Definately needs more cowbell...
Posted on 10/07/2005 2:34:38 AM PDT by pookie18
The Harriet Miers nomination has set off one of the most delightful psychodramas in recent Washington history. President Bush, the habitual iconoclast, shattered prevailing traditions and expectations by asking his former personal attorney and now-White House counsel to assume a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Elites hate the nomination. Miers, in contrast to the polymath John Roberts, has little direct experience with constitutional law, and may know less about cases and precedents than such potential inquisitors as Sens. Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. She hasn't spent time on the federal bench. She hasn't written sage articles for prestigious law reviews. She has little conventional pedigree — and that drives the local elites nuts.
Conservative activists also count themselves unamused. Sen. George Allen told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that of the 100 phone calls his office got on the Meirs pick before noon last Monday, only three supported the president's pick.
Many conservatives wanted the president to duke it out with Senate Democrats by selecting a known and documented constitutional originalist — Judges Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown topped many wish lists. The president, the thinking went, not only could have established himself as the King of Capitol Hill, he also could have killed the recent Democratic tactic of slurring and smearing conservative judicial picks.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Definately needs more cowbell...
Tony Snow always gets the "DUH! Mr. Obvious!" Award from me...hyuk, hyuk!!!
Interesting article and take on the political savvy of the President. I would like point out that many Conservatives who dislike this nomination are not elites.
I would support Tony for the SCOTUS.
Definitely could learn how to spell a little better.
Yes --- remember this:
****
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
I saw pictures of her as a tennis star in college. She was not unattractive. Take off the black crap, Harriet! ......... and get rid of the crazy bangs.
*****
Yep.
There are a lot of folks who do not know how to dress and put on make-up. Just go to an airport, or a movie theater, or... I'm especially attracted to the 300 pound 50 year old in tights with her boobs tucked in the waiste band! LOL
As mad as I was about the pick of Ms. Miers, I'm starting to think that President Bush has roped the dopes again.
So what! She will be nothing but a VOTE when it comes down to it. She can be just as dumb as a rock but if, as GW says, "she has my judicial philosophy" and she has it for the next 20 years, who cares?!
She can sit and read comic books or do a good cross word puzzle and then ask some really good lawyer questions then VOTE Pro-life, Anti-Gay, Pro-business, Anti-envirowhackos and on and on and on...
A VOTE that will back the President and all of us on the Right.
I'm starting to think that this pick is nothing more than the dopes got roped again.
Bushbot article. I think a lot of these people overrate George W. Bush. Even as the Democrats underestimate him, I think many Republicans overestimate him.
GW's pros:
Places high importance on character
Disdain for beltway culture
GW's cons:
Sometimes bows to political correctness
Unwilling to fight his political foes
That's a possibility, I guess. I was hoping for someone bright enough to know how to vote on those instances, for example, where Scalia and Thomas DON'T vote the same way. But we'll see. She might be able to do more than read comic books. Personally, I don't want someone who votes anti gay, pro business, etc. I want someone who votes pro constitution no matter where the chips fall.
Overestimate or oversell? I think he's just trying to be positive.
LOL
The upcoming confirmation hearings will determine her fate — and the president's. If she defies expectations, George Bush will look like a genius. If the Senate rejects her nomination, his presidency will come effectively to an end.
Good article but for that tidbit at the 'end'. The fact is this: W is the leader of the GOP, now, and will remain so for a long, long time. His stamp of approval for future nominees in future elections will be very eagerly sought. The Harriet nomination, whether it goes through or not will only strengthen W (primarily b/c of her Biblical World View).
Tony was right about the genius part, but if the nomination is torpedoed, the fault will solely rest w/ Rinos first, demonrats second. Harriet and Bush will have done their part to fantastically encourage or motivate the base. Either way, the Rinos/Demonrats are going to suffer b/c of Ms. Miers and her boss.
I'm considering taping the hearings it will be such a joy to watch....
I think if you take a principled conservative with her belief in strict constructionism, and combine her with Roberts as Chief Justice, Scalia and Thomas, you get a court that can persuade anyone but Ginsberg to vote as a strict constructionist.
The latest from the Snow Man.
Of all the people to talk about why we should not be worried, it should not be you.
don = do
For SCOTUS? I don't know, he is a little to lawyer like. :-}
Good observation. -I think if you take a principled conservative with her belief in strict constructionism, and combine her with Roberts as Chief Justice, Scalia and Thomas, you get a court that can persuade anyone but Ginsberg to vote as a strict constructionist.-
I like William Buckley's comment that you could take the first 100 names from the telephone book and get more combined wisdom than from 100 Harvard grads. Character is everything.
Well maybe then Reid and the other Dumas** errrrr Dems will not give her the pass and then we get to put up those we really wanted and we can have that good fight that I think we really, really want.
We and our children need to see and watch this process.
The lady looks a mite feisty. Give 'em hell, Harriet.
Thanks for the ping, Bahbah!
Good morning, Prophet in the wilderness!
Perhaps we disagree on this item but I would like to point out this blog that has a different take on why W chose Harriet Miers.
:-) So that we appreciate each other I will add the disclaimer - I am pro W and am supporting this nomination, but I understand your concerns :-)
http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/case-for-miers-when-things-look-blurry.html
Sorry-- I did not mean to infer that you weren't also pro W. I need caffeine.
"I saw pictures of her as a tennis star in college. She was not unattractive. Take off the black crap, Harriet! ......... and get rid of the crazy bangs."
...
Agree. Women should never put mascara under the eyes. The skins natural oil makes it eventually spread giving the appearance of a racoon. And only a few women with black hair look good wearing red lipstick otherwise it's too harsh looking. Harriet is fortunate, she has the kind of face that only requires a hint of make up as a compliment not as a distraction.
>>"Thanks Tony Snow. I don like you and respect you, but you worked for the Bush White House when this disaster happened." <<
Yes, but wasn't he a speech writer or something like that? I don't think he had any say in policy decisions.
The President's judgment should be trusted here. Faced with a protracted and probably unsuccessful battle to put someone on the Court who is championed by the conservatives he has selected a person who he has worked with for many years and a person who has practical experience. She has also accomplished a considerable amount when you look at her career in Texas. Personally, it gives me hope that some "common-sensibility" will be in those chambers during discussions. She is as close to a "Heartland" pick as they come.
"Sen. George Allen told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that of the 100 phone calls his office got on the Meirs pick before noon last Monday, only three supported the president's pick. "
"You can't arrive at truth by counting noses" said one philosopher. He's right. 50,000 Frenchmen (or any men) CAN be wrong.
The fact that George W. Bush has ignored or bypassed the usual routes to stardom (Harvard, Yale) tells me his Christian rebirth is real.
and a Bush bashbot reaction....
I don't know what more the conservative critics want. As I read her qualifications and philosophy I perceive that Harriet Miers is the very candidate the Democrats feared most. She thinks like Dubya!
But they'll accept her. Ried even recommended her!
Make that A LOT more cowbell!
let's just go for a cowbell solo!!
Moreover, a usually adept Bush White House has taken a clumsy approach towards trying to beat down skepticism towards Miers. National Review Online says she isn't tough enough to stand up to the Liberals on the Court and the Washington Post Style section. The White House then releases interviews of friends who said getting a memo past her was "the gauntlet" and that she "spits nails." She is discovered to have contributed to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentson, so the White House tells us she is a born-again Christian.
Can you imagine if the White House had gone to such lengths with Justice Roberts? We would have been gifted with releases of his First Communion Mass book and pictures of his Confirmation at age 15. I too am a evangelical Christian, but this was "spin." Who is to say how mature her faith is?
Sir--I appreciate your service. You are correct in what you said about your defense of Justice Thomas. That was the last "broken coke bottle" nomination process we had. That man was bloodied by lesser men and women who stood in judgment against him. Let us not dance around the reason they did this to him either: abortion. Sadly, when Clinton had his turn to nominate a jurist, he was able to pick a radical ACLU lawyer, who never answered one question about her ugly past, and showed Sen Biden and the Committee colored drawings of her made by her grandchildren. She passed 97-3.
I think Carl Rove was too clever by half with this nominee. Stealth? You betcha. A hail Mary pass over everyone's head? Yup. Did he foresee how angry the base would be over this "most qualified in the nation" nominee?
Lastly, we must ask ourselves: "Why is this man smiling?"
Thanks again Mr. Snow for what you do.
Ed Gillespie was on Tony's show yesterday, and had an interesting comment. No one knows 'who' was on the list, and no one knows how many may have been asked and may have said 'no thanks'. Who wants to undergo the anal exam by the Senate dims and the press?
Certainly has been interesting watching the upper class of conservatives come unglued. Guess we could call this "hurricane Harriet" breaking open the levies of elitist conservatives, a collective blast of soaked powder.
and many dims/libs underestimate him.
Hqave you listened to what he has had to say about it? He has covered it on his show.
Sorry for my misunderstanding.
I do think that W is very concerned about not repeating a Souter and I think that he has been careful here, even if unconventional in his approach. If he weren't convinced she'd stay conservative, he wouldn't have selected her.
Also just as a reference, W has selected great judicial nominees up until this one. It's worth letting her win conservative folks over in the hearings.
I also think that a panel of philosopher kings, even if judicial conservatives, may spell disaster in that you wind up with personality wars. Roberts is brilliant, but he's not flashy like Scalia. Miers is no slouch either -- I think it's great to draw a candidate from a background in which the candidate is accountable to a boss -- whether to be accurate, on time or a good team player.
My two cents :-)
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.