And the adjustments can start right here:
Posted on 10/27/2005 3:39:07 PM PDT by smoothsailing
October 27, 2005, 5:07 p.m.
Starting Over
After Miers.
Within hours of the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination, commentators were labeling President Bush a "lame duck." They have their analysis exactly backward. Continuing a debilitating fight with his own political base over a weak Supreme Court nominee would have hastened the day that Bush lost his political juice entirely. Withdrawing Miers is the first step toward recovery.
It shows that the White House has not lost all of its political judgment, that it has no mad design to try to govern without its most loyal supporters, and that it is still — despite all the pressure it's facing and some of the inevitable sclerosis that sets in after five years in power — supple enough to readjust after a mistake. Indeed, one of the first rules of politics is not to persist in an error for persistence's sake.
And the Miers nomination was a mistake. Some of her supporters claim that she was "borked," the famous verb created after Ronald Reagan nominee Robert Bork was taken down in a hail of misrepresentations. But it was difficult to misrepresent Miers's positions, because she had so few of them, and, as we learned in recent weeks, they often were contradictory or incoherent (against "the right to choose," and for women's "self-determination"; against the Federalist Society, and for it). No one disputed, as Miers's supporters argued, that she is kind to pets and small children and goes to church every Sunday. It's just that those are qualifications for a neighbor, not a Supreme Court justice.
Backers of Miers didn't give Bush enough credit. They argued that he would never withdraw Miers, because once he is set on a given course, he never changes direction. In this, they adopted a version of the Left's view of Bush — an unthinking political brute, lumbering on with no regard to truth or consequence. In fact, Bush adjusts. He endorsed the Homeland Security Department after opposing it, and removed Michael Brown from the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency after praising him. Bush persists when he thinks it's right and important — say, in fighting in Iraq or in preserving his tax cuts. The Miers nomination was neither.
That's not to say that the White House didn't need nudging. When most Republican senators were either supinely supporting the nomination or snippily dismissing Miers's critics ("what business do these mere mortals have trying to affect Senate business?") or wringing their hands and resorting to mealy mouthed evasion over a nomination they privately thought was a disaster, Kansas Republican Sam Brownback was more vocal about his doubts than anyone else. If it wasn't quite a profile in courage, it was a profile in more bravery than his Senate colleagues could muster.
During the Miers imbroglio, there was much talk of a conservative crackup. But the nomination created no deep, lasting splits on the Right, despite some harsh words in the blogosphere between Miers's critics and supporters who had the attitude "My president, right or wrong." Many of the arguments used to try to bolster her nomination — practically anyone can be a Supreme Court justice; valuing top-flight credentials is "elitist" — will be quickly retired, which will be a relief since they never should have been advanced in the first place.
The Miers nomination will be forgotten as quickly as the Kerik nomination (remember it?), especially if Bush now picks a supremely qualified judicial conservative. In considering his options, Bush should roam free of the constraints of gender politics — it's quality that matters most. But a solid pick will heal only one of Bush's wounds. The gravest political threat to his presidency is that he has no popular, high-profile initiatives. The Iraq war, if necessary and right, is unpopular. His Social Security initiative is dead. His guest-worker proposal might, unlike Miers, truly fracture the Right. The initial proposal floated out of his tax-reform commission, limiting the mortgage-interest-rate deduction, is a non-starter.
After Miers, there is adjusting still left to do.
— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
(c) 2005 King Features Syndicate
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200510271707.asp
It is worth noting that Bush's butchering of this pick will cost us 3 separate votes this fall on abortion related rulings. Fire Andy Card..NOW!
And the adjustments can start right here:
YES YES YES
"Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom (Janice Rogers Brown Speech to Institute for Justice)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1510443/posts
Janice Rogers Brown The choise of this male conservative.
Ditto!
Sorry folks, but the Souter nom will be the last one conservatives give blind faith for. From now on, it has to be someone of impectable creditials with a track record to prove it. Don't blame us for the Miers snafu...blame Bush and his advisers.
I gladly voted for Bush twice, and do not regret having done so. That said, with his gross mismanagement since the second term started, if he were able to run again, I would vote against him in the primary...but as a Christian to others of the faith, always vote for the GOP in the general, regardless of who it is. Outside of normal circumstances, the Republican candidate will always be the more conservative, and more sympathetic to our views. Voting for the Dems is voting for the enemy; when you stand before the Man, if you're guilty of anything, don't let voting for Dems be in that number...
Absolutely, my tagline had been captured by her already.
National Review will never be able to repair the rift it helped create in the Republican Party. I disagree with Rush Limbaugh. Miers withdrawl will give Democrats an advantage in 2006 and will not unite conservatives enough to stem the attacks from the left.
Janice Rogers-Brown!!! it's first and goal from the one inch line (AGAIN)
My thoughts on the Harriet Miers withdrawal...
---
"Harriet Miers nomination called back for unsportsman like conduct towards the conservatives who elected you President Bush."
"Replay first down..."
"Janice Rogers-Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sweep right on two...."
Not only is she well-qualified, but she will win her own public relations battle through her own words... without any assistance necessary from ANYONE!
This also brings the radical hate groups like michael moore & moveon.org, etc., and blame American first senators like john kerry, joe biden, barabara boxer, hillary clinton and company into play. All these groups, their supporters and leftist senators can't hold a candle to Janice Rogers-Brown. She can take them on with 'half her
brain tied behind her back". The wacko left in the democRATic party can't touch her and will look like the wacko left fools they are trying to attack her.
DO NOT wimp out again President Bush! Your interception was called back because of a penalty... it's now first and goal AGAIN from the one inch line.
Take the enthusiasm of every college football stadium in the country on any given Saturday in autumn... that comes close to matching the emotion of support that President Bush will enjoy for selecting a nominee to SCOTUS who is a strict constructionist and will NOT make up laws based on their own personal beliefs. Janice Rogers-Brown is
the poster woman for this philosophy.
Janice Rogers-Brown!!! Touchdown for the conservatives who elected you into office!
Which would be just fine with me.
Sadly, I fear Bush is more likely to nominate the guy who cuts his hair.
I agree.
Personally, it will be funny to see their implosion if Gonzales is the nominee as the fault will be squarely on their shoulders.
I like it though, let's have the damn fight. The one thing President Bush needs right now is a fired up base.
(Janice Brown- "Put me in, Coach,I'm ready to play!)
Most Americans have a very short attention span for these type of things (as do I) and are too often mistake the immediate "crisis" of the day for actions that have staying power. If Bush nominates a Brown or Luttig, Miers will soon be forgotten. There is no fracture within the party, or at least no fracture that wasn't there pre-Miers. Conservatives will still vote conservative...for to vote third party is to simply give more power to the left. Limbaugh is right when he says that conservatives disagree on all sorts of stuff, but they still back conservatism. No harm no foul on this one.
"It will be funny to see how the "true conservatives"
....................................
well I guess you have labeled yourself as NOT a true conservative..nuf said you are now ignored.
Karl Rove? He woudn't dare!
"No one disputed, as Miers's supporters argued, that she is kind to pets and small children and goes to church every Sunday."
Statements like this are patronizing, snotty and unnecessary. How can they wonder why people called them "elitist?"
I posted the same thing on an earlier thread. I WOULD love to see them bork him and then send up one a little more liberal and so on. Then the American public will have its say.
The one thing President Bush has right now is a fired up base.
 Withdraw Miers nomination  Nominate Janice Rogers Brown Fire Andy Card |
Don't hold your breath. It won't be Gonzales.
Well, we're fired up, but whether we're still Bush's base is now up to him.The one thing President Bush needs right now is a fired up base.The one thing President Bush has right now is a fired up base.
Ain't no 'might' about it.
I never argued that we should just trust Bush, that anybody could be a justice, or that valuing credentials was "elitist". I know that some did.
My argument was that some critics of miers went way over the top, they attacked her for personal views or other matters which should NOT have any bearing on a judicial nomination (like her personal positions on issues, or her political party affiliation or donations).
Worse were those who argued that Bush should be required to pick from a "short list" prepared by the conservatives who elected him, and if he doesn't the nominee should be withdrawn.
In the end, her inability to step up to the task of winning over the senators, her poor showing on her questionare, and information from speeches appeared which showed that, on constitutional issues, her positions were unclear were all that would be needed to sink the nomination.
She did not prove she was qualified, or that she had the judicial temperament to be a SC justice. She did not prove she had a good judicial philosophy, much less prove that she had a solid foundation for that philosophy.
Those were the only good reasons to thwart a nomination, and they were all we needed to argue to get this result.
But I can guarantee you that with the next nominee, the democrats and liberal interest groups will use all of those "bad" arguments above, and conservatives will be greatly limited in our ability to argue on principle against those attacks -- because too many of our own ranks used those same arguments to acheive their "noble" goal.
I want to be part of the party of principle, not the party of "whatever it takes to win".
I think this will be the last thing I say about this sorry affair.
I am not sad Miers has withdrawn. I am sad how those who I agree with philosophically handled themselves.
What I should have said is a fired up base flying in formation.
Yeah, Rich, and your snot-nosed crew at NRO will, no doubt, try to put a gun to Bush's head over the next thing he does that gets your Fruit-of-the-Looms in a wad.
But, don't worry. Bush is a bigger man than you and Goldberg and Frum, put together. He'll still show up at your pitiful little dinners every year to give them some presidential heft.
"National Review will never be able to repair the rift it helped create in the Republican Party. I disagree with Rush Limbaugh. Miers withdrawl will give Democrats an advantage in 2006 and will not unite conservatives enough to stem the attacks from the left."
While I disagree with your conclusion, I'm curious about this rift. The only way any rift will persist is if people like you keep it going? The rest of us are going to go back to work.
So are you going to keep it going?
"Personally, it will be funny to see their implosion if Gonzales is the nominee as the fault will be squarely on their shoulders."
No, it will be on the President's shoulders.
There's also our national disgrace - the non-vote. Most conservatives - at least the ones i know - would not vote for a liberal Democrat, given a choice. However, not given a choice, they will stay away altogether. Disengagement of the political process is most often permanent.
You practically wrote my response as well.
Go back to work.
I'm having a little trouble reconciling this:
"Shut up davis. You won. Now show some manners and stop running around, rubbing it in"
with this:
"Bush is a bigger man than you and Goldberg and Frum, put together. He'll still show up at your pitiful little dinners every year to give them some presidential heft."
Maybe it's the part about manners, I don't know.
BTW, great screen name!
"Go back to work."
Is that supposed to be a response?
So drop it. You won. Now, mind the manners your mother taught you and stop rubbing it in.
Bush created a wedge issue out of thin air. He's the one to blame. NRO was just one of the thousands of messengers that noticed it.
Kerik wasn't a RINO, and the Director of Homeland Security isn't as important as SCOTUS, at least to most people. I'm afriad her nomination will be remebered like Nixon's for Carswell. The only consolation is hopefully Bush will nominate a conservative fire breather now.
Exactly how was she "borked"? Her views were not mischaracterized.
I stayed away from most of those threads so I wouldn't have thought you were addressing me per se.
That is so great! That Card is our achilles heal.
He didn't withdrawl her nomination .. Meirs withdrew herself
Hey Rich ... You folks have won this battle .. and you can fight the next one alone ..
I didn't like it when the liberals borked our nomination .. I really don't like it when our side does it
I'm glad you read that, I put it on top of my post to make sure. :)
I would like to see the president make a good choice we all agree on. I don't agree with the president on all issues but I respect him and I support him.
I have far more issues with the Republicans in Congress who need to grow a spine and help the president and his choices easier for all of us.
Indeed, one of the first rules of politics is not to persist in an error for persistence's sake.
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.