Skip to comments.I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers.
Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
I decided to end my self-imposed exile from posting due to information that I received this past weekend from a little birdie in Washington, which I subsequently had confirmed by another insider if you can call him that.
You know I wont tell, so dont bother asking me for names, links, or further information. I trust these individuals, and have received accurate information from them before and shared it here on Free Republic. Of course, all are free to either accept or reject what I am about to share, but if you know anything about the Dog, I dont change my mind often, and my only goal is to pass on information that can help support the Conservative agenda.
Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bushs list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the stars who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.
More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.
Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.
Arlen Specter is in my opinion, a traitor to the Conservative movement. He has made it clear to the White House that he is determined to protect his legacy, by NOT supporting any name among those who might make it possible to overturn Rowe V. Wade. What that means, is that had Bush put up someone who might make us proud, Specter reneged on a PROMISE to support Bushs judicial nominees in return for his, (and especially Rick Santorums) support for his re-election. This promise was made when there was strong consideration for removing Specters pending chairmanship in favor of John Coryn, or an extension to the term of Orrin Hatch.
The removal of Specter from the Chairmanship would have been disastrous, because he would have remained a committee member, and would have sided with Democrats against the Presidents selections out of spite. So, why not simply remove Specter from the committee? That would have been really bad PR, considering Specters health issues at the time these decisions were being made.
One could argue that it might have been best to send up nominee after nominee, even if eventually defeated, but remember that OConner is only around hoping for a quick confirmation so that she can be with her ill husband. Bush was under the gun to come up with a confirmable candidate, or risk a Supreme Court not running at full strength as important rulings came under review.
I am told that Arlen Specter has gone back on every single promise he made when his chairmanship was still a question, and feels untouchable now that he is ill, because any punitive measures taken against him would be seen as less than compassionate by the MSM and Democrats, who admittedly would have a field day, were Specter punished for his duplicity. The sad thing is that after Scottish Law or even the Magic Bullet theory that some think that anything that Arlen Specter says can be trusted. Sure, he supported Clarence Thomas, but does anyone believe that Specter would still be a Senator if he had not?
Lets face it; our Republican Senate is an embarrassment. From the weakness of Frist, to the petulance of the dude who thinks he is leader McCain, down to his McCainiac compadre Lindsey (tinker-bell) Graham, to the nut from Mississippi who thinks he can actually get his leadership position back by actively rebelling against the President, we aint looking to good at all.
Our Republican Senate has as members at least 7 Democrats who could have never gotten elected as Democrats, who nonetheless support the Democrat agenda whenever they can get away with it, which unfortunately due to the weakness of Frist, is all too often. I find myself wishing Tom Delay would run for the Senate against Hutchinson, just so we can have someone in the Senate not afraid to break some heads to get things done. Why cant we have a Republican Lyndon Johnson when we need one?
Because our Republican Senate is so weak, President Bush cannot rely on them for much. He could not have gotten majority support in this current Senate for any judicial nominee that would have made us proud. The usual suspects have made it clear to the President that any nominee who would have put their re-election prospects at risk would vote against that nominee. The bottom line, is that the Republican Senate is made up of too many who want the job, but not the work. The only job they see before them is that of getting re-elected to another six year term.
Luttig, McConnell, JRB, Owen, Alito, or anyone else you want to name, would have been defeated, and probably defeated in committee, in order to save other Senators from having to vote them down on the floor. Of this, I am now convinced. Only two names were considered allowable for Senate confirmation; Miers and Gonzales. When Bush met with Senators, he was reportedly told that these two names were the only ones that stood a chance to be confirmed, but Gonzales would face pointed questions about Abu Gharab, Gitmo, and the administrations policy on torture. It would have been ugly, but he would have been confirmed against the added damage done by dejected a dejected conservative base, and liberal attacks on the Presidents agenda. There would have also had to be a new search for an Attorney General, which would have been just as ugly.
Had Bush put up selections that would have been defeated, the chorus of Lame Duck chanting coming out of Washington would have drowned out the Presidents agenda. A defeat in the Senate would have also signaled to Congress that they were on their own, and no longer had to back up, support, or even listen to President Bush. They would have been free to play the political-calculation game that the Democrats have been playing for 6 years; avoiding tough votes that would be used against them in a future campaign.
So, whats the bottom line?
The bottom line is that Bush did his best to give us what we want, in a way that will not hurt the prospects of the Conservative agenda. The primary thing that must be considered, is that the Congress can NEVER be put back in Democrat hands, for that would destroy all progress made up to now. Our day will come, but this aint it. If we had a Republican Senate made up of real patriots without the odd liberal in Republican clothing, things would be a lot better.
In Miers, Bush has clearly taken what he can get, and our best hope now is for another vacancy on the court before this administrations term is up. The current makeup of the Congress will just not allow our agenda to be passed at this time without major sacrifices and pragmatic thinking to overcome the inherit weakness of having traitors in our midst.
It appears to me that Harriet Miers is the best CONFIRMABLE candidate for the Supreme Court at this time. This fact is not the fault of the President. Indeed it is OUR fault. It is us who have supported less than the best candidates for the Senate. We are responsible for Chaffee, Snowe, McCain, Graham, Lott, Frist and other persons of questionable courage. We should not be blaming Bush for our own votes. We selected the people that the President must rely upon to move his agenda forward. If they are losers, then he loses too.
Though they literally suck, we are stuck with these people because we must keep the majority to keep our agenda alive. There have been worse moments for us, but none would be worse than than the day we lose the Senate our House majorities. I now believe that although Bush disapointed many of us, that he did the very best he could do without destroying our momentum.
Yes, like Rush Limbaugh said, it was a choice made from weakness.
But the thing to remember, is that it was not Bushs weakness, but our own, and that of the people we have elected to Congress that made this happen. Had they been strong, Bush could have selected anyone we wanted.
Because of what I now know about how and why Harriet Miers was selected, I withdraw my earlier statements against her, my statements suggesting anything less than my strong support of the President, and finally, my self imposed exile from Free Republic.
Pukin Dog is back, so deal with it.
I've lost count, which number opus are you on now?
Your dreams were your ticket out.
You make valid points. Thanks.
Come on, 'fess up. Miers is your mother.THAT'S why you're supporting her nomination. Otherwise, you're just another RINO.
Insiders???? Inside your own head. Get a life.
seriously, how many times have written anopus, or something like it, only to come back later?
I'm just curious.
You are just so lovable.......I'm glad you are back...
You made some good points and I do agree, welcome back
Couldn't agree with you more...
Welcome back. Develop an eye for sliders, and you'll be hitting again.
Thanks for the info and welcome back.
And you could choose not to be a drama queen and tell everyone that you're leaving with a vanity every time you have a snit.
Seriously, how many times have you done something like this?
This adds nothing to the discussion... just your personal conjecture that may or may not be true... much like Mier's record.
So you expect us to believe that every qualified constitutionalist jurist declined the nomination based on skeletons in their closets?
Who do you work for?
2 things I disagree with:
Specter will ultimately not vote against any Bush nominee (esp for SCOTUS). He values his chairmanship too much.
And Lindsey Graham deserves more respect IMO. During the Roberts hearings he came out firing against the Dems.
Yaaaaaaah! Now, don't ever do that again.
And if you think the Democrats are not lying in wait ready to pounce with some questions for Miers on obscure Supreme Court cases and constitutional theories, and will make her look look an idiot, I have a bridge to sell you.
I didn't even know you were gone. I guess I don't care.
Glad you've rethought your position some.
This is satire, right? Else my respect for F-14 pilots just took a flat spin.
Good for you dog, welcome back to the fold.
I wouldn't have much respect for our President if he
was to nominate someone for this position, then withdraw
their name just because of pressure from either party.
Three years is a long time, we know a lot is going to happen
in that period, we must turn and face the future.
"You do have the choice not to be an ass about it."
This, coming from someone who just said "shut up and read?"
You do seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.
Well, at least there's one principle this WH won't back down from...
All the above have skeletons eh? Sitting on the bench must be pretty racy. Miers seems more likely to vote against Roe than some of the above. She has a visceral biblical hatred of abortion. But she will just slip through the traitorious Specter net eh? I don't know whom you are talking to, but it ain't Moses.
By the way, I viewed your opus as self therapy. My best advice is to write an opus, revise it, think about it, maybe discuss it with significant others, or professionals in the therapy field, and then hit the delete button.
When I go, there will be no opus. It will be like that guy in the Phantom of the Opera. The body will just fade away, quietly in the night, and all that will be left is the mask.
LG was spectacular during the Roberts hearings. I have had doubts about him in the past, but, during those hearings he was great.
Supporting her or not is irrelevant. She will be confirmed and she's certainly not going to withdraw or be withdrawn.
Only history will tell us if she was a good choice.
As you and/or Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the Senate you have, not the one you want....
Bottom line is I trust Bush more than anyone with super secret inside information posting on a web forum, and that ain't saying much. Nice try though.
And by extension one might speculate that they might also have been forced from the bench altogether.
Interesting rant. I'm still waiting for this Repulican Senate to get a collective spine and stop acting like the minority party. I still am opposed to the Miers nomination.
Viva la Reagan revolution. I want him back, he had balls.
If the Senate will not back Bush, it is our fault
Welcome to the light.
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.