Posted on 10/06/2005 2:52:59 PM PDT by maryz
Why are Democrats and liberals so silent on the nomination of Harriet Miers? "The oldest rule in politics is that when your adversaries are fighting among themselves, you keep quiet," says political handicapper Charlie Cook.
Mr. Cook says Democratic Senators are divided in their reaction to Ms. Miers. The older and more tradition-minded are distressed that the president chose someone so close to his inner circle with such a scant public record on legal issues. Of course, they neglect to mention their own role in encouraging the president in that course by filibustering so many of his appellate court nominees. As for younger Democratic Senators, Mr. Cook says they are positively gleeful that Ms. Miers was selected. "Given that Democrats have only 45 Senators they view it as dodging a bullet," he told me. "They feared getting someone who would have been far more formidable on the court."
snip
Conservatives should start to realize the fun and political gain that liberals are having at their expense. While skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself. And those on both sides of the political spectrum will be able to make a more informed judgment.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Good advice.
True enough. but then I'd have to stop goofing off and get back to work.
Your opinion is not wanted, just your campaign donations and your votes. After the election is over, shut up and get in the back of the bus.
Message received loud and clear.
Assuming she doesn't take the Ginsburg-Roberts approach and not answer anything.
The Democrats don't need to say anything, they have the White House trying to push through a Michael Dukakis campaign contributor. You expect the Democrats to rally around the President in support of his nominee? That wouldn't help get Miers confirmed.
A lot of people have said this type of thing. But really, do you think that "the republican party" chose this nominee?
The President, who isn't up for re-election, chose this nominee. The republicans in the senate could choose to reject it, or to accept it, but that is something to happen in the future. The house republicans have nothing to do with this, and WILL have nothing to do with this.
So, will you punish the house republicans, and your state and local republicans, because the president chose a nominee you don't like?
Will you punish the senate republicans before they even hold a hearing on the nomination?
WIll your lack of support for the republican party be helpful to the country? Or even be hurtful to the person you are really mad at, the president?
Do you want Harry Reid, who apparently suggested this nominee, to be running the Senate? WOn't that just mean more nominees like this?
I think his point is they're not criticizing her. Just getting out the popcorn.
No, but after 15 years of busting my butt for Republican majorities and total control of the government, I have realized that it was a total waste of time as once the moment came the GOP decided to end the era of even thinking about smaller government. I won't vote democratic, but I won't be lifting a finger anymore or donating a penny to the GOP (except for Coburn).
And whose fault is this? Bush's for picking this woman in the first place. He could have picked a conservative whose credentials we have confidence in, and we could then go ahead and focus on the matter of beating back the Democrats and slapping the Rino's in line. But instead we are stuck trying to figure out if we have another Souter on our hands.
Surely you realize how politicized this process has become, so that even Ginsburg couldn't answer honestly; a Republican surely can't. (I seem to recall Thomas telling the Senate that, no, he had never read Roe and had no opinion.)
You should, however, be able to take her measure to some extent, both from the way she handles the questions and the way both Dems and Republicans react. (Excepting Biden, of course, who is something of a one-man show!)
I'd rather turn the presidency over to a democrat. We do best with republicans in the congress fighting a democrat president, because then the republicans control spending. When it's the other way around, the president usually signs the bills raising spending.
THe republicans do seem to think they should buy our votes.
But, in their defense, we did need to spend some more money on one-time upgrades to defend the country against terror. I just wish it had been a capital improvement program rather than what looks like a continuing expenditure.
If beating back the Dems and slapping the RINOs were that easy, we would have exercised the nuclear option several months ago, and Bush would have had a free hand.
The House GOP deserves punishment for their outrageous spending habits in direct contradiction to promises of smaller government and fiscal responsibility.
The Senate GOP deserves punishment for their complete and utter lack of courage, and ratification of the House's spending.
The only practical way I can see of meting out such punishment is to support primary opponents of the offenders.
But neither of those things is at issue here.
I'm not mad at the President. I think this choice is a mistake. There's a big difference between the two.
If you hadn't noticed, Harry Reid IS running the Senate, because the GOP allows him to. And this nomination is a direct result of minority leader Reid, and not majority leader Frist, calling the shots on issues that truly matter.
Dukakis? You've posted this twice in different threads. It's BUNK, grow up.
That premise is wrong. They want Miers but can't openly express their support because it will doom the nominee.
If they begin to feel that Miers' nomination is threatened they will start going negative against her for the purpose of making conservatives back off of their doubts.
They will ultimately give Miers the number of votes required to confirm her...and only that many. Democrats huddle and decide who will vote what and they won't want to give the perception that they knew she was a Trojan Horse from the beginning.
Miers will play her role like A.Kennedy did. She will appear to be conservative at first and she will gradually become more liberal until she can safely be herself. To go liberal from the start would result in a bloody revolution.
She contributed the max to the DNC five days before the 2008 Presidential election. During Dukakis' final push for victory. Grow up? Face reality, friend.
Congressman Billybob
1988 I meant, obviously.
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.