Posted on 10/16/2005 6:40:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
The White House branded its increasingly vocal conservative critics as "cynical" yesterday as the dispute over President George W Bush's nomination of his official lawyer to the Supreme Court deepened.
Many Republicans have described Harriet Miers as unqualified for such an important job. They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.
Critics have seized on correspondence between Miss Miers and the Bush family to portray her as a lightweight.
Mr Bush's top aide, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, criticised the campaign by influential party figures to prevent Miss Miers's elevation to America's most powerful court.
"I'm a little surprised they came out of the box so cynically," he told a television interviewer.
The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation.
The White House has suffered a dire six weeks during which it has been criticised for the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and its legislative programme.
As Mr Bush's approval ratings have sunk to an all-time low, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, has faced questioning for his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
To add to the Republican's woes, the party's "iron fist" in Congress, Tom DeLay, has been indicted for criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
He says the charges are politically motivated.
Newsweek magazine noted yesterday that the Bush administration was now being seen as "a political machine that has lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui".
Such talk has increased the Bush team's determination not to suffer defeat on the Miers nomination. But many believe the case against her is already overwhelming.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
There are two wings of the Republican Party: the ideologically-driven wing which is committed to the fight against liberalism against all else, and the wing which is committed to governing and which realizes that compromise is essential to successful governance.
The ideological wing of the party has launched an intra-party fight in the expectation that it will serve to energize Republicans for the upcoming elections.
I believe they are wrong.
Rush Limbaugh has been advancing the argument that a fight between Republicans is a good thing.
He uses the example of the 1976 Republican convention as his example.
He argues that the fight surrounding Ronald Reagan’s nomination challenge to Gerald Ford energized the base so that Reagan was able to win in 1980.
Rush’s reasoning is an example of the logical fallacy post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after the fact therefore because of the fact) and as such is thoroughly specious.
Reagan’s challenge to Ford almost certainly was the reason that Ford lost, but that’s as far as it goes.
The reason that Ronald Reagan won in 1980 was because Jimmy Carter was such a thoroughgoing doofus, not because Reagan challenged Ford in 1976.
Had a capable Democrat been elected instead of the hapless Carter, Reagan might not have been elected.
I, for one, do not want to see this scenario repeated.
The election of someone like Hillary Clinton in 2008 will not necessarily guarantee conservative victories in subsequent elections.
We’re still paying for the Carter administration — the Iranian ayatollahs, the Panama Canal lost, a prohibition on oil drilling in Anwar and other national indignities.
Rush is dead wrong about the desirability of an intra-party fight and so are the idealogues who threaten to wreck the GOP.
I find it a bit ironic quidnunc that you are citing the Telegraph to support your position on the Miers nomination.
As a committed idealogue (and Rush fan), I believe that it is the "moderates" and other RINOs who threaten to wreck the GOP.
Had to add your own bias to the headline, right?
Stellar Dendrite: ping-a-ling.
Totally tone deaf.
I believe that Harriet Miers will be confirmed but at considerable political cost. Once on the Supreme Court, if she does anything other than huddle close to Scalia/Thomas, if she goes squishy like O'Connor, she will do great harm both to Bush and the Republican Party.
I don't think Ford lost because Regan challenged him in the primaries. I think he lost because of Nixon, and because he pardoned Nixon, and because the MSM of course made him out a dolt from day one. Of course, the MSM was quite cruel to Carter too, but he was indeed a miserable failure.
It wasn't so long ago that Rush was singing a completely different tune.
He was adament that the only way to advance the conservative agenda was through winning elections, and that the GOP was the only game in town for conservatives.
Bush loyalists are performing mental gymnastics to rationalize, justify, and defend this feckless pick. Bush started this fight by choosing a stealthy mediocrity much to the disappointment of damn near everyone (including persistent defender and Mier supporter Hugh Hewitt, who wanted Luttg). W pulled an HW and the prognosis is poor. W divided the conservatives not the other way around.
Pragmatic and compassionate Conservatism is the best formula for winning and achieving our goals little by little.
And that is still the case. I doubt Rush will abandon Bush or the GOP and neither will I. But I do object to the president appointing his personal friend and lawyer to such an important lifetime position.
BTW, my comment was meant for Quidnunc.
My bad!
As Paul Harvey says, "Here's the rest of the story." Why does Limbaugh want to win elections? To advance conservatism not just to win more elections. I hope "Republicans" are not in the early stages of Lord Actons maxim:
power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Was no politically asture person such as perhaps Karen Hughes or Karl Rove, available for duty on this task?
As long as the nominee has good common sense and is a Conservative, I dont care if Bush picked Mickey Mouse.
I think all this crap about Harriet Miers is just that. A lot of crap.
Oh, and the argument that this fight ensures a Hillary election is specious in itself. The Republican nominee will not be the current President or his VP. Seperate issues..
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.