Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush at War With Right Over Court Nomination (And why Rush Limbaugh &c are sadly mistaken)
The Telegraph ^ | October 17, 2005 | Francis Harris

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: miers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-385 next last
To: Raycpa

Well, the MSM calls FR a far right-wing forum. I guess that means all of us:)

Conservative U., '59, Summa Cum Laude


41 posted on 10/16/2005 7:23:45 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
They are itching to lose a fight.

How do you figure? If a proven conservative like Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig had been nominated, either of two things would happen. One: she or he is confirmed and we get a stalwart on the Supreme Court. Two: she or he is filibustered and we go nuclear on the Dems. The latter scenario is perfect for the midterm elections; we can paint the Dems as obstructionist children while at the same time firing up our base.
42 posted on 10/16/2005 7:23:57 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

I love the term RINO.

It is most often used by people who constantly threaten to leave the GOP unless their demands are met, and willing to accept victories by Democrats over Republicans in the name of their own misguided conscience. My conscience would never allow me to take any action that would expedite any victory by any Democrat.

A true Republican would never leave the GOP, nor would they ever accept a victory by any Democrat, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.

A true Republican, would never split the Party, as so many "conservatives" did in 92 and 96. These so called Republicans only significant contribution to the American political landscape will forever be known as the Clinton presidency.

RINOs, sir or madam, are they who leave the ranks.


43 posted on 10/16/2005 7:24:07 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

"I believe that it is the "moderates" and other RINOs who threaten to wreck the GOP..."

...and forty years of conservative activism aimed at SCOTUS.


44 posted on 10/16/2005 7:24:33 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Pork the dorks - nominate Bork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
A true Republican would never leave the GOP, nor would they ever accept a victory by any Democrat, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.

That's why I'm conservative before I'm a Republican. I won't vote for a Democrat, but I'll vote for the Libertarian if the GOP candidate is for gay marriage, gun control, or abortion on demand.
45 posted on 10/16/2005 7:27:02 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.

"Ultra-conservative?". I'll settle for someone who isn't a radical Dukakis Democrat. It's relative though, of course. Anyone to the right of Dukakis could be seen as "ultra-conservative" from a Marxist Brit perspective.

The Kennedy's and Breyer's would likely put special emphasis on this foreign perspective.

46 posted on 10/16/2005 7:27:26 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
"...we go nuclear on the Dems."

Yeah, that'll happen.

47 posted on 10/16/2005 7:27:29 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Rush hasn't back pedaled at all.

Nice try, no sell.


48 posted on 10/16/2005 7:27:51 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

So you're a RINO.


49 posted on 10/16/2005 7:28:07 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis Gonzalez wrote: These so-called Republicans only significant contribution to the American political landscape will forever be known as the Clinton presidency.

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.

50 posted on 10/16/2005 7:30:05 PM PDT by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

To sum up, suck up a possible O'Connor or worse, at best merely a "yes" vote which is an embarassment for a movement that has staked their credibility NOT on activism but adherance to the Constitution. An argument the public bought and purchased in 2004.

Even though in the elections the Republican Party and President himself advanced the argument we only needed 2-3 more seats to effect real change. Elections over, oops, sorry, compromise on the Constitution again.

When conservatives don't roll over, call them names. Demean them. Attack them. Strongarm not the RINO's or red state Dems, oh no, but the conservative Republicans!

WHAT IS HER JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY! Would someone please show me documented evidence of one? What are her thoughts on the Constitution other than the generic words that she'll "strictly interpret" The Constitution?

No one here can do that. The W.H. cannot do that. So, the attacks continue in hopes we'll be worn down.

Forget it. My opposition remains until documents providing a sound Constitutional/Judicial philosophy emerge.


51 posted on 10/16/2005 7:31:31 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

This analysis is OFF-BASE for a simple reason:
The cause of the intra-party fighting is a direct result of Andy Card's actions and NOT Rush's or anyone elses.

The first day, Rush declared he was "neutral" on the nomination and for the right reason: He simply didn't have enough information to know what to think. He, me, and millions of conservatives were flummoxed by a pick that we were hoping would be a stellar, proven conservative that we could rally around. As we learned more, we are left with a pick that gives NO real guarantee of conservativeness and many questions of capability and experience.

We are supposed to line up and jump for joy over that?
Many of us are deeply disappointed we didn't get a real, proven conservative that we could defend. The Bush WH split the party needlessly with a sub-par nominee.

If Andy Card wants to find out who made this intra-party fight happen, he should look in the mirror.


52 posted on 10/16/2005 7:34:11 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
I think that we conservatives are looking for a couple of things; 1. A true bonifide constitutionalist who can show a paper trail of having "walked the talk". 2. We want to test the waters and just see with our own eyes who are the true believers and who are the rhinos - let's rumble...
53 posted on 10/16/2005 7:34:19 PM PDT by snoringbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
As used by most in the GOP, a RINO is one who would sell out the party's core values, such as a commitment to traditional marriage, human life, and the freedom to keep and bear arms. For example, Rudy Giuliani is pro-abortion, pro-gay, and anti-gun. Most GOP activists would have to admit that he's a RINO, despite his noble and brave response to Sept. 11.

Your definition of RINO seems to be different. You apparently believe that a RINO is one who would leave the GOP if the GOP's commitments to core issues changed. Thus, I would be a RINO by your definition because I cannot cave on principles that I believe in.
54 posted on 10/16/2005 7:34:32 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
In regards to partial birth abortion the majority of Americans are against and it is very easy for us to use it as an open campaign issue.

The pragmatism that I refer to is not toward our conservative believes and principles but rather it is about the method of how to fulfill what we want. Take for example the Miers nomination. The White House is aware of the incredible odds of having an openly conservative person be confirmed to the supreme court not because of the 44 democrats in the Senate but mostly because of our 7 to 10 RINOS who are just very hard to break. Trust that the White House back in June-July had used so many scenarios against the 7-10 RINOS to push then to go with the "nuclear option" to end judicial filibuster but it did not work, I do not think there is a practical solution for this RINO problem. Some of us say that the President is weak and cannot control the RINOS, what can we do if most of them are due to election until 2008/2010 and they do not give a damn about all the threats from the White House and the GOP. So the President opted with Supreme Courts nominees with little paper trails like Miers and to a great extent Roberts.

The President knows Miers very well much more than President Reagan knew O'Connor and Kennedy or President Bush the elder knew Souter. That is why I trust that President Bush choosed Miers because he knows she is an Originalist and a Conservative and has much more chances of being confirmed by the Senate than a publicly known conservative nominee.

55 posted on 10/16/2005 7:36:39 PM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
From October 3rd to October 14th, Rush has changed his tone regarding the Miers nomination. I did not say that he now agrees with Miers nomination, he still against it, but he is less visibly angry about it than before.
56 posted on 10/16/2005 7:39:05 PM PDT by jveritas (The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
It wasn't so long ago that Rush was singing a completely different tune. He was adament that the only way to advance the conservative agenda was through winning elections, and that the GOP was the only game in town for conservatives.

Rush hasn't changed his tune. He'll criticize Republicans when they do nconservative things... his analysis has been spot-on, here as elsewhere. He's given the Bush WH a fair hearing, heck he had Cheney on day 1 of this. He's not been bashing Miers.... but has told the truth: For conservatives, this is *at best* a missed opportunity to prove that open conservatives CAN get on the court.

57 posted on 10/16/2005 7:39:35 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
These so-called Republicans only significant contribution to the American political landscape will forever be known as the Clinton presidency. . . that it should be tattooed (backwards) on the foreheads of all the idealogue wingnuts

It's funny you blame conservative for Clinton's victories. Why I thought Bush 41 was running for president not cantankerous freepers. Bush 41 was a lousy president. Perot was a demogogue. Clinton won get over it.

However, you can thank Bill and Hill for Newt and the republican takeover in '94. If Bush 41 had stumbled to reelction in '92 the dems would likely control congress today.

I expect you will be sending thank you notes to us wingnuts for enabling the rise of the republican congress. In the long run sound principles sometimes eventually prevail. Expidiency is brief and not very satifying.

58 posted on 10/16/2005 7:40:23 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
".... 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."

WELL SAID!!

59 posted on 10/16/2005 7:41:28 PM PDT by jdhljc169
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
That is why I trust that President Bush choosed Miers because he knows she is an Originalist and a Conservative and has much more chances of being confirmed by the Senate than a publicly known conservative nominee.

I can respect your trust in the President but cannot share it. Unlike Roberts, she has not practiced constitutional law, so there is no way to ensure that she is an originalist or a conservative. I will work for her defeat, and you can work for her success. If she's defeated, I hope the President will nominate somebody with a conservative record. If she's approved, I hope that your trust in the President was well-placed.
60 posted on 10/16/2005 7:42:30 PM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-385 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson