Posted on 10/05/2005 8:46:44 AM PDT by RightSideRedux
Nice points, and I have seen it argued that Bush failed his base, but Harriet is part of the religious right, and I suspect this base now feels very good that they supported Bush. There has not been much for them recently.
In Harriet's case I suspect that "Evangelical" is code for "pro-life". I am not a one issue voter, (unless maybe the second amendment), but there are certainly lots of pro-life voters who need this nudge in their camp. I suspect Harriet will be fought as strongly as any nominee and may well be filibustered when the left realizes she will vote conservative hook line and sinker.
Those conservatives who want a big senate fight may not be disappointed.
You may be correct... will Republicans then step up to defend her? If not, why not?
I don't see the logic of putting in a "placeholder" unless one is sure that the President who gets to choose her successor would be of the same political philosophy. Why relinguish the right to put in a conservative who will serve for 30 or more years?
If she is confirmed and is in fact the conservative we expected the president to appoint, years from now the same people who are trashing the President will be singing his and her praises.
I have never known President Bush to go for short term gains at the expense of long term gains. He has not done so now.
What makes you think that is a viable option? There are 19 RINOS in the Senate. There are never more than 36 Conservatives in the SENATE.
There are 36 Liberals in the senate. Do the math. The Democrats need 5 DINOs to filibuster. The Republicans need 14 RINOs to do the nuclear option. They don't have 14 RINOs that will vote for the Nuclear option. If Frist had had them he would have pulled the nuclear option last spring. The only chance for success is a stealth candidate. Bush does not want to appoint a Souter.. That is, a Republican that other Republicans tell him is Conservative and turns out not to be. Bush wants someone who he knows is Conservative. He had to find someone noone can prove is conservative or the Democrats will filibuster and win. The definition of a stealth candidate is a nominee that no one but the president knows is a conservative. It is Bush's only chance for success. Looks like he took it.
Only some one very ignorant of the situation can believe that Bush can get a person who is openly conservative confirmed. What part of "The Democrats BORKED BORK... and forced REAGAN to appoint the RINO KENNEDY" escapes you???? Is "All of it" the right answer?
The senate has 36 Conservatives, 19 RINOS, 9 DINOs and 36 Liberals... Do the MATH!!!!
The dems have got to assume that Miers will vote along with Scalia nad Thomas. Why don't they filibuster her nomination?
Perhaps President Bush's greatest strength is his ability to choose the right person for the job. Team-building is his greatest gifting. I believe he is keenly aware of the sins of his father, and I also believe that he will not repeat them.
The biggest prize on the court docket will be the overturning of Roe. In Miers, we will have a Justice who will ensure that.
Simply Excellent! I think you have charted it very well. Since I am a celebrity, please add Rodney King down next to Mark Levin.
Probably the three biggest chunks of the Bush coalition are the Christian/Pro-Life Right (think abortion and Shiavo), the Secular/Social Conservative Right (think borders and guns), and the Secular/Fiscal Conservative Right (think business and taxes). Obviously, the categories aren't perfect and there is much overlap, but I think they may be representative.
I think what is happening here with Miers is that Bush threw a bone (and not just any bone, but the biggest, juiciest one, the "swing vote") to the Christian/Pro-Life Right. The more secular elements of the coalition are now acting out a jealous rage. I think they assumed the "swing vote" was rightfully theirs.
Her official moniker is Hillary!(Curses be upon her).
Make a note of it. ; )
I don't share your defeatism. I believe Bush could have gotten any nominee through he wanted. But you assume defeat, because any candidate known to be conservative would be filibustered.
All right, then. So now consider this. This "stealth" pick is meant to avoid a confrontation? If so, then Miers is a lousy pick, because I guarantee you the Dems and RINOs are not going let a conservative, pro-life, born-again Christian (which Miers is) onto the SCOTUS without one hell of fight.
I think Miers is going to be a lot more impressive than anyone gives her credit for.
Remember...President Bush is on the record as saying he loves lowering the bar. He loves being misunderestimated. He means it when he says "Harriet Miers is a person like me."
I would say they are not upset about lowering expectations, goading everyone into seeing her as a spinster church lady, harmless and meek. With expectations like that....My bet is that she is going to hit it out of the park.
The whole thing is so, so consummately Bushian. The more I think about it, the more I think we were all pretty stupid to be so shocked.
LOL. Indeed. "Naughty daughters" seems to be the post Soviet Union political "Zeitgeist" of 21st. Century US politics. Al Qaeda be hanged! What are these affluent broads going to do if their little princess gets knocked up? Go to the United States Supreme Court first on their way to the abortorium! It's so bizarre. The axis of the political world does not pass through Wash. DC without first passing through the innards of post menstrual, pre-marital, pre-women. We have come far since 1776/1787
Perhaps a spinster on the ultimate bench is just what the Republic needs.
Right. I belong to the last two.
...Bush threw a bone (and not just any bone, but the biggest, juiciest one, the "swing vote") to the Christian/Pro-Life Right.
It does seem that way.
I think they assumed the "swing vote" was rightfully theirs.
Yes we did. Miers may turn out to be a good choice for all three conservative pillars. However, if Bush enjoys playing these games, he has to listen to the boo's as well.
It depends on whose BEST PICK you mean. YOUR BEST PICK would be different than the President's BEST PICK or Ann Coulter's BEST PICK or Lawrence Tribe's BEST PICK.
IF you want MOST QUALIFIED that is something else BUT even the MOST QUALIFIED PICK is subjective. I doubt that ROBERTS was the MOST QUALIFIED pick if Schumer was doing the picking.
The point I am trying to make is that if your BEST QUALIFIED PICK would be a Harvard Law Grad at the TOP of his class who has a "HISTORY" of conservative judicial philosophy that is ONLY your pick. George Bush on the other hand thinks CHARACTER is the most important ingredient. That in essence is why he nominated her. He thinks she is the most qualified based on her character.
"lowering expectations, goading everyone into seeing her as a spinster church lady, harmless and meek."
Yeah... that's right. They PURPOSELY kept her credentials below that of other candidates, even though she secretly has more. They PURPOSELY made it seem as though she was over 60, when she really isn't a day over 40... what else should we add to this grand conspiracy?
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.