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 ...
Funny thing is that we probably know more about Mickey Mouse's judicial history than we do about Harriet Miers.
That is a rather tenuous claim. There are perhaps 36 million or more conservative voters in the country. How in the world would you know that most of them wanted Janice ?
The only evidence is that almost all of them wanted Bush because they voted for him to make the choice as to who would be nominated for the Supreme Court.
Here's a few snippets on some female judges from your link. Got to go for now.
Callahan is liked by Leahy and Feinstein.
Clement's current chances seem to be somewhat diminished because the Bush administration believes her to be guilty of excessive self-promotion.
Jones ruled on an abortion case, but ruled on the technicality of mootness, that the statute had been repealed and therefore no longer presented a burden to the plaintive.
Corrigan on the Michigan Supreme Court is liked by the WSJ.
Written about Williams:
“It would be a kick in the butt for a lot of women,” Ocheltree said. “When I heard she could be nominated, I was outraged.”
Court watchers say Williams, 54, has a chance to be nominated, but must rise above a reputation in some legal circles for a conservatism that lacks compassion, particularly toward women and blacks.
The NAACP, for instance, after a preliminary review, called her record “troubling.”
Not from my point of view
The only two qualifications that count are being selected by the President and being confirmed by the Senate. You could argue that Judge Bork was one of the most qualified USSC justices who never served.
Read this again and tell me the obvious error. A capable Democrat? You mean one who would have been MORE effective at instituting socialism, thus freezing the economy even worse than Carter did? A "more capable Democrat" only speeds up their failure, and increases the chances of the right wing opponent.
Why are we afraid of these idiots? Because they have the media? If they ever got the chance to really institute what they believe in, they would kill the economy and be out of power for at least 20 years! Oh wait, that already happened with Carter.
Andy Card is not nor ever has been a Conservative. He is a meeting scheduler, and for his own good should never be quoted in the paper.
It's kind of tough for me to agree that role of the Senate has been circumvented. They are going to hold hearings, presumably to be followed by a floor debate and vote. And maybe, just maybe, without a long trail of opinions, memos, position papers, etc. we are going to hear something more constructive than the game of "gothcha" that the process has become for almost any significant Republican nominee. Maybe, just maybe, rather than hearing Miers being asked to explain a memo written 20 years ago (as we did with Roberts) we will hear questions that actually probe her constitutional knowledge, temperament and judicial philosophy.
I wanted JR Brown. Only 35,999,999 to go!
Now you are scaring me! This speaks very badly of the one who appointed her. I was hoping the Miers appointment would prove a momentary lack of judgement, or fit of pique. Unless he hopes to pull her strings after she is out of office, this is a monumental finger in the eye for the whole country, not just the conservatives. And if he does hope to pull her strings, it's a poke in another orifice all together.
True, but he was not dealing with Repub majorities in both houses. And I would have preferred Bush 43 stick to the brand of conservatism he ran on in the election.
We are, Bush isn't. The Bushes are fighting much of the rightward drift. Smaller military, huge expenditures, Campaign Finance Reform, expanded Medicare benefits, more Fed control of education, weaker borders. He's been ok on taxes, but note that some of the cuts are temporary. Hillary won't have to lift a finger to remove them.
Perhaps not. She might be the complete dud that some say she is.
Personally I will trust GW that she is a conservative. We'll see.
Regards. Jen
Yup. Some Democrats ARE conservatives. My current rep, Nathan Deal, was one such before he traded sides. I'd vote for him Democrat or Republican (though his "performance review" is coming up soon...)
Also, if 'Pubbies act like Democrats, what difference does it make who holds office? The "well being" of their country means no more to Republicans than it does to Democrats. Both of them are about power.
Does Mickey know right from wrong. Does Mickey believe in killing the unborn. Thats whats important. Doing what is right. I believe Harriet Miers qualifies .
That's one of my biggest problems with this, too, JimRob. This woman's whole experience with W has been as his employee and friend. It gives me the creeps.
My last employer also knew me for 10+ years. I'm positive she did not know how I truly felt about everything, even though we were very close.
As a member of the GOP, you stand a better chance of booting out an elected Republican whose politics you don't like and impacting the Party to move in your direction, than you would trying to get an elected Democrat to come around to your way of thinking.
You can't accomplish either thing by leaving the Party system.
You can also work and support a third Party, and you will feel good about yourself...but that's all you'll accomplish in the real world, other than perhaps help get Democrats elected.
If you can't understand something that basic, you will never understand Party politics.
Or politics for that matter.
As a member of the GOP, you stand a better chance of booting out an elected Republican whose politics you don't like and impacting the Party to move in your direction, than you would trying to get an elected Democrat to come around to your way of thinking.
You can't accomplish either thing by leaving the Party system.
You can also work and support a third Party, and you will feel good about yourself...but that's all you'll accomplish in the real world, other than perhaps help get Democrats elected.
If you can't understand something that basic, you will never understand Party politics.
Or politics for that matter.
Dude, I worked for the Republicans when I lived in Arkansas, and again in GA in 2000. Might be some good people working for the party, but not among the folks running it. The folks in charge are power mongers pure and simple, and ain't interested in hearin' what you have to say. Their response is similar to yours - party first and "where else ya gonna go?" Just do the work, give 'em money and shut up.
Well, the answer is, I'll go home. Gridlock is more desirable than the current state of affairs and the Republicans seem to pay more attention to their conservative base when they're out of power. In the mean time, to hell with 'em. If the party doesn't stick to principle, it ain't my party.
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.