Thursday, October 27, 2005

Miers is gone!

Miers finally withdrew her nomination... so what do you all think? I would especially like to hear from Nolan.

I think this could be a good turning point for the last three years of the presidency. Some people are congratulating the president for "seeing his errors." I disagree - he pretty much had no choice at this point, with his approval ratings falling and base deteriorating. I congratulate conservatives. This proves that we are not a bunch of party hacks but really do care about the principles we fight for. Let's hope for a quality pick this time around.


Blogger Matt said...

As a good Conservative, and law student I will not agree fully with the premise of your argument. I don't believe Bush cares about his popularity, and with your frequent uncited quotes of Rush you should be of the opinion that the base is not deteriorating they are debating which is healthy and shows the strength of our party. I furthermore do not consider myself a party hack, I consider myself a political realist. It is great for those that call themselves conservatives to argue for all these grandiose ideas, but it is funny how so few of them have the cajones to actually do anything. I fervently support those conservatives that do run for office and their ideas, but until we replace DeWine Voinovich Snow Specter(and abot 35 more) the President is greatly limited in what he can and cannot realistically do.

All this being said I see this resulting in 2 ways.
1. The President selects a good Conservative. Someone that Rush, Hannity and the blogging world approve of. Possibly they get in 54-36, Bush argues to Specter he wanted someone with
qualifications and here they are.
2. Bush nominates McConnel, Brown, Clement and this ends up like Bork and we get stuck with our 3rd choice, see Justice Kennedy.
3. Bush is realing too badly from Libby's indictment(guessing), from 2000 dead, and from two Bush bashing shows on Comedy Central and picks a well known, well respected moderate.

If 1 turns out great. Conservatives got a good push and pulled the Court to the right. However, if it doesn't, and I don't think it will unfortunately, we are screwed. Harriet Mier's was a conservative. Was she as qualified as Robert's "no" was she more qualified than Rehnquist when he was appointed "yes". Regardless there was little doubt in my mind she was going to follow Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

I know that no one on this blog is going to question my conservative beliefs, so there is no reason to defend them. My question is what are the conservative talking heads going to say if Bush goes with option 2 or 3. I know they will take the credit if he goes with 1. So if he goes with 2 or 3 are they going to take the blame. If Souter 2 is chosen will Conservatives say darn we should have stuck with Miers. This is what political realism is. It means doing what you can conservatively and not what you can't, it means taking credit when something good happens and taking the blame when pushing too hard right pulls things to the left. If and only if you are willing to take the blame for any pull to the left should they take credit for a possible push to the right.

10/27/2005 11:19 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

All this being said I have to go with who ever Roger is and hope for Janice Rogers Brown. She would be an amazing pick politically and ideologically. A black woman who is far right it would be amazing.

As some point the NAACP is going to have a tough time arguing that Republicans are racist. When we are represented by Brown, Condi, Thomas, Powell etc. and they are represented by Byrd.

10/27/2005 11:24 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

This nomination is one of the big things we fought for last year. It was such a disappointing nomination on so many levels. Of course there is a balance between idealism and realism - the question is at what point do you draw the line? At what point do political wins become meaningless because the principles we originally sought out to fight for are no longer being followed? In my opinion, we were reaching this threshold when you consider the overall performance of Bush on domestic issues. You said you are concerned about Bush's legacy. No one will remember Miers a year from now and there is no reason we shouldn't be able to put up a quality conservative that will fulfill this legacy.

I don't know how my quotes are uncited Rush quotes when he's on during my work time... I haven't listened to him for a while (I do like him though) so don't accuse me of taking my cues from someone else. I could just as well accuse you of following the party line. I never meant to imply that the actual base is deteriorating, I said that Bush's base is deteriorating (i.e., his support amongst the base). This isn't good when the support of the rest of the country is falling as well. You say he doesn't care about polls, but as a political realist I'm sure you would agree that if congressional republicans do not want to be associated with the president because even the base has turned against him Bush would not have a very successful second term. We are in agreement, though, that these debates are good for the conservative movement and this does set us apart from the libs.

Now let's join back together and support what we hope is a quality nomination and second term. And please don’t talk in a condescending way to me, as a law student. (Still love ya though; it’s too bad we can’t discuss this in person.)

10/27/2005 12:26 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

I don't what was condescending, but oh well. Still will conservative talking heads take blame if we get stuck with Souter 2?

10/27/2005 1:04 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

I guess it was just the way I read it over the internet.

If we get stuck with Souter 2, Bush should take the blame for nominating a Souter 2. He should have known and nominated a solid candidate in the first place - now he's got a second chance.

10/27/2005 1:06 PM  
Blogger Nathan said...

I'll jump in later tonight after I have finished celebrating...As I told steve when I was walking by the TV in the Atlanta Airport I pumped my fist and yelled "yes!"...tonight I am going to celebrate...well really it is just Thursday and I am going to do what I do every Thursday-but tonight I'll have a good reason to celebrate.

Nolan, I can't imagine McConnell getting Borked-he is too widely respected in academia. What about a Hatch or something?

What does scare me was the WH's previous comments about a lot of candidates turning them down...Were they true? Or perhaps were they just further 'justification' for going with Miers?

10/27/2005 5:14 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Nathan I like the idea of a Senator. Hatch is too old, but a younger conservative Senator would make good sense.

No one believed Bork would get Borked, he was well respected until his hearings where he told everyone what he actually felt and it went down hill from there.

I hope everyone understands that I am hoping for an ultra conservative nominee that we can shove in there. My concern is less with Bush, and more with Specter, McCain and that group. If we can't get those guys to vote to stop a fillibuster or at least vote to confirm we are stuck with O'Connor for a while. I think if these guys agreed to support the nominee Bush would pick a big time conservative.

My vote is still Janice Rogers Brown, I like McConnel and he would be great in front of the committee. However, having Thomas and Brown sitting there appointed by Republicans is just a dream from the political side.

10/27/2005 6:56 PM  
Blogger Nathan said...

ok...y'all are going to have to anxiously await for my comments...not in the capacity at the moment.

10/27/2005 10:56 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

I'm sure the entire blogosphere is waiting in anticipation

10/28/2005 8:18 AM  
Blogger Nathan said...

I suppose I am less concerned about the politics of this thing-If we can win politically and ideaologically at the same time-then great. When it comes to the SCOTUS I believe that this is a unique institution that demands the best and is somewhere that we should stick to merits in the strictest sense. Many qualified people can be capable of handling cabinet level positions that are really often not much else than providing leadership and delegating-so win your political points there (not that this is what was done with Gonzales, Rice, Powell-etc)...

I really want to see McConnell or Luttig-or just someone in that mold-I am concerned as to whether they might have already turned down the chance.

Was Bork that widely supported by the legal academics as McConnell is? I am sure there are some other wildcards (law professors) out there.

Overall, this is a key moment. Bush really has to nail this pick. If Miers and went to the Senate for full vote-two things would have happened, both bad. First she might have been voted down-big political blow. Second (and probably worse)-she gets by in a squeaker and Bush loses conservative support for the rest of his term. I think you then would have seen an even stronger rebellion in Congress.
What about the other McConnell (Mitch from Kentucky)...he might be a good Senator and is in his early 60s. Or perhaps John Cornyn? I think in choosing a Senator one knows who they are getting (which can be good and bad).

Steve, you need to stop rewording Rush transcripts. (just kidding).

10/28/2005 9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home