spend all your time drawing comparisons between Reagan and Bush 43.
In all due respect to The Great One, Reagan fell short of the mark in many areas both domestically and internationally. In many areas, Bush is not like Reagan, although he has excelled in certain areas where Reagan fell short of the mark.
Each one has had their faults.
Nor is an extra-constitutional process appropriate for confirmation, and my gut says putting an "unknown or unknowable" person up for a SCOTUS seat circumvents the role of the Senate in the confrimation process. It reduces the SSenate to a game of chance, not a serious pursuit that involves accountability for future performance by the judge.
All of "we the people" are losing with what is going on right now. All of us.
Bravo!
Therein lies the problem.
I gave the Constitution a thorough look over, trying to find those elusive qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. As we all know, there are none.
Suddenly, the media elitist from the RIGHT side of the political spectrum, whose entire livelihood depends on being "in the know" and "on the inside", are outraged at Bush nominating someone about whom they can say little more than "I don't know anything about her", and they've decided that the very fact that she's a veritable unknown to the DC and media inner circles, deems her an unqualified.
Admittedly, Miers may not be as good a nomination as john Roberts, and the talking heads are starting to say that this "trust me" thing is absurd, yet we have no Constitutional choice BUT to trust the President when it comes to nominations to the Federal bench, and if we are to use past results to gage present actions, well Bush did just fine!
It wasn't Kristol, Will, Coulter who vetted John Roberts and other of the President's judicial picks, it was Miers, and it wasn't a media pundit speaking about Miers who said: "While I do not think Harriet Miers will be a vote to move the legal culture to the right, I have sufficient evidence to conclude that she'll move the Supreme Court to the right."
That was Leonard Leo, Federalist Society executive, who for years worked with Harriet Miers, and who has dedicated his life to the cause of advancing judicial conservatism.
So the only reason Bush picked this Miers is simply because he doesn't want a fight? He has played right into the hands of the MSM and the super-libs by getting another O'Connor. At one point I thought this would be an okay nominee, but the more I listen and think about it; if I were Miers I would be shakin' in my boots and helping Bush find a solid, intellectual conservative with quick wit and immaculate communication skills (someone like Thomas,Scalia... hey Tom Sowell would be way cool).
Bottom line is, she isn’t unknown. Many well known well established proven conservatives have known her for decades and have come out strongly supporting her. W knows her personally and has for many years. She’s a Christian and whether secular conservatives want to admit this or not, the most strident defenders of real constructionist values are Christians, and that’s the exact kind of person who should be on the court. The critics of her do not know her. The supporters of her DO know her. Back when she was a democrat Texas was owned lock, stock and barrel by democrats. Phil Graham, Rick Perry, Richard Shelby, and many others in and out of Texas were democrats. As the democrat party left them, they became Republicans. No one seemed to mind that Graham, Perry, Shelby, or many others used to be democrats. Reagan used to be a democrat, and that didn’t seem to bother many conservatives. In fact, I’ve heard quite a few conservatives mention that with glee, to poke at democrats. But somehow, since Miers was a democrat over 20 years ago when ALL OF TEXAS was Democrat, that’s bad? This has become such a silly argument, with the pro side being made up of things that are known about her, while the con side consists of supposition and accusations of what she might do based on fears of past justices. Past justices like souter, kennedy and o’conner who did NOT know Reagan or Bush 41. W does know Miers and has for many years.
I can’t wait for the next few months to go by, and if she finds in her rulings in such a way that there is little if any daylight between her and Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, it will be so funny to see all the conservatives, torches in hand right now waiting to light her up at the stake before she even speaks at the hearings, become so silent on the issue and not want to talk about it. Where will all the mouthing off without fact be in a few months if that happens? Because ultimately, how she votes is ALL that matters in this. Not who she isn’t, what she hasn’t done in her career, or who she doesn’t know. But how she finds in rulings on that court. That is ALL that matters. And the bottom line is, three of the last four nominees from Republican Presidents were already judges, who the President didn’t know, who supposedly had a conservative philosophy, and ALL THREE OF THEM did nothing but BURN conservatives on the court. W avoided all that with Miers. She’s not some "on high" self important judge who’s disconnected from the real world. W does know Miers. She’s got a proven lifetime of over 30 years of conservative and Christian pro-life professional and personal opinions, as backed up by people who have known her for decades both professionally and personally, unlike o’conner, kennedy, and souter. Not to mention the fact that W has nominated over 300 solidly conservative judges on the lower court levels. Not one moderate. Not one liberal. It’s foolish to contend that this will be his first non-conservative nominee to the courts, and to the Supreme Court no less, especially since Harriet Miers is the main person who picked all the great judges to present to W. The same great conservative judges that her critics love so much! THAT is insane. The odds are far greater that she will be a conservative than a weak kneed moderate like o’conner or a liberal like souter. All this fear mongering without the benefit of fact is really getting old. Conservatives are supposed to be smart enough to wait for facts to be laid out before rushing to judgment. That’s what I’ve thought conservatives were like at least. When this is all over, I hope the rash "burn her at the stake" conservatives who care more about picking a fight than getting the desired results, will come back to the table and learn a lesson from this. There is more than one way to get what you want. And picking a fight for fights sake isn’t always the best way. Feeding on our own and trying to destroy someone rashly, giving in to knee jerk emotion, before they’ve even spoken is quite an unattractive thing that I hope will NEVER AGAIN happen in the conservative movement. All this needs to be remembered and made note of as what NOT to do. Patience. Look at the facts, not what you "think might" happen. And consider that her defenders have known her for may years, and her detractors don’t. Neither do you.
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.