Posted on 10/21/2005 7:45:54 AM PDT by libstripper
The Miers nomination might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency.
Republican presidents have long been drawn to the “stealth strategy” on judicial nominations, picking conservatives, or supposed conservatives, without a public record so it will be harder for Democrats to oppose them. In the John Roberts nomination, a modified stealth strategy reached its height, giving the Court what is likely to be a conservative chief justice for the next 30 years. In the Harriet Miers nomination, the stealth strategy has all but collapsed, producing what might be the most catastrophic political miscalculation of the Bush presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I well remember the criticisms of Thomas as a "lightweight" and an "affirmative action" appointment, and how GHW Bush "passed over" many more-qualified candidates.
We have some basis for our views on Roberts. First of all, he had some record as a justice. He also had writings.
And last, we KNOW he understands the constitution, and can speak about it with authority. Therefore, when he says how he will interpret the constitution, we know at least that he KNOWS what it means to do so.
We don't know that with Miers. She might say she is a strict constructionist, and think that means there is a right to proportional representation in the 14th amendment.
Care to put some money where your keyboard is? I think you are wrong.
I wasn't speaking for you, except maybe where I referred to bots.
Wrong Rich. Spending the taxpayers money like a liberal, expanding the fedral bureaucracy and ignoring immigration reform have been Bush`s biggest failures. Unless Miers screws up royal, she'll be confirmed.
And some argue that government by deception is a good thing, as long as the other guy is the victim. I argue the opposite, in "Uncertainty," the Nominee.
I believe the DEM party is morally and ethically corrupt.
It's demoralizing to realize that GWB and the GOP are headed in the same direction, at least in the realm of Judicial nominations.
See its the "we get her secretary" comments that really make it hard for the anti-miers folks to gain better traction with the "wait-and-see" folks.
If her opponents would stick to the solid, well-founded issues of capability and jurisprudence, they would be more accepted. Nobody wants a judge that is incapable, or that has the wrong judicial philosophy.
If his lawyer for the last 10 years had been a male, can you imagine anybody would have called HIM "his secretary"?
LOL
Defeatism.
Note the poster who called her "his secretary". Honestly think: Would Alberto Gonzales be dismissed as "his secretary"? Would any male lawyer be dismissed as someone who is "his secretary", or who "is good at getting coffee"?
Opponents hurt their cause with mindless personal attacks. Stick to the real issues.
I already have a bet with someone here. My experience with Freepers paying up isn't good. But I'm on record. Look me up in a year.
Count me in, then.
1. She was Bush's secretary. It's on her Senate questionnaire. It says:
January 2001-June 2003: Staff Secretary, The White House, Washington, D.C. 20502.
2. I'm not trying to gain any traction with anyone. If the anti-Miers folks wanted any more traction, they'd need chains and studs on their tires. We've got plenty of traction, thanks.
Dennis Prager, who had been a big Harriet backer, is indicating that it may be time for Bush to admit that he blew it and withdraw the nomination. He is also suggesting that W may be a bit out of touch.
Dubya is simply putting the best face on a BAD situation.
Good thing Bush doesn't suck at chess.
If he'd held that position, yes. Actually, I think if she were a he, the gloves would really be off. I think folks are going easy on her because they feel sorry for her. She is being pitied, not pilloried.
See, people who use the argument that we shouldn't "capitulate to the fringe wing of a party throwing a hissy fit" are people who do not identify with the party's core beliefs. So they term people who hold to views mainstream enough in the party to BE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE PARTY PLATFORM to be "fringe" people. At that point the person loses credibilty with me. They're obviously working for the other side.
Ya just wish President Bush and the team would've fought as hard for Miguel Estrada as they have now for Meirs!!! SIGH...
and there is no stench of cronyism?
Yep, history has shown that he never means what he says... /sarc
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.