DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! -13.... How High can this go???
Mike - I like all the Biblical references. Especially the leavening and then the bones stuff was pretty cool. It's sure to set the lefties off.
I just logged in and the first headline that hit was the withdrawal of Miers. I came straight over!
I hope that what you're describing does not happen but you are right - what has happened in the past is not on our side.
It's a shame that we cannot trust our Republican representatives in Washington to be as strong as they should be. We are stuck with it for now and have to believe that Bush won't cave. The other guys - the Republicans in Congress - are the ones I feel very little hope for.
I absolutely support President Bush.
I support President Bush. He's the right man for the job, right now. As I, Mike, and others have noted he hasn't taken ALL of the positions we'd like him to take. He's not perfect--and nobody else would be either.
And the words "Speaker Pelosi" do, indeed, focus the attention wonderfully.
Thanks Monica and Robert:
As anyone familiar with the old Washington game knows, damage control is the next step.
Part of the strategy will be to appease critics. Hard to do since the cabal on the right and the left will now demand different outcomes.
It will be left to the mature, responsible, practical types like the three of us to pick up the pieces and try and make the best of it.
I will be WATCHING the Barabas right whiners and hold them accountable for their part in this.
I've been flaming the comments section at Confirm Them with my post, so if you want to see how our "friends" react, head over there and check out the comments sections.
I think compairing Bush or Miers to Jesus is a bit of a stretch. She was unqualified...
You dont have to fall in lock step with the President or the GOP to be a conservative.
I think that it would be a mistake to sit and swallow anything he throws at you just because you support most of his policies...
At what point do you see intellectual honesty taking precedent over party lines?
continued)
You seem to be more angery with the effect this will have on Bush's stature and status, not at a qualified person being turned away...
If that is what you are angery about, then that would mean you would support Bush reguardless of ANYTHING he does?
Unequivocally, I support President Bush. But, that has been kind of obvious from my past comments.
You’ve got the crosshairs on the right target when you light up the Barabas right whiners as being the one’s to now start putting out (support that is). It will become very interesting in the near future. A successful confirmation is going to require a healthy UNIFIED effort.
Not to misunderestimate President Bush, he has made a very shrewd tactical move by identifying the senate demands for confidential WH documents as the cornerstone for Mier's withdrawal. With the document demands coming from the Democrat's side, the foundation is laid to tag the Democrats with obstructionism in Mier’s withdrawal. Smart move on his part… it also gives the Republican senators a chance to save face (so to speak) and get right for the next nomination. I don’t have a lot of confidence the Republican senators will take the president’s lead, but we’ll see.
Thanks for the well reasoned and mature commentaries.
My concern is political G
I have witnessed the weakening of a President first hand.
I know the damage a withdrawal does to the President's ability to lead.
All the issues that conservatives SAY they care about will be impacted.
My point here is not to demand absolute fealty to a President.
But YOU DID HAVE A CHOICE LAST NOVEMBER DIDN"T YOU????
It seems odd that SOME who voted for Bush would now lead a RECALL effort.
Thanks Old Soldier
Not likely that one of the Barabas right whiners will offer this slight correction to what you said, but I will:
Demands for documents relating to Miers work as Chief Counsel, and other highly sensitive Executive Branch materials came not just from Democrats, but from Republicans like my own Lindseed Graham and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback.
Some say that was part of a strategy to offer the President a way out.
UNFORTUNATELY, after years of GOP Senators opposing the release of similar documents ON PRINCIPLE that principle has now been undermined.
MARK MY WORDS NOW When the next nominee comes forward, Democrats will demand MORE documents and cite Republican demands for Miers documents as precedent for their request.
The damage has been done, and now, once again, the center right will have to clean up the mess.
Mike,
I knew some Republicans had also asked for the WH documents as well. My racing mind had the idea, "document demands coming mostly from the Democrat's side," but my slower fingers left out "mostly". That's why I'm not a commentator, I guess.
The Republican senators seemed to have compromised a lot of principles all the way from the majority leader down to client-attorney confidentiality. It will be real interesting to see how they respond and react to the next nomination. It is hard to stand on a compromised principle.
Have any 2-term Presidents had a better 2nd term than the first?
Glad to know you are alive and hopefully well Gaffa.
Every second term president reaches a point where he is simply marking time as the process to select his successor gets underway. That is usually the point at which he is considered a lame duck with waning influence, emboldening his long time opponents.
In the case of the Reagan Adminstration, the most recent two term GOP President, the President faced a two pronged political problem. First was Iran/Contra which precipitated an Administration shakeup and second was the Bork debacle followed by the Ginsburg withdrawal.
Apparently our conservative friends demanding a tried and true conservative were not too effective in getting Bork confirmed.
The previous two term GOP President was Nixon, who was also handicapped by scandal which broke in the first year of his second term and resulted in his resignation in August 1974.
I support Bush all the way!
It's our system I don't support here in Washington State! ERRRRRR!!!
Brain dead at the polling place! FOR SURE!!!
Actually, Mike, the Democrats are not elated today over the withdrawal. They supported the nomination and wanted a go at Miers in the committee hearings to show Bush in the worst light possible.
Bush has done what he has so often done. Offer a product not to the liking of his supporters, yet pleases his oppnents to no end. His supporters rally against the decision, firming-up their own positions while the opposition sits back to watch the meltdown. The meltdown never happens.
While Teddy and Kerry are out accepting the accolades for defeating the President's choice and saying how horrible the Republicans were for creating and using a litmus test, Bush will make his 'real' nomination. The Dems will then have to play by the rules they themselves are writing in their self-congratulatory critiques.
Now the fun begins. It will finally play out when Stevens retires or dies on the bench in the next year or two allowing President Bush three SCOTUS appointments. With the acceptance of the 'real' nominee by the party base and faithful, another Republican victory at the polls is all but assured.
I always supported him, although I wasn't really sold on Miers. As long as he can get through a tough fight over a strong conservative candidate that the left hates, then he will be all right and won't take too much negative from this.
Mike
Actually, I'm not really happy. This was not that type of situation. I wish the whole episode had not occured.
I'm not so sure Democrats are elated. Most of what I've heard suggests they're disappointed. If I was a Democrat, I'd have wanted Miers on the court, because she's a lot more likely to "grow" than other possibilities.
You are correct to point out that "history is not kind" to new nominees. But that depends on the situation. History is not kind when the candidate is defeated because of action by the other party, like with Robert Bork. In this situation, we on the right were all ready to fight for a nominee, then got a big let down.
But not to worry, I've got a full head of steam built up and if the President nominates someone good we on the "far right" will be behind him 100%.
BTY, I have supported this president in the face of so many attacks from lefties that I've lost count. I've posted, debated, attended rallies, handed out literature during the last election, I've defended Bush through thick and thin. But this doesn't mean that I'm going to just salute and say "yes sir" no matter what he does. I support this president mainly on foreign policy/WOT issues. I ignored his signing of McCain-Feingold. I forgave his refusal to do anything about illegal immigration. And I even gave him a pass on out-of-control federal spending. But when he nominated Miers to the swing seat on the Supreme Court, I said "thats it." "Time to let my president know he screwed up."
Hey guys--- I wish I could agree with you all and find something positive in this mess.
But I've seen it all before.
And, as I warned, Bush is now declared a lame duck, in part because of Miers.
Here's a GOOGLE for you:
http://www.google.com/search?
sou...Lame+Duck+Miers
Already 81,000 "Bush, lame duck Miers" links and the day is young.
Chris Matthews: "Bush is a lame duck with a broken wing."
All predicted. All ammo to Democrats. How can they not be elated?
I know there are some who will say it is BUSH's fault for nominating Miers. If Bush bears a fault in this it is not anticipating how independent, to the point of being disloyal and undermining, the more extreme elements of his "base" might be if they do not get their way.
I am NOT accusing EVERY Bush voter who opposed Miers of being disloyal.
Also, I'm NOT going to rehash all of that again, so PLEASE understand if you write and complain about the above paragraph, it will fall on deaf ears.
The damage is done.
You speak of the far right as if it was someone else.
Toadie: Obviously I am not as far to the right as you are to the left...
Fool!
How do I feel? Relieved. Now the President, who you know I support, has a chance to rally the base to stand behind a real, tested, solidly originalist nominee. If he nominates a Janice Rogers Brown or Sam Alito or anyone of that ilk, the same strong Conservative base that stood against Miers will make damn sure no Republican votes against him or her... not if they value their own positions. Bush may not be up for reelection, but all Senators will be, sooner or later.
>Bush is now declared a lame duck, in
>part because of Miers.
Mike, that was the Liberal mantra by the time of his second inagural. Don't you remember?
>If Bush bears a fault in this it is
>not anticipating how independent, to
>the point of being disloyal and
>undermining, the more extreme
>elements of his "base" might be if
>they do not get their way.
We don't all drink the Kool-Aid. Not even Bush's. As I've said, when any elected official makes an error it's our job to point it out and give him or her a chance to fix the mistake. This idea of blindly supporting anything Bush does just won't fly. Are you happy with overspending, loose border controls, illegal alien amnesty, Medicare entitlements and the rest? Do you think we should swallow whatever we are given, because we're so scared of the Democrats that have lost ground in every election since 1994?
>Here's a GOOGLE for you:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?
>sou...Lame+Duck+Miers
>
>Already 81,000 "Bush, lame duck
>Miers" links and the day is young.
And "Bush lame duck inaugural" brings up 62,400 hits. They've been pushing the "lame duck" meme for almost a year now. Why start listening to Liberals now?
CavalierX: You can drink whatever flavor of Kool Aid you like, but if you cannot unite towards a common goal unless the goal is 100% your way, it's unlikely you will achieve the goal no matter which flavor you prefer.
I would have laughed off the lame duck thing if I thought that Bush could still wield political capital to achieve his goals. But as conservatives saw fit to pull the rugh out from under him with Miers, I doubt that many in the Senate will be willing to stand up and support him on other issues, including a more controversial conservative nominee.
All of this of course was preventable, but the damage is now done. And I expect conservatives who opposed Miers to spend at least as much energy SUPPORTING Presdient Bush in future endeavors as they have in opposing Miers.
And I am going to say this again, just so you know how important it is: You do NOT WIN by dividing the party. And as the BROADER base of the party supported Miers AND the President, I put it to those who did NOT to bear the lion's share of effort to heal that wound.
>if you cannot unite towards a common
>goal
You mean like putting solid, reliable originalists on the Supreme Court? Seems to me I am united with quite a few Conservatives on that score.
>But as conservatives saw fit to pull
>the rugh out from under him with
>Miers
You got that backwards. He pulled the rug out from underneath his base. We elected him to do certain things. He made a mistake, and we pointed it out. Now he has a chance to put it right. That's all it is. Again, should we just shut up about overspending and loose border controls, lest we "cause damage?"
>All of this of course was
>preventable, but the damage is now
>done.
That's what we've been saying all along. It was preventable -- the Miers nomination was a mistake. Any damage done to the Republican party has been done by the President's nomination. Now that Harriet Miers did the right thing, he has a chance to bring us all together again.
>You do NOT WIN by dividing the party.
That is precisely the lesson some Republicans still have to learn.
>I put it to those who did NOT to
>bear the lion's share of effort to
>heal that wound.
Depends who the next nominee is. I don't see myself supporting another stealth or squish nominee, if that's the course he chooses. I voted for this President to do a job; as long as he does it right he will always have my full support.
I support President Bush, and at this point all I can do is hope for the best...
Now the big question is whether W can get the next nominee past the guaranteed filibuster. If Bush nominates a good anti-legislate from the bench conservative heavyweight the left will claim that the extremist right forced him to put up a radical right wing nut case, and declare extraordinary circumstances as a justification to filibuster. And they will likely win because the gang of 14 will go along with the it.
Then what, I wonder?
Ralph Neas of the People For The American Way:
"Harriet Miers’ withdrawal from her Supreme Court nomination demonstrates that ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court sharply to the right that they pounded their own president’s nominee into submission, and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials, said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way."
Reid:
"Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid idealogues."
Trust me-the Democrats/liberals are far from happy.
I hope not to appear rude, but your arguments for Miers are a bit simplistic, e.g.:
Do you support President Bush?
What do you mean? I disagree with him on plenty of issues (i.e harshness on illegals, cutting spending, etc.). I put principle above blind adherence.
Listen. The Supreme Court nominees are, if not the highest, major decisions in the presidency.
And for him to nominate Miers' is basically a betrayal.
Affirmative Action? She embraced raical set-asides.
Abortion? For those issues, she suggested "self-determination" on those issues.
Maybe I was wrong about this. Maybe.
But it was just too big of a decision to let it pass.
"And I am going to say this again, just so you know how important it is: You do NOT WIN by dividing the party. And as the BROADER base of the party supported Miers AND the President, I put it to those who did NOT to bear the lion's share of effort to heal that wound."
Guess what? The Republican Party now is actually in quite a sorry state.
Just look at the spending. It still has been increasing at a rapid pace.
Immigration? Almost no control-apporaching amnesty.
Fine, we don't win by dividing...
...but we suffer in the long run by letting them turn into what we have long decried in liberals-especially on spending.
But I respect your opinion. I just disagree a lot with it.
Give it up Right Whiner... You've done your Barabas routine for weeks now...
Perhaps I should have invoked Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment WEEKS AGO, but then I realized that you folks didn't really give a hoot about Reagan either, if he didn't hoe the line some of you threw down.
You go ahead and try and solve all those problems with President Hillary or John McCain, because that is who you are going to get if you refuse to recognize that the Republican Party cannot win without the center right.
I suppose you are one of those folks who has refused to give $$$ to the Party for years because they compromise.
Please elucidate readers here WHAT YOU HAVE DONE to WIN ELECTIONS??????
And I apologize for simplifying my arguments... I learned to do that years ago working as I did for arch conservatives so we could explain our views to small minded lefties. It's a bad habit, but one perhaps that could be adapted to fit narrow minded Barabas conservative sectarians.
Cavalier X:
You're a great guy... but I think you have spent too much time jousting with Gaffa... Some of that has rubbed off.
You said:
"I voted for this President to do a job; as long as he does it right he will always have my full support."
Please tell me the name of the politician who "does it right" all the time?
I venture to say there isn't one. And since there can only be one President, for you to be satisfied, YOU would have to be President.
Of course the rest of us might find a few reasons to complain if that were the case.
I regret the need to do a Political Science 101 review here, but the first thing I learned was that "Politics was the art of compromise." Leadership of course is getting people to compromise with you and not the other way around.
If you want to say Bush failed in that regard, I might not disagree.
But as we were only offered two choices, neither of which was perfect, but one was demonstrably MUCH BETTER than the other, I DO suggest that failing to offer support during a CRITICAL time only offers ammunition to the other side.
Wonderman Good point... The whole political landscape just got a whole heck of a lot more complicated... And of course if you listen to the far right IT's BUSH'S FAULT... and if you listen to the far left IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!
It's going to be a rough patch for the President with possible indictments ready to eviscerate the White House staff as we prepare to head into KEY, CRUCIAL, VITAL 2006 congressional elections.
And with our Barabas conservatives threatening to "teach Republicans a lesson" we may just as well get used to:
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI!!!
Mike,
I know you to normally be, well, normal. But, Harriet sure has gotten you all discombobulated. The day has gone by and the sky has not fallen; I know because I went outside and the sky was still where it's supposed to be - up.
Look UP, Mike. This is not something that will destroy the Republican base or party. I supported the nomination, not the nominee. There are better choices and one will be named. The Senate will still have to decide and the chance of more nominations is wide open - Stevens can't live forever, though he's giving it the old college try.
Besides, Harriet wasn't the real nominee anyway.
I attempt to be somewhat nice, try to get a reasoned argument going.
What do I get?
Name-calling. So fine. Let me address your points:
"I've been doing this for weeks"-actually, I've kept relatively silent about Miers' (e.g "waiting for evidence").
You know what? What's wrong with criticizing, say, Bush's policy on immigration? Just because Bush did a good job with the War on Terror does not mean that he will make the right decision every time.
Bush can make mistakes. Understand that? Bush promised a general return to conservatism. Did he do that? Limited government? Not really:
"During the past four years, President Bush has presided over the largest inflation-adjusted increase in spending since Lyndon B. Johnson -- and that does not include the skyrocketing costs of the new Medicare drug benefit that the president loves to brag about. The size of the federal government has grown from 18.5 percent of GDP -- where it was on the day Bill Clinton left office -- to 20.3 percent of GDP today. The 33 percent growth in the budget during Bush’s first term is about as large as the growth of the budget during Clinton's entire presidency."
Free Markets? For the most part, yes.
National Security? For the most part, yes.
"You go ahead and try and solve all those problems with President Hillary or John McCain, because that he who you are going to get if you refuse to recognize that the Republican Party cannot win without the center right."
I see your point. Where did I refuse to recognize that the Republican Party cannot win without the center right?
Where?
"I suppose you are one of those folks who has refused to give $$$ to the Party for years because they compromise."
No, actually I'm 13. Not quite in a position to actually give money?
While I do believe the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils (the way it has become right now). So don't make some unsubstantiated assumption about me. Alright?
"Please elucidate readers here WHAT YOU HAVE DONE to WIN ELECTIONS??????"
You do note that this is completely irrelevant to the argument over whether Miers' was a bad choice or not.
"And I apologize for simplifying my arguements... I learned to do that years ago working as I did for arch conservatives so we could explain our views to small minded lefties. It's a bad habit, but one perhaps that could be adapted to fit narrow minded Barabas conservative sectarians."
Alright.
I'd just like to point out that your arguments are simplistic (e.g. "Bush is right for everything! Just trust him!"-even when the facts state otherwise).
You argue almost exactly like a liberal: when presented with a point, launch a flurry of ad hominem attacks. When presented with an attack, launch ad hominem attacks. When presented with coherent points, pretend they don't exist (e.g. don't address them). And the most important tenet of argument? Facts mean nothing.
Please, let's shy away from the na
Indigo Well I dont' know how old you are... so I don't know if you remember the last years of the Reagan Administration.
Deja vu my friend!!!
And you don't really think that Miers was just a feint candidate to cause the right whiners to demand a hardcore conservative? That's conspiracy kook world stuff...
You have heard the Dem's all throw down markers about the influence of the far right in the selection of a replacement.
The left has ginned up again, where they were not so unified against Miers.
And let's review the damage again:
* Any future nominee who has worked in the Executive Branch will be hard pressed to refuse documents since both Graham and Brownback demanded Miers documents. You will recall that the same folks who asked for Miers attorney client documents rebuffed Dem request for Roberts Solicitor General documents.
We just turned all our PRINCIPLES on their head and you can bet the moonbats will remember.
Right Whiner:
When you attempt to be more than "somewhat nice" and live up to the 11th Commandment... you'll find a more receptive audience.
Graciousness in victory.... even a pyrrhic victory
You are THIRTEEN YEARS OLD and you want to lecture me?
So obviously you don't even know what Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was since you had NOT YET BEEN BORN when he was in office.
Come on back when you have worked in government from the court house to the white house and after you have won and lost a few political campaigns.
Now go back and finish your homework!
Note: in my last post, the last words are "name-calling".
""I voted for this President to do a job; as long as he does it right he will always have my full support."
Please tell me the name of the politician who "does it right" all the time?"
Does that mean we should not at least try to correct it?
"I venture to say there isn't one. And since there can only be one President, for you to be satisfied, YOU would have to be President."
Let's go through your line of argument:
1. No one is perfect.
2. Therefore, you should not try to correct anything.
Erroneous by historical and logical counts. Anyone could use that to justify a bad leader's actions (even dictators-"he's not perfect!"). Reductio ad absurdum-I think we can conclude that bad leaders should generally be corrected.
"Of course the rest of us might find a few reasons to complain if that were the case."
Indeed. Hence my thoughts about the Miers' nomination.
"I regret the need to do a Political Science 101 review here, but the first thing I learned was that "Politics was the art of compromise.""
Perhaps...which means we should concede most of our (meaning conservatism's) points?
There are facts. Use them.
"Leadership of course is getting people to compromise with you and not the other way around."
And leaders can sometimes be wrong.
"If you want to say Bush failed in that regard, I might not disagree.
But as we were only offered two choices, neither of which was perfect, but one was demonstrably MUCH BETTER than the other, I DO suggest that failing to offer support during a CRITICAL time only offers ammunition to the other side."
This is, after all, a Supreme Court justice.
Could be 10+ years of paying for it if it turned out to be bad.
And the evidence still is not in about how badly this will hurt the Republican Party. So I'd refrain from making any judgements about how much worse the withdrawal was.
"Wonderman Good point... The whole political landscape just got a whole heck of a lot more complicated... And of course if you listen to the far right IT's BUSH'S FAULT... and if you listen to the far left IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!"
For making a bad decision? If (true)conservatives just shut up while letting the free-spenders take control, the Republican Party as we know it (even now, in semi-free-spending mode), would die.
So yes, the Miers' nomination was an error.
Just give me some reasons how the Republican Party will be affected (with support please).
"It's going to be a rough patch for the President with possible indictments ready to eviscerate the White House staff as we prepare to head into KEY, CRUCIAL, VITAL 2006 congressional elections."
Well, again, the evidence isn't quite in.
"And with our Barabas conservatives threatening to "teach Republicans a lesson" we may just as well get used to:
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI!!!"
Unfortunately, you don't really support
Mike, I hate to say it -- but you're acting like a spoiled brat who's just lost his toy, stomping and hollering that everyone's gonna pay for making you mad. You're obviously very upset and angry, and I'll let you calm down for a bit. When you do, you may be able to see that we Conservatives stuck to our principles and were vindicated, and if the Republicans stop trying to appease the Democrats and pay more attention to the wishes of their own base, they need have no fear of losing elections. Sleep well. Tomorrow will be a brighter day.
>Please tell me the name of the
>politician who "does it right" all
>the time?"
None. When a politician does the job right, I praise him, and when he does it wrong, I point out the mistake and ask him to rectify it. Bush has done a bang-up job on most issues, an amazing job on the War on Terror, and not such a good job on some others.
"You are THIRTEEN YEARS OLD and you want to lecture me?"
Keep going with the dodging of evaluating my ideas!
"So obviously you don't even know what Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment was since you had NOT YET BEEN BORN when he was in office.
Come on back when you have worked in government from the court house to the white house and after you have won and lost a few political campaigns.
Now go back and finish your homework!"
Here's some advice:
Wait. Alright:
Adress my points. It is not that hard.
Honestly-if you're willing to provide some evidence, I'm all too happy to listen to it. Yet unsubstantiated speculation (no matter the age of the person saying it) shouldn't be taken seriously in an argument.
"Whiner"..."Barabas"..."Sectarian"...keep going with the name-calling!
Oh, by the way, even though it is completely irrelevant:
The proper spelling is "commandment".
And (slightly more relevant), I looked up the 11th commandment:
"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
I believe that this argument falls under "appeal to authority"?
Now. I will give you this challenge.
Wait for it...
Back it up.
Tell me why National Review, the Heritage Foundation, and others who have criticized Republicans over various issues, have been wrong.
Don't give me a lecture on unity. Just tell me why they are wrong. Thank you.
"Address". Typo, sorry.
Kevin: I do NOT think it is appropriate for a minor to be commenting on blogs where the subject matter clearly involves adult issues.
You'll forgive me if I do not address your points, as I'm not in the business of providing free educational services.
If however, your parents wish to employ me for tutoring you on the finer points of late 20th and early turn of the century politics, please have them contact me.
If you think that my refusal to engage you further on these issues is somehow a validation of your viewpoint... YOU WOULD BE WRONG...
Now, go do your homework.
>Kevin: I do NOT think it is
>appropriate for a minor to be
>commenting on blogs where the
>subject matter clearly involves
>adult issues.
Jesus, Mike, you really need to chill. Attacking 13-year olds for asking questions is beneath you.
That last post was me. My name came up blank for some reason.
51. Yes I remember the last Reagan years. But I was a Democrat then so I remember it differently.
I know this is not a chess game. Chess has an end; politics has no end. And rules neither apply nor last long. The only thing that has happened is an unfortunate choice was released. Another choice will be made.
The Democrats, after bemoaning the 'extreme right wing' litmus test, cannot just simply resort to their own litmus test.
Nothing of any real import happened today.
CavalierX:
You said: "Conservatives stuck to our principles"
So... validating Democrats request for attorney client privileges is sticking to our principles?
Overturning "Give every nominee an up or down vote" is sticking to our principles?
When it comes to spoiled children who didn't get the toy they wanted... you know where that line came from? See my multiple iterations of it in the numerous comment sections regarding this issue.
You also said "pay more attention to the wishes of their own base, they need have no fear of losing elections."
Again, as I see it, the base was behind Miers and stayed loyal to the President. It was the vocal Barabas wing of Right Whiners who have the presumption to think of themselves with such self-importance.
Nixon referred to the base as the "silent majority" and you cannot win an election without it and you should NEVER treat it with the contempt that some of the Barabas wing seem wont to do.
You won't find me appeasing Democrats, but then you will also not find me handing them ammunition.
Yes, and you can go to bed too... But maybe you can help Right Winger with his homework first.
>validating Democrats request for
>attorney client privileges is
>sticking to our principles?
Miers withdrew, so the question never came up, actually.
>Overturning "Give every nominee an
>up or down vote" is sticking to our
>principles?
At no time did I or any Conservative that I know advocate refusing a vote for Harriet Miers. She withdrew toi save the President and the party from the embarrasment of seeing her voted down.
>Again, as I see it, the base was
>behind Miers and stayed loyal to the
>President.
I think it's time for a visit to LensCrafters. The Conservatives are the base.
>Nixon called it the "silent majority"
But we are no longer silent. Silence got us nothing but decades of Liberal judicial activism.
>You won't find me appeasing
>Democrats, but then you will also
>not find me handing them ammunition.
I'm sorry that you think taking a stand on principle is so wrong, and that you're so frightened of Democrats winning an election -- when they have been steadily losing ground for ten years -- that you're willing to blindly support anything President Bush does, even when it's wrong. I'm even sorrier that you're allowing your anger and bitterness to spill over into your comments section, attacking even a teenager just for asking questions. I hope you feel better about things soon.
Whoops. Haloscan keeps losing my name.
Go to bed CavalierX:
The question of Executive Branch documents was raised by Brownback and Graham. Democrats demanded similar documents of Roberts and were told no dice... Next time, you'll hear Democrats cite Brownback and Graham as precedent.
The Question of a vote never came up because Miers was BORKED BEFORE EVEN A HEARING. The notion of an up or down vote has been upended.
You'll find one or two Senators troubled by those precedents in addition to me.
And "the base" IS CONSERVATIVE... but it still held MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR MIERS... or don't you read anything other than Michelle Malkin?
The conservative base is much wider, and deeper than the blogosphere. And the "blog base" doesn't have the strength, let alone the unity to win an election to dog catcher.
Blaming this debacle on President Bush, when the vast majority of those who voted for him supported him on this issue seems to me the best example of specious reasoning I have seen in quite a while.
"Kevin: I do NOT think it is appropriate for a minor to be commenting on blogs where the subject matter clearly involves adult issues."
Let me see. More ad hominem. This is almost...funny.
"You'll forgive me if I do not address your points, as I'm not in the business of providing free educational services.
If however, your parents wish to employ me for tutoring you on the finer points of late 20th and early turn of the century politics, please have them contact me.
If you think that my refusal to engage you further on these issues is somehow a validation of your viewpoint... YOU WOULD BE WRONG...
Now, go do your homework."
But you can't say that you are right, either.
So. You haven't addressed a single point that I've brought up.
All you've succeeded in doing is calling me a "whiner", "sectarian", and a "minor" (as a way of evading questions).
Now tell me. Am I wrong because I am thirteen (note: I'm a senior in high school. Would I be wrong if I was, say 18-not a minor?)?
Because you really are grasping at straws here.
"You said: "Conservatives stuck to our principles"
So... validating Democrats request for attorney client privileges is sticking to our principles?"
Actually, wasn't part of the reason Miers' withdrew because of that attorney-client privilege?
"Overturning "Give every nominee an up or down vote" is sticking to our principles?"
Withdrawing from a losing battle? Note that Miers' could've gone on.
Though many conservatives believe it would have been a bad choice.
"When it comes to spoiled children who didn't get the toy they wanted... you know where that line came from? See my multiple iterations of it in the numerous comment sections regarding this issue."
Well, how about a toy that probably wasn't even a toy at all?
Let me think. "Originalist". "Doesn't read double-super-secret right to abortion into the Constitution". "Doesn't see secret right to affirmative action in Constitution". (Miers is shaky on the second, and almost definitely fails on the third.)
Is it that hard? Come on, don't we all know that there was a nice pool of candidates?
"Again, as I see it, the base was behind Miers and stayed loyal to the President. It was the vocal Barabas wing of Right Whiners who have the presumption to think of themselves with such self-importance."
We're whiners because we didn't completely follow every whim of the President?
Self-importance? Funny, conservatives advising a supposedly conservative president on the nomination! Imagine that.
"Nixon referred to the base as the "silent majority" and you cannot win an election without it and you should NEVER treat it with the contempt that some of the Barabas wing seem wont to do"
"Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Harriet E. Miers's embattled U.S. Supreme Court nomination is losing public support, according to a new poll that shows Americans oppose her confirmation by a margin
"Kevin: I do NOT think it is appropriate for a minor to be commenting on blogs where the subject matter clearly involves adult issues."
I just thought of something.
You're not a US Senator. You're not the President. You're not a represenative.
Why are you commenting when the subject matter clearly involves senatorial/presidential issues?
Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again.
"Blaming this debacle on President Bush, when the vast majority of those who voted for him supported him on this issue seems to me the best example of specious reasoning I have seen in quite a while."
Funny that you lecture on that, when most of your comments have been spewing personal slights.
Oh. The irony.
Better give it up for now, right_wing. Mike is angry and upset, and lashing out at anyone who didn't blindly support Harriet Miers without asking for a reason to do so. He doesn't see that screaming at anyone who doesn't fall into lockstep damages the Republican party far more than standing on principle to oppose a bad nominee ever could. He will, though, when he regains his normal demeanor.
"Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Harriet E. Miers's embattled U.S. Supreme Court nomination is losing public support, according to a new poll that shows Americans oppose her confirmation by a margin of 43 percent to 42 percent.
Support for Miers has slipped since an earlier survey taken Oct. 13-16 when 44 percent said they favored confirmation and 36 percent opposed it. Both polls were conducted by the Gallup Organization for Cable News Network and USA Today."
Bloomberg says it, not me. Invalidating your "too young" argument.
Now this is why I reject dealing with adolescents... Both you and CavalierX, (who I assume, is NOT an adolescent) seem to miss the point that the vast majority OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BUSH REMAINED LOYAL AND SUPPORTED MIERS!
Perhaps you would like to re-examine the poll to see the breakdown among Bush voters.
And, I repeat again, that I do NOT think it is appropriate for minors to be commenting on adult blogs.
If you find that to be an ad hominem attack then perhaps we should release you to your studies and you can consult a dictionary.
Oh, and just an F.Y.I:
I have worked for a President of the United States, A U.S. Senator and A U.S. Congressman, in addition to years of statewide campaign experience and county government. And I also have had my name on the ballot in my local community... AND WON!
So perhaps I do have some expertise to offer if you are interested in learning about politics as it is practiced in the real world.
If you wish to remain and comment here, I really would have to have your parents consent.
CavalierX If you think I'm lashing out... you don't know lashing out...The damage to Bush's presidency has been done and I don't intend to excuse the vocal minority who exacerbated the issue.
He oughta just put Bork up.
Would THAT be fun to watch - or what?
Fascinating comments. One thing I have learned as a parent: Choose your battles wisely.
I don't think that the conservatives who chose this battle chose wisely. Now was not the time or the place. Just an old lady's opinion.
Monica: Unfortunately, even though we have ten more GOP Senators than we did when Bork was nominated (and some of us are old enough to remember that mess) we don't have ten more CONSERVATIVE Senators.
And we're not likely to get that conservative majority if the Barabas wing of the party insists on alienating the larger, broader base that makes possible the electoral gains we currently enjoy.
I wonder if the Barabas right whiners who suggested (no one on these comments thanfully) that the GOP deserves to be thrown out of power in the House and Senate and White House until we learn our lesson, remember what that political wilderness felt like during the decades of near total Dem control?
Democrats are never afraid to appoint out-and-out liberals to the Bench. Witness Clinton's two appointments. But Republicans are scared to appoint conservatives.
The bottom line is that Miers ended up bringing herself down. She embarassed herself in her meetings with senators, and her answers to the questions in that questionnaire revealed that she doesn't have a firm grasp on constitutional law. Given this, I believe she would have wilted under questioning by the Judiciary Committee.
In addition, the release of some speaches reveals that she seems to be in favor of "affirmative action" (or whatever you want to call it). This, coupled with her bad start with the Judiciary Committee, sank her.
So it wasn't just criticism from conservatives that brought her down.
But all this is done, now. Let's hope the President appoints a truely qualified judicial conservative/originalist (ie, not Gonzales). If he does, and I think he will, I will certainly get behind him and fight for confirmation.
Wow! Coming upon a littered battlefield is always humbling. (Literally)
The single most relevant comment came next to last – Monica hit the nail on the head! “Choose your battles wisely.” I believe the boisterous right commentators have not chosen wisely to oppose presidential prerogative. There is a significant difference between disagreeing with someone and outright opposition. The rhetoric went beyond letting the president know an element of the conservative base disagreed with his nomination to an outright attack on Ms Miers’ perceived lack of qualification (and more accurately because she wasn’t who they wanted).
The unprecedented howl of the Barabas crowd is significantly lacking (in magnitude) on the other issues that everyone continuously illuminates as points of non-agreement with the president – border security, smaller government, fiscal restraint, entitlement programs, etc. To be perceived as sincere in believing that Miers was the “wrong” nominee, there should be as much volume in the discourse relative to the other conservative issues. In those areas I do read disagreeing commentaries – but not outright opposition!
As an unenlightened member of the conservative base (one of the silent majority), I was disappointed with the nomination of Ms. Miers; especially knowing there were Janice Rogers Brown and Michael Luttig (and others like them) that were more known to be demonstrable conservative originalist jurists that were available (so to speak). However, I accepted the prerogative of the president to nominate Ms. Miers and felt that she must possess qualities similar to all the other jurists that had been nominated to lower appellate courts. In other words, I trusted Mr. Bush – I didn’t oppose him (and there is no Kool-Aid in that response). The ensuing uproar from the right astounded me. Such vitriol and veracity is usually directed at Howard Dean and company, not a member of this president’s cabinet who has just been nominated to fill a vacancy on the SCOTUS.
I have to concur with Mike in that the opposition to Ms. Miers seems predicated purely on the fact that the “candidate of choice” was not nominated; the child-toy syndrome. The Barabases perceived the president had broken his promise; but nothing substantiated that perception other than, Miers wasn’t Brown or Luttig. The history of solid conservative jurists being nominated to fill appellate court vacancies substantiated that the president was in deed keeping his promise.
I yield to Mike’s experience in his predictions of the political landscape and the implications of this insurrection. Obviously, a rift has opened up among conservatives and it must be addressed. We cannot possibly stand united when we are divided. We need the support of the central fence straddlers to keep the conservative momentum. We will not entice their support if they perceive we are not united and willing to accept moderates within our ranks.
Lastly, for right_wing; y
I guess I exceeded a space limit. I wanted to make this comment, so...
Lastly, for right_wing; you must be very intelligent to be a high school senior at the age of 13. I thank God for and applaud your persuasion toward conservative ideology. I truly hope you will maintain that leaning. However, you are very mistaken to assume intelligence equates to wisdom. Your arguments were intelligent and somewhat passionate, but lacked wisdom and experience. All of the intelligence one can ingest will never replace walking in someone else’s shoes.
So the new term for those who place principle and honesty above blind partisan loyalty is "the Barrabas crowd?" Yes, that schoolyard name-calling is certainly going to placate Conservatives who opposed the Miers nomination because putting her on he Supreme Court would have been bad for America. All I -- and most Conservatives -- asked was a reason to support her beyond, "trust me." And all we got for that question was grief. If she was such a great nominee, you would have been able to come up with dozens of reasons to support her. And if she wasn't a good nominee -- which she wasn't -- she would have been a disaster for the country, which is more important than an minor, ephemeral setback for the party.
Cavalier, I hear you loud and clear – you OPPOSE Harriet Miers. And your substantiation is “you wanted a reason to support her beyond, trust me”. Did you ever look at the reasons to oppose her, other than she is NOT Brown or Luttig? I’ve never argued that she was the best or even the most qualified person out there, but I found no empirical evidence that unequivocally condemned her. Yes, I’ve read the stuff about she contributed to the Democrats, she gave a very poor speech, she used to favor quotas, etc. I find none of that evidence enough to condemn her as “unqualified” years. The very document you (and the rest of us) want read (not interpreted) does not even require a Supreme Court Justice to be law educated. (If that’s a problem, there is a documented process to amend the constitution.)
Do you not see that you number among the minority within the conservative movement? Have you no respect for the opinion of the majority? Are you so right that you are willing to do to the conservative movement what MoveOn radical left types do to the liberal movement? The very reason conservatives (from CENTER to the right) are in power is because the radical left demands exclusion of moderate liberals – they demand their way or the highway. If we pattern ourselves thusly, can we expect any different outcome in future elections? (In our case the centrists would move left.)
You and the boisterous right commentators have chosen your battle… and have fought it bitterly to the point of victory. I just hope the price of this victorious battle is not loss of the war. God help us if senate GOP fails to confirm the next nominee.
As Mike indicated, you who have railed loudest against Miers are now charged with epairing the damage.
Hi Mike,
No long comment needed. You nailed it. Great job.
I mentioned to my six year old daughter during one of her soccer games to never give up. She repeats it to me all the time now. Even at six, she understands. We’ve hit a bump in the road, but we need to keep advancing the cause.
I love your blog. Thanks for directing me here!
CavalierX:
Whatever happened to being gracious in victory, even a pyrrhic one?
I would advise you to re-read ALL the comments of Old Soldier on this comment stream, since it is obvious that I am just pushing the wrong buttons with you.
Also, I regret that you do not like my appellation for conservatives who shouted louder than their vastly larger numbers who supported Bush's decision to nominate Miers. It's a fact that your voices where heard over their voices, and yet the Barabas conservatives couldn't win an election without that center right bloc.
Regarding principle: I am NOT sure what principle you are talking about... Sounds kind of vague and fuzzy to me... something about originalist??? How many articles by truly learned scholars have I read who STILL debate what that actually means.
I have a pretty good idea what it does mean and apparently you wish to ignore that Miers had as much background in originalism as did Clarence Thomas.
But specifically, We, REPUBLICANS, in the process of destroying this nomination did ourselves set precedent that would OVERTURN principles on which we stood regarding nominations and Executive Branch privileges only weeks before.
I do not hear any complaint from you regarding these troubling precedents.
You claim that Miers was not denied a vote, yet she was denied a hearing. All we heard were questions from the Barabas wing and Miers was not allowed to give the answers.
Grossly unfair, damaging and improper conduct on the part of our very own conservatives.
Finally, Republicans were looking for a fight. They didn't get one with Roberts and were all geared up for one over the next nominee. Democrats successfully defused that bomb and what did our Barabas wing do? They had the fight anyway, this time with the President
Unfortunately, there is real damage to the President's ability to lead that will flow from this. Damage far beyond nominations to the Court.
It's too soon to say how it all shakes out, and much depends on the next nominee. As far as I am concerned, it will be up to the Barabas wing to repair the damage, put their money where their mouth has been and show that they really DO support the President and help move our Republican conservative agenda forward, not just the parts they personally feel demand full attention.
Regarding, Right_winger:
Since there was some criticism of my response to right_winger, a 13 year old, who comments above, I went back and re-read his comments.
I will admit to being in haste yesterday responding to a flood of comments here, while also visiting dozens of other sites to contribute and see how my fellow non-Barabas conservatives were doing.
I would not want my haste to be seen as dismissing the factual information or opinions of a young person insterested in politics. I myself started taking GOP literature to school when I was in the 4th Grade and that was likely before Right_wingers PARENTS were born.
I also began volunteering at my local GOP Headquarters stuffing envelopes when I was his age...I certainly would NEVER discourage a young persons participation in the political process, but we live in a different world today and I do have some issues regarding young minors commenting.
R.W. began his comments here with this:
" I hope not to appear rude, but your arguments for Miers are a bit simplistic, e.g.:Do you support President Bush?
I was not aware he was THIRTEEN YEARS OLD so I will beg forgiveness if I dismissed that slight insult along with much of the rest of what he had to say.
When his age was revealed, I had a concern that transcends his opinion and questions regarding his information and style of arguement:
I'm sorry, but the world we live in today causes me apprehension about allowing participation by a minor without their parent's express permission and supervision on the comment boards for adult discussion of issues.
Bad enough they read what is on the main page here, some of these comment threads can get kind of heated, to put it mildly.
I offer Right_Winger every encouragement and a few words of advice:
Better to start your discussion off with a less tempting target than "don't want to appear rude." People who say that are usually getting ready to do just that.
It's the same as those who start their comment "With all due respect" It is clear they do NOT offer any respect.
I would also suggest reading a bit further down the page before asking the persons opinion on subjects were are covered lower down on the page. I realize that most people will not do a search through the archives, but many times you will get a better perspective on the authors views by perusing the page before commenting.
Hey Mike:
I dont have time to read everyone's comments, so I will keep it between me and you... way at the top of this thread.
I voted for Bush, but didnt support Miers... but I never campaigned for her withdrawl..... I think that is a priviledge of the President to nominate whomever he chooses.
This entire event (in my mind) was orchastrated to save Senators with potential Presidential runs comming up from having to set a bad precident and vote down a nominee from their own party.
This is much better than more than half of the REpublican senators voting no... to a Republican President's nominee... but it would have happened.
G: We do NOT know that Miers would have been defeated...
64% of those polled in the last Rasmussen Poll on the subject thought that her confirmation was likely. Only 20% of the GOP "faithful" opposed her nomination, so much for the false claim by Barabas conservatives that they represented "the base" in this matter:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...on_Oct%
2021.htm
I cannot imagine that had she been given a hearing and permitted to state her case that our own GOP Senators would have been eager to defeat a president's nominee.
I cannot imagine the circumstances where Republican Senators WHO VOTED TO CONFIRM ARCH LIBERALS BREYER AND GINSBURG would vote against Miers.
And I don't want to repeat what I have said elsewhere on numerous occasions, but we have now overturned our longstanding principle to give nominees a fair hearing and a vote.
Once we validate the Democrat strategy of obstruction, it will make it much more difficult to reinstate those core principles regarding future nominees.
To give you a specific example of how our core principles have been damaged and precedents overturned that affect potential future nominees I give you the case of Michael McConnell:
McConnell was in the Solicitor General's Office as was Roberts. Democrats demanded that the White House release Roberts documents withheld by attorney/client privilege.
Republicans in the Roberts hearing acknowledged that it was NOT appropriate for the government to release those documents.
NOW, My own Senator Graham and Kansas Senator Brownback issued a request for similar attorney/client documents regarding Miers. Thus validating the Democrats earlier request.
Should Michael McConnell be nominated, there will be a call by Democrats, most likely citing Graham and Brownback, requesting the release of attorney/client documents relating to McConnell's service in the Solicitor General's Office.
I'd be happy to dig deeper into that issue for you, unless of course you are ready to move on and support the President and work on repairing the damage done to his leadership in the War, Economy, Social Security etc.
Again, I want to state in as clear a fashion as I can: I do NOT accuse all those who opposed Miers of being loudmouthed extremists I do however state that those who joined the cabal on the right and left should reflect carefully on the potential political damage and how that benefits our REAL opponents.
Barabas conservatives wanted a fight... and they got one.. Too bad it wasn't against our political opponents.
Hi MIke,
I'm sorry that things didn't work out the way you wanted. I will neither gripe nor gloat about what happened because I remained neutral. Though I thought your views were valid, I could not bring myself to oppose or support her. I had hoped, though, that she was a steel magnolia.
My wish now is that we can go forward (united) from here.
Oh, and I have and will continue to support the President.
Thank you Anna... The issue is more a concern for the politcal dynamic driving, or derailing President Bush's agenda, than it is a specific outcome.
If you want to see the damage that the Barabas wing of the party can do, look to California for examples... Barbara Boxer is an abomination and that pox upon our nation was put in office because the California branch of the Barabas conservatives undermines the unity of purpose that California Republicans would need to win with a candidate of their own.
God help us all if they inflict House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the nation in the name of "principle."
I think the Republican party needs to be united and then get nasty on the liberals! As Newt Gingrich said, "I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics."
Many Republicans are loyal, but quiet, except maybe on their blogs. They need to learn how to speak up. Had they done that earlier, maybe the whole mess with Miers could have been avoided.
Commenting by HaloScan
