Thanks so much for this post. I had quit coming to the forum because it was so depressing to see us guaranteeing a 2006 Democratic victory. Thanks for the information. Denco
A pretty persuasive argument, PD.
bump
so you are telling us that Spector thinks Miers will NOT vote to overturn Roe? is that what your source is telling you?
Thanks, Dog, the reasons you mentioned do make sense. Even though it's an honor to serve on the Supreme Court, most people and their families could not withstand the grueling confirmation process. The vitriol in our country is probably 10 times worse than during the Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings, and not many people would put themselves through anything like that. These dems could make Mother Teresa look like a cad
I was certainly upset with the President, but your post lays out rationale he may have used when deciding on Miers.
That's what some of us were trying to tell you to start with. IF you would have stopped ranting for a few days and did a little research, you would have saved yourself some embarrassment. Knee-jerk reactions should be left for the left.
A) Not voice any more dissent regarding the Miers pick.
B) Stay on the reservation and pull the lever for republicans next time around to assure more of the same in the future.
C) Take it on faith that Pukin' Dog has inside sources that know the true score, and relate that score to him.
Gee, where do I sign up?
"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."
Sadly, I concur. We cannot go to war with a bunch of weak sisters.
Your account makes a lot of sense and fills out what I have been saying. :^)
My main point has been that SPECTRE and the "RINO 7" are the major locus of weakness on judicial issues, and that Bush had a choice between going down in flames and trying to put through the best nominee he could get us under the circumstances.
You might find this interesting.
For your consideration, comments welcome.
I am not a secret source in DC but I have been saying this from day 1.
It is the only logical explanation.
Luttig, Brown & co. are wonderful in the abstract. but that matters little if they could not be confirmed.
I stand by my original comment that none of the others could get 51 votes even if by some miracle, they got out of Committee.
With the squishy Republican Senate and an ineffective and super squishy Frist, the Dems would have won big time.
"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. "
"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."
The President has the right stuff but sadly there are Senate Republicans who do not. You have named some of them. There are more.
He would not have gotten the conservatives with the judicial record confirmed. Roberts was fortunate enough to not have a record since he was not confirmed when Bush senior nominated him. That was fortuitous.
This is the result...it could have been far worse.
This post makes a lot of sense, and most of the information provided in it is very logical and likely true.
Man, what a frustrating situation.
As someone from Pennsylvania, I still have a bitter taste in my mouth because of Spector's re-election in 2004.
Things like this are the reason I would never survive in politics. It would be too tempting to rat out all the wimps, and thus lose support from the party bosses.
We need to replace current Democrat and RINO Senators with real conservatives.
Yeah, the last week has been smooth as silk - no embarrassment whatsoever to the party or the conservative cause.
A good borking might have been less disastrous.
Thanks for coming back Pukin, we need you.
These same zeros in the Senate were there when, this time last year, the big Bush/Republican theme was "It's all about the judges! Let's give 'em hell!"
If the real theme then, as now, was "Our party is principle-free, stands for nothing except acquiring power and spending money, is populated with weak sisters and I don't even have the guts to fight Arlen Specter or Jim Jeffords" then it would have been the American thing to do to admit it.
They lie, they backtrack, they obfuscate - on any number of things, not just judges. What they don't do is deliver on the many promises, even after seizing all the reins of power.
Bush can't beg his base to support Specter, then use Specter as the excuse for why he can't/won't do what he promised to do.
Good info too...strange things permeate that power stream.
Enjoy!