The outcry against Miers has me concerned that it is a herald of a future and coming schism in the Republican Party.
I understand that there are some legitimate RHINO’s that need to be hunted down and put out to pasture. I’m with the rest of LST calling for their collective hide.
However, this howling of disrespect at Harriet Miers has me concerned. I hope I can articulate it, please be patient…..
As we all know, the Liberals could not pass their agenda legitimately through elections, discussion, voting and passing of laws. So they took over the Courts to systematically enact their agenda. The way they did it was subtle and sophisticated. I don’t think we have appreciated just how much we have bought it hook, line and sinker. They did it this way:
We have person “X” here. They are an outstanding legal scholar and pre-emanate in their field of law. Just about anyone that is knowledgeable in this field, knows about this person and how really, really absurdly smart they are in the law. They write and lecture extensively about the law. They eat and dream about the law. So given all of this ridiculous, obscenely huge knowledge base they posses, voting against them for Supreme Court Judge, or any Judge for that matter, just shows how stupid YOU really are, because after all, we all want the really, REALLY Best, of the Best, of the Best, on the bench.
What wasn’t said was how wacko Liberal person “X” was. But, that was not the consideration; were they qualified was the question. The answer was absolutely of course they were outrageously qualified; they were the very, very Best, of the Best. So they were voted in.
Our problems with the Court System today, stem from this arrangement of picking Jurists.
Now Conservatives and Republican politicians have fallen into this trap. No one likes to be outdone by the smart ass down the street. You can do one of two things to beat them: 1. you can beat them at their own game or 2. you can just beat them.
GWB took option 1 with Justice Roberts. He is trying to take option 2 with Miers.
As for how he was going to win with option 2 with Miers? I think Sun Tzu sums it up quite nicely in his millennium old book, The Art of War:
***To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.
The problem with GWB is he did not know the true identity his “enemy” in this case and they (“true conservatives") wanted a fight. A bloody, no holds barred, thrilla in Manilla, fight. (They wanted Chuckie Schummer in a headlock begging "uncle" and Kennedy begging for his next martini as it was held over his head, just out of his reach..) Since they didn’t get one in the Senate floor, they are now going after the President.
They should be reserving this desire to fight, defeat, humiliate and give out “turbo wedgies” to the real enemy in all of this: John McCain and the rest of the gutless wonders in the Senate. You know, the “Heroic 14” that kept GWB from being able to count on his ground war in the Senate to bring him victory.
In the meantime, the National Review, Charles Krauthammer, and Bill Kristol have been unrelentingly, negative in their attacks on Meirs. Krauthammer and Kristol have even gone so far as to suggest that either Miers withdraws her own nomination or GWB admit his mistake and do it for her.
If the Miers nomination is withdrawn by GWB especially, you are not going to get anyone on the bench except for Souter’s clone. See my point about McCain above and add in the fact that the Democrats would smell severe weakness and pull themselves together long enough to capitalize on it.
The Miers nomination is not the end of the Conservative take back of the Court System. Even if she were one of the favorites backed by National Review, Krauthammer or Kristol, that fact would remain the same. The take back of the Court System will not be completed with this nomination. Nor will it be completed with the next nomination. Or the next. It will be completed when 80% or more of the judges in the entire Federal Court System, embrace the idea that they are not the law-makers; instead, they are a co-equal in the balance of power.
That will be a while from now.
In the meantime, we need to pull ourselves together, and start getting ready for the long-war. Just like in the fight against terrorism.
Or, we will fail as a movement.
If that happens, get ready for another Clinton in the Whitehouse.
***To learn more about his strategy, may I suggest this reading on MOOSEMUSS.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
27 Responses to “In Defense of GWB and Miers”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
There are many ways to defeat your enemy without fighting.
1. Run around the battlefield naked,your enemy laughs so hard they have a heart attack and die.
2.Put up such a lame attempt at a fight, your enemy laughs so hard they have a heart attack and die.
Did GWB use #1 or #2?
Ree-C,
My objection to the Miers’ nomination is that we just DON’T KNOW how she is going to represent us on the court. We worked long and hard hours, as well as donated our funds, to get Dubya elected.
We wanted a nominee we KNOW will be on the “right” side of the issues. The “left” has Darth Bader Ginsberg. We wanted Luke Skywalker or Princess Leia.
Instead, we’ve got an ewok.
And another quote from the same tome:
“Those whose upper and lower ranks have the same desire are victorious.”
It looks like the upper ranks (Dubya and cronies) are telling the lower ranks (the rest of us), “Trust us. We’re politicians.”
If we KNOW what Miers is like, so will our enemy. The only thing we can do is to trust the leader who picked someone from his ranks that has served him faithfully for over 10 years……
Bush Jr. does not want to make the same mistake as Bush Sr. That is why he looked to someone he personally knew, as opposed to a friend of a friend type deal.
If you are the commander in a battle and you MUST have someone on the hill, do you have someone you haven’t served with do it, or do you pick your most trusted and capable Lt.?
P.S. The Ewoks won…….
PSS Right after they believed the delusion that C3PO was a god.
Before they believed the lie, they were going to eat the good guys.
Will Miers likewise have an epiphany that will change her back to her pre-ten years service, and we get another Souter clone?
And since you like Sun Tzu:
“So what enables an intelligent government and a wise military leadership to overcome others and achieve extraordinary accomplishments is foreknowledge.”
I want to *know* before she’s appointed for life.
I’m glad the “upper rank” has foreknowledge. Why is it wrong for the rest of us to wish for the same?
I don’t think she will succumb to the Liberals and fawn for their attention.
Why?
Because she hasn’t changed her hair or outfits in 25+ years.
It’s a real female catty thing to say, I admit. But if a women doesn’t change her outside, she’s not going anywhere inside either. She’s set.
Besides, if she wanted liberal attention, she had plenty of opportunity to do get it and go for it, but never did. (That’s why her “record” is so spotty.)
Then I guess we’ll have to put it down as a matter of faith. You have it. I do not.
After being let down on spending growth, borders, limited response to the terrorists in our midst, and continued attempts at appeasement of the left (Kennedy’s education bill, for example), I guess I just don’t trust Dubya as much as you do.
Miers was a democrat in the past. If she reverts (and she’s already changed sides once), then we’ve gained nothing by electing republicans from the lowest of the low (think Fred Hill as he’s the lowest republican I’ve ever heard of) to the highest of the high (Dubya) in our government.
I have faith because I have nothing else. And as I’ve tried to point out, all the other alternatives, to put it bluntly, suck.
I admit, GWB has disappointed me numerous times for much the same reasons you list. But he is all we have at this point.
But, there are very, very good people that have devoted their lives to fighting the Liberal Justice System such as Jay Seculow and James Dobson, that support Miers.
But remember this: Ronald Reagan changed from Democrat to Republican.
When did Harriet Miers change from Democrat to Republican? About the same time she changed inside and gave her soul to our Savior. It was part of the entire literal soul changing she was going through at that time of her life.
I will never run for office because if anyone looked at how I ran my life when I was younger (meaning, before now), they would see that I am vastly different from then. I could never live up to or prove sufficiently that I really am “changed” and would never go back to my old ways.
All we have is faith in each other, whether you realize it or not.
How do we know that Judge Bork with his huge, vast paper trail would not have changed eventually once on the Court?
How do we know that Justice Janice Rodgers wouldn’t be hunting for sympathetic New York Times coverage if she became a Supreme Court Justice?
We don’t.
All we have is faith……..
WHy are you all whining so much especiallywith this comment in # 2
My objection to the Miers’ nomination is that we just DON’T KNOW how she is going to represent us on the court.
She shouldn’t be representing anyone except the constitution of the United States and common sense and decency. One of the problems I see in the country today is the politicizing of judges.
Maybe she’ll follow the consititution maybe she’ll go off the deep end. All you should really hope for is that she does what is for the good of the country and not one man or political party.
Jeffd,
I stand by all of my comments in this discussion. We needed a known quantity. We “had faith” for the Roberts’ appointment. It is too much for Dubya to give us an immediate “do over” moments later.
Maybe you should look up the first three words in the preamble to see who I’m referring to when I say “… how she is going to represent us… .”
Minor correction, Wino:
SOME of us “had faith” for the Robert’s appointment. Some of us were disappointed even in what we heard him say we were looking for a Clarence Thomas and got a moderate Republican with a pretty face.
This latest appointment we were sort of hoping against hope would give us what we wanted for ALL appointments. Well, it may but then again it may not.
If, for most issues, it doesn’t matter who I vote for might as well vote for the third party candidate who is more in tune with me next time.
Agreed, Chuck.
Yet another Squawkbox rant ahead
I’ll say what has not been said.
I wanna see a fight
There are strong candidates for the position that I know share my same ideals, why aren’t they chosen? President Bush has appeased and cowtowed one too many times for my liking. Yeah Yeah President Bush plays rope-adope and has come out smelling like a rose on some issues. On others he has just plain sucked and why? Because he is trying to appease the opposition. Can’t we all get along, that type of junk.
I want to see just one strong conservative candidate shoved down the liberal dems collective throats. I want them shown for what they are and I want the REPUBLICAN RINOS exposed for what they are. I want the fence sitters to choose sides. Since Jusitice Bork was wrongly, well, borked, the Republicans have been playing the “Oh puhlease like me game.” I wanna see this poker party shookup. The libs want to play hardball, then let’s play hardball. I am still steaming that John Bolton had to be appointed while everyone was on vacation. That is a rant for another day.
Damn my second rant for the day. I need to take a long vacation. You may now return to your rat killin.
Who cares about which translation of which Ancient Chinese? You think that’s so cool? The best job was to be the army strategist so you didn’t actually have to fight.
>>diatribe alert
I trusted GWB to reduce Government? I trusted GWB to protect the borders? Why should I trust that GWB picked a candiddate in the judicial mode of Scalia and Thomas? I don’t! It’s time to fight for what we believe in.
A Miers in Sheep’s Clothing:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=acdsgzj7bucgb9mbaqsfs9642k4uz0j5
DrM,
Thanks for the link. Good reading, but I am still a fence-sitter. I am not inherently opposed to women’s (or black’s or [insert minority here]’s) studies programs. I don’t think they actually do anything to further ones education and should be only available as non-credit lectures, but that’s a fight for another day. Supporting such a program doesn’t make Miers any more or any less a question mark for us conservatives.
Squawkbox… Come on! Don’t hold back! Tell us what you really think.
In all seriousness, though, going after a fight for the fight’s sake is somewhat puerile. I would like to see a nominee in the mold you’ve outlined, but I’d prefer the democrats and rinos just step aside or make their sound-bite refutations during the floor debate, before the advice and consent is complete and our “man” is in.
I think what you’re asking for would lead to a fight, and I’m more than willing to accept such a situation. I’d like the “fourteen failures” to be exposed for the political scoundrels they are, and a strong, known conservative would do just that.
In other words, I’m in agreement with just about everything you said, except the statement asking for a fight. It’s kind of like Ralph Macchio and Noriyuki “Pat” Morita in “Karate Kid.” Why does Daniel study karate?
{The following is C&P’ed from imdb.com}
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate’s fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won’t have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.
I think we should have this showdown so we don’t have to continue fearing it in the future… or worse yet… never are able to exercise our earned majority position because we’re too worried about what Katie Couric is going to say.
And remember, Daniel eventually had to fight to stop fighting altogether (in Karate Kid VII, where Daniel’s great grandchild is being picked on in High School, I think).
Wino,
It is not the fight for fight sake that I want. I want the “fight” that should occur because the republicans are in power. We, the electorate, voted the republicans into power because of traditonal republican ideals. We were sold a bill of goods that I am not seeing.
That “gang fo 14″ agreement stewed my meat and is indicative of a larger problem with the republican party. The republicans won the last two election cycles and one would think the democrats have by what I see.
I see all this battle/war analogy through this thread and what I am seeing is appeasement. It all amounts to “Well we don’t wanna make things worse etc etc etc.” All this while the democrats continue to ratchet up the rhetoric and fortifying the political blockaids (philabusters etc).
I trust the electorate to make wise choices and I can accept if the democrats win. What I can’t accept is when the republicans stump on particular ideals and then turn and run like little kittens when they are barked at is abhorant to me. I don’t know about you but I voted for republicans (Presdient Bush in particular) because I believed that they would stand for and defend particular principles. I am not seeing it.
The wars the United States won through history is because they fought and defeated the enemy. The only disclaimer that I will offer for my arguments is that I do loathe war. I hate it. HOWEVER war is a necessary evil. Man’s nature dictates that there must be wars and sadly one side or the other must be utterly defeated to end the conflict.
Squawk:
Did it ever occur to your that these “RINOs” you so vehemently disparage are in fact reflecting the views of their constituents, as they are beholden to do in a representative democracy?
It seems you advocate strict adherence to a perceived party line that may not have existed in the first place. Your vision is reminiscent of the kind of ideological blindness encouraged in a certain totalitarian regime that existed on Europe’s eastern border for the greater part of a half century (and I mean formally, not substantively).
I for one am relieved to see some sense returning to the republican party, and a recognition on its part that we live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Maybe the party of Lincoln can be rescued from the radical extremists who seemed to have captured it.
That would be a good thing; for me, my country and the world.
Sorry Doc that dog don’t hunt. Take a look at the Republican party platform over the past 40 years, it has not changed very much. The Republican RINOs to which I refer “said” they supported that platform. Silly me I, I trust a man and his word till he proves me wrong.
The other thing I would comment on “is some sense returning to the republican party”. If I had the inclination (and I don’t) I would argue that the Republican party is becoming more like the Democrats everyday. I will end with this. Politics is like a marriage. If both sides were the same, then one side or the other is not needed.
The question remains:
Did it ever occur to your that these “RINOs” you so vehemently disparage are in fact reflecting the views of their constituents, as they are beholden to do in a representative democracy?
You haven’t answered…yet.
I would suggest that they aren’t. The core constituency of Republicans want “Republican” values - smaller/less intrusive government, fewer social programs, less taxes/more fiscal discipline, etc.
Have you not noticed that the constituents you would have me criticize have been very vocal about the RINOs they elected? Have you not noiticed even during the Clinton administration till now that the balance of “party” power shifted.
What was it you said in your post #18
“A Miers in Sheep’s Clothing:”
RINOs = Wolves in sheep clothing.
By the very definition I suspect those I believe are RINOs are not much unlike the carpet baggers of old. Mere opportunist that new that the could not be elected under the democrat banner so they became stealth “republicans”.
Sigh I weary of your merry go round. SoI think I’ll just move along.
Well Squawkbox I agree with you.
I also agree with DocMonroe about the Republicans and the party of Lincoln. That is, I agree it is fitting to compare the Republican leadership today with Lincoln.
The great thing about Lincoln is that you can always find him saying exactly what you want to hear–whatever it is.
Lincoln was nothing but a wicked sophist, and he used logic to exactly contrary ends (literally). When he had people good and confused, he then went ahead and did what he wanted. One might wish Jefferson Davis was the model. Jeff Davis was not a sophist. His arguments were consistent, and his behavior was consistent with his words and beliefs. Americans, even likely voters, don’t follow thoughts, they follow actions. I think that until people start saying, “That’s the sort of thing Lincoln would have done,” with the same tone they’d say it of Hitler; we’ll have no hope of regaining the instinctive defense of liberty that has historically characterized America. In the meantime, ignorant veneration of Lincoln will keep people from thinking anything like the things he did are bad. So you tell someone, “the income tax is an evil,” and someone else says, “But Lincoln instituted America’s first income tax,” and so your argument disintegrates in the aura of Lincoln. He was America’s greatest president, you know. If you have a problem with anything he did, you must just be a treasonous racist like Timothy McVeigh.
If I had to be modelled after someone, I’d rather follow Jefferson, or Washington, or Kennedy, or Reagan, or just about anybody besides the revenant of George III.
Keep guzzling the kool aid!