Posted on 10/20/2005 9:05:37 PM PDT by gpapa
What a wasted opportunity.
Thanks a hell of a lot, George. I'm sure those you were begging to vote for you exactly a year ago ("because it's all about the judges!") are real pleased about how you've squandered their support.
Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation.
Think about it, Einstein. President Bush's credibility was boosted tremendously by the John Roberts success, while the 'Rats came off looking like petulent dimwits under the sway of the most radical elements of their party. Had the President nominated Michael Luttig, the conservatives and the Republicans would be united, the 'Rats would be sounding the same as before, and we would be having a national discussion about whether Schumer, Leahy, Kennedy, and co. are entitled to declare a certain judicial philosophy (our judicial philosophy) unsuitable for the bench; a fight we would have readily won. Instead we have a too-old, under-qualified enigma, who can only be defended through insults and obstinance directed at our political base. Congratulations on being too stupid to understand this, jerk!
A recess appointment is possible. What if the liberal Democrats and rino Republicans all vote against her because they believe she would rule against Roe vs. Wade? Bush says something to the effect of "I'll show all of them" and recess appoints the one he wants to serve the next year...........Harriet Miers.
If Miers does withdraw or bombs at the hearings, my guess is that Bush will ask O'Connor to stay on for the remainder of the term, and start over with a new pick next summer.
Stellar, we need to start tracking all of those Pro-miers folks who have been yelling how we are all going to look stupid when she is confirmed, and remind them of what they said when she is not confirmed.
Or at least next year sometime. The closer the nomination fight is to election day, the greater its potential impact on the election. One third of the senate seats are up for grabs and each side will be weighing the imapact of the fight on their respective bases against the risk of alienating the undecideds.
I hope and pray Bush picks someone who nomination will fire up the Republican base. In recent history, unlike the Democrats' base, we've shown the ability to deliver elections when we're fired up.
"Well, it is definitely possible that she will surprise a lot of people during the hearings"
I think so. It's not like the bar is very high now. I mean if she doesn't drool on herself, she will probably beat expectations at this stage.
Your post might have been a bit long for the person you replied to to read it....
It's like a FReeper 'Survivor' show.
I doubt it. Some say expectations are so low she can easily exceed them. I think the opposite may be the case. If she stumbles even once (as she apparently did in the 47 page questionnaire) that's all anyone will talk about about. Fair or not, she's already been branded. It's going to be a steep hill to climb with no support on the right flank and attacks coming from the left.
The WH should pack it in and start over. Whether the WH wants to admit it or not, a fight for Miers is not the court fight the right was expecting (hoping?) for.
Thanks, SD. I missed this one!
You don't get mad at bad judgement by someone you support... you become sadly disappointed.
That's probably true for some, but not all by any means. While I disagree with W on at least one fundamental issue, I've thought highly of him on others, particularly the WOT. Plus I've always considered him to be a straight shooter, which counts for a lot. And I've thought that he has the ability to see the big picture, to concentrate on what is important to the country.
But this fiasco is making me wonder I'm whether or not Bush might be a dumbass at some level, or at least unfocused.
Maybe time will prove me wrong, you never know when a second stringer called from the bench will turn out to be a hero. But I sure am wondering.
The political geniuses at the White House thought they were going to avoid a fight....if you hear all the posts around FR, many say that this was a genius strategy because we can't fight a battle we can't win, etc.
So it seems that their genius idea of avoiding a fight has failed...so they are left to fight for this nominee (which seems to be something few conservatives are willing to help out on), or try again.
That is, if the geniuses at the White House can figure out that maybe their political acumen in this instance was not what they thought it was....
"It has everything to do with the Anti-Miers being mad at Bush."
All I can say is that if true, then GWB is in pretty bad shape...in other words if all that are piling on against Miers have truly become anti-Bush, then Bush has much bigger issues than just losing this nominee.
Mutual admiration society.
The answer that typically comes to that question is "somebody worse." The most often mentioned by name is Alberto Gonzales.
One reason given for it being "somebody worse" is that the President will be angry with the opposition to Ms. Mires nomination, and will strike out to get even. I.e., spite.
Who knows what he'll do.
If he picked Gonzalez, he would go down in history as a small minded who squandered opportunity after opportunity to make any real difference on the court.
Roberts for Renhquist - Status Quo
Gonzales for O'Connor - Status Quo.
He made a specific promise and must be held to account.
Yes, I understand...I was only commenting on the idea, not necessarily to you.
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.