Posted on 10/10/2005 9:55:59 PM PDT by Mike10542
gpapa responds:
Assuming I did oppose the Miers nomination are you suggesting I must leave this forum forever to join the DU-ers? Seem like a little quick to judge people on one issue. No?
I'm putting odds on RWI being a DU troll. Recent sign-up. His/her post is nasty even by Miers nomination argument standards. And, his post advances the cause of the left--there is nothing the left would like more than for about half of the conservatives to follow RWI's advise and get the heck out of the Republican party. That would leave Republicans with about 35% of the national vote.
Actual Republicans will never tell a big chunk of conservatives to leave the party. They will ignore us, tell us to shut up for the good of the party, and act embarassed that we are part of their coalition. But every two years, they will be back asking us to open our pocket books, walk precincts, and vote.
The poll should have been,Yes, No or Pass, just like the poll for Judge Roberts. The Miers poll provided an opportunity not only to Pass, but to Punt by saying Need More Information. I am not ready to pass judgment on this nominee yet. I will wait for the hearings to make that determination. That said, if the Miers poll had said Yes, No or Pass, I would have voted Pass.
If Miers is an enigma, we only have lily livered Senate "Republicans" to thank for that. Will all the Senatecritters who wanted Bush to nominate a rightwing goon, tell us just when they expect to effect the ballyhooed "nuclear option" to get him or her past the filiblusters?
I agree with you, many times I find fault with the questions of FR's polls, as well as this one. What exactly is the diff between Need More Info and "Pass"? BTW, I originally voted NMI for the same reason same reason that you would go for a pass in a Yes/No/Pass choice. The I vote Hillary is bizarre.
I disagree.
I agree with the above comment.
You noted that too eh?
I think there is some truth to this. I also think that getting another Thomas is just not as important to the President as it is to the base. I think he would like to appoint another Thomas if it wasn't too difficult; but he's balancing a lot more things than we are and he's a politician--part of the art of politics is being able to cut off your arm when you are in a tight spot.
The gang of 7 is partly responsible for the tight spot Bush finds himself in. But it's also that Bush doesn't believe that getting an originalist with a record is important enough to spend any of his dwindling political capital on.
And maybe he's right. Maybe we have to choose between fighting the WOT and having nominees that are originalists with records--we are 0-2 in that regard (notwithstanding Roberts' smarts, the jury is still out on him as a judge on the Supreme Court). Maybe there just isn't enough capital for both.
This doesn't make me any more thrilled about the nomination. But I think I understand why it and the Roberts nomination happened.
>
All actions must be viewed in terms of denying Democrats the right to nominate left wing extremist Justices.
All defense. No offense. The team that uses that strategy is apt to lose.
>
Look, it's not football. It's people. I know that sounds all touchy feely and squishy, but it need not be that.
Let's envision offense. Lets walk up to some rugged rural guy's house back in the woods of Maine. Let's knock on the door and say to him,
"We're offering you a real candidate for a change. Our guy doesn't mess around. We're going to do away with this public school focus. You have kids? Yeah, we're going to arrange so they can go to a better school. Our guy is going to step up to the plate and make damn sure we don't deal with these a**hole Democrats anymore. We have checked into where you are supposed to vote. Here's the address, but we're bringing a van around this area election day and it will be here in front of your house. That will be easier for you. We'll be here at 9 AM."
Here's the reply to that "playing of offense".
"If your van stops in front of my house, I can't do anything about that. If you come onto my land to knock on my door, I will set my dogs on you. My father was a Democrat and that's how I've always voted. I have never thought he was an a**hole. I think you're an a**hole. My kids never did nothing to hurt you and now you want to rip them out schools they are used to. You have 1 minute to get off my land."
You go ahead and play offense in liberal areas. You'll lose 10 Senate seats.
The proof will be in the pudding. I think GWB's pick has ticked off conservatives. The GOP hopes conservatives will still vote for the GOP, or that it doesn't need the support of the (hopefully few) people this move has disappointed.
I'm talking about winning conservative voters, and I want to see liberals and liberalism crushed.
This poll question, and the GOP party hacks, are attempting to focus all attention on the nominee, while avoiding questions of political fallout.
Does this nomination advance conservatism? Does this nomination energize the base? Do you think this nomination will cause more, or fewer voters to pull for the GOP in 2006? 2008? Does timidity in addresing Senate dysfunction energise the conservatives?
I think the debate here should be straightforward, instead of worrying about whether her law firm's PAC donated to Hillary or whether her church is pro-life.
The first and most fundamental question is, do we need a seasoned conservative jurist with decades of experience? Or is there merit to the argument that the Constitution is over-analyzed and we need some folks from outside the jurist caste to breathe some basic sensibility back into decisions (such as demanding that interstate commerce involve both commerce and interstate movement).
If someone decides that yes, only a jurist will suffice, then the debate is over at that point for that person.
The second question is, having decided that key point, could Bush have even nominated a constructionist conservative with a documented track record and gotten them confirmed in today's Senate environment? Or is a stealth candidate necessary?
Third, could Bush have nominated a male nominee given that some RINOs wanted a female nominee to replace O'Conner? If he could not have gotten a male nominee confirmed, then that eliminates Luttig, et al.
And fourth, if we get this far, does Miers have the experience and temperment to be a suitable alternative to the jurist caste, if there is agreement that such a person is viable? That is where the hearings will come into play.
I think if everyone focused on those four questions, we could eliminate a lot of the current bickering and have a better debate.
No harm done, an honor to receive such a well-reasoned post, even in error.
"Does this nomination advance conservatism? Does this nomination energize the base? Do you think this nomination will cause more, or fewer voters to pull for the GOP in 2006? 2008? Does timidity in addresing Senate dysfunction energise the conservatives?"
Ouch! Those are the tough questions, and I don't like the answers.
I think Mike wrote "cast doubt upon," not "opposed." Granted, that's a much milder response, but I think the comment was strictly accurate.
Just Shut Up sounds to me a little like a Jon Stewart routine--somebody ought to check under his bridge.
" Our Constitution was NOT written for lawyers."
Very true--but it was largely written _by_ lawyers. Come to think of it, if they had had FR back in 1787, I bet most of us would have been Anti-Federalists. ;-)
"Trent Lott is a sKerry beatnik lover."
LOL. Maybe the contrite, post-Strom Trent, although fortunately we haven't seen much of him in a while.
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.