| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/27/05 7:09 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
| How many "renegades" will you be able to count if a true fight developes? |
It would only take a handful if the Dems stay united, which they would against a hard righty.
I don't think Bush is automatically going to pick another woman. He initially picked Roberts to replace O'Connor, indicating that he doesn't see the gender makeup as a deal breaker.
I would love for him to pick Alex Kozinski. After US v Ramirez-Lopez he's probably not an administration favorite, despite being solidly conservative.
Tradesports has McConnell as the favorite right now.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/27/05 7:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
| How many "renegades" will you be able to count if a true fight developes? |
It would only take a handful if the Dems stay united, which they would against a hard righty.
I don't think Bush is automatically going to pick another woman. He initially picked Roberts to replace O'Connor, indicating that he doesn't see the gender makeup as a deal breaker.
I would love for him to pick Alex Kozinski. After US v Ramirez-Lopez he's probably not an administration favorite, despite being solidly conservative.
Tradesports has McConnell as the favorite right now. |
Oh I have no idea who Bush will pick. I just know that the base wants Owen or Brown. My point is that this is not about the Senate. They didn't defeat Miers, the base did. There isn't one Senator on the record against Miers albeit there would have been.
The point being that the political move in my mind is raw meat. I supported Miers because I, apparently like you, had my doubts about a hand full of (R) Senators if it gets bloody. The reality is they had nothing to do with taking down Miers. Th base took down Miers.
My new position is that they have a new reality, they (wobbly Senators) are not bigger than Bush and he lost this one.
Attila here we come, and my guess is it's Owen or Brown if the base gets a vote. |
|
Mysticwiz
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 722
Back to top |
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/27/05 7:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Mysticwiz wrote: |
Dick Durbin was on CNN with Sen Allen, and it was funny. Allen through out a few names i think it was KAREN WILLIAMS, J. MICHAEL LUTTIG and the final one,which imo would set off a powder keg is JANICE ROGERS BROWN.Luttig is DOA for Dems, but JRB, just the mear mention of her name got a physical response from durbin... 
what is it about JRB the goes so deep? From what i under stand LUTTIG top all Reps list, But of course that why i think he is DOA to the DEms.
I have issues with JRB the Same i have with Condi,it's not them as people, maybe it's just the way the are packaged.  |
Mysticwiz,
I think that JRB is the perfect storm for dems, it's a nightmare. Here we have the the perfect bio(for a liberal) combined with the perfect judicial philosphy for a conservative.
Dems go into convulsions just thinking of JRB on the Supreme court. I don't know exactly what it is but odds are it's a swan song for the old race politics they have counted on. Just a guess mind you but she really is that good. |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 12:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
October 28, 2005
Step forward the real nominee
By Gerard Baker
WHEN President Bush shocked supporters and opponents alike a month ago by nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, an intriguing conspiracy theory did the rounds in Washington.
Ms Miers, so self-evidently unqualified for a seat on the nation’s highest court, was a kind of stalking horse, the theory went. The real Bush plan, masterminded no doubt by his Machiavellian amanuensis Karl Rove, was to put an extreme conservative jurist on the court, someone who would vote to overturn abortion rights, outlaw affirmative action and break down the barriers between Church and State.
The problem was that someone like that would have a very tough time getting confirmed by the Senate. Though the Republicans have a majority in the upper house of the Congress, which must approve Supreme Court candidates, the Democrats, who would obviously oppose such a nominee, have enough votes to block his (or her) confirmation.
The best way to proceed, then, was to put up first a candidate the White House knew would get knocked down. Having “regretfully” and “humiliatingly” withdrawn that candidate, the President could then, with heavily orchestrated reluctance and irritation, put up the suitably-qualified favourite.
The Democrats would have a hard time in the court of public opinion if they now took exception to someone who was, whatever their judicial intentions, at least smart, capable and experienced. They wouldn’t want the potential opprobrium of throwing out a second nominee.
Goodbye Harriet. Come on down, Attila
<snip>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1846664,00.html
LOL!
This guy has the same theory I did... |
Well I hate to say this. I really do.  But some of us pretty much nailed every aspect of this story and its conclusion for Miers weeks ago and were smugly shot down by Ivy League lawyers and DC residents alike. Some new to the board and some not. To which the jammer grew somewhat indignant, as of course he would.
Point is this. You may be brilliant and highly educated. But you're in good company here. Take note and don't lose your notes like Judy Miller._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 12:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I heard this referred to as...
Bush Throws Mama From the Train._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 7:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
October 28, 2005
Step forward the real nominee
By Gerard Baker
WHEN President Bush shocked supporters and opponents alike a month ago by nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, an intriguing conspiracy theory did the rounds in Washington.
Ms Miers, so self-evidently unqualified for a seat on the nation’s highest court, was a kind of stalking horse, the theory went. The real Bush plan, masterminded no doubt by his Machiavellian amanuensis Karl Rove, was to put an extreme conservative jurist on the court, someone who would vote to overturn abortion rights, outlaw affirmative action and break down the barriers between Church and State.
The problem was that someone like that would have a very tough time getting confirmed by the Senate. Though the Republicans have a majority in the upper house of the Congress, which must approve Supreme Court candidates, the Democrats, who would obviously oppose such a nominee, have enough votes to block his (or her) confirmation.
The best way to proceed, then, was to put up first a candidate the White House knew would get knocked down. Having “regretfully” and “humiliatingly” withdrawn that candidate, the President could then, with heavily orchestrated reluctance and irritation, put up the suitably-qualified favourite.
The Democrats would have a hard time in the court of public opinion if they now took exception to someone who was, whatever their judicial intentions, at least smart, capable and experienced. They wouldn’t want the potential opprobrium of throwing out a second nominee.
Goodbye Harriet. Come on down, Attila
<snip>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1846664,00.html
LOL!
This guy has the same theory I did... |
Well I hate to say this. I really do. But some of us pretty much nailed every aspect of this story and its conclusion for Miers weeks ago and were smugly shot down by Ivy League lawyers and DC residents alike. Some new to the board and some not. To which the jammer grew somewhat indignant, as of course he would.
Point is this. You may be brilliant and highly educated. But you're in good company here. Take note and don't lose your notes like Judy Miller. |
Well, I still don't have a handle on this story. I'm just saying that month's ago, I figured the ideal strategy, if possible, would be to advance a dummy candidate first. I do believe Bush knows how she would have voted. I care about votes, not gravitas.
Look how the brilliant Supreme Court handled the eminent domain case in CT.
The right wing opinion leaders want a fight or they want Schumer and company to fold. But either way they want the judge to be accomplished and unabashedly publicly conservative. I don't get it, but that is the way this went down. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 7:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
| I'm just saying that month's ago, I figured the ideal strategy, if possible, would be to advance a dummy candidate first. I do believe Bush knows how she would have voted. |
He went too dummy with his candidate. He would have needed someone for the Democrats to tear apart, not someone his own party would revolt over.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 8:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
| I'm just saying that month's ago, I figured the ideal strategy, if possible, would be to advance a dummy candidate first. I do believe Bush knows how she would have voted. |
He went too dummy with his candidate. He would have needed someone for the Democrats to tear apart, not someone his own party would revolt over. |
I'll be the first to admit that Bush can be nieve when he gets close to people. I physically winced when he made that mushy comment about Putin. I have no idea what the reality is.
Bush clearly underestimated the importance of this nomination to the conservative movement and "trust me" just didn't cut it.
As for provoking the Dems, I think they thought her evangelical Christian background would have provoked the left. It would have. The problem is that the conservatives fired at her first. Why spend the money when you don't need to? |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 8:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| vanyogan wrote: |
| As for provoking the Dems, I think they thought her evangelical Christian background would have provoked the left. It would have. The problem is that the conservatives fired at her first. Why spend the money when you don't need to? |
It was the moderate republicans that did her in. The hard righties, like James Dobson and Rick Santorum, eventually endorsed her. It was the moderates like Arlen Specter and John Warner that never came around. Picking a far right candidate isn't likely to change that scenario much.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 8:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| vanyogan wrote: |
| As for provoking the Dems, I think they thought her evangelical Christian background would have provoked the left. It would have. The problem is that the conservatives fired at her first. Why spend the money when you don't need to? |
It was the moderate republicans that did her in. The hard righties, like James Dobson and Rick Santorum, eventually endorsed her. It was the moderates like Arlen Specter and John Warner that never came around. Picking a far right candidate isn't likely to change that scenario much. |
I have to disagree with you on this one. It was people like George Will, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, National Review Online, Podoretz, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, Lashawn Barber, Laura Ingraham. You name em, they were not pleased.
Hugh Hewitt was the only remaining high profile right wing media supporter.
RE: http://www.truthlaidbear.com/miers.php
(it's not working right now but it tracks bloggers for, against, neutral) |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 8:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I don't think GWB nor the senate is swayed much by bloggers and/or media types. Ann Coulter has far less influence than she thinks.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
vanyogan
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 9673
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 9:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| I don't think GWB nor the senate is swayed much by bloggers and/or media types. Ann Coulter has far less influence than she thinks. |
It's not the bloggers it's the columnists, especially NRO, George Will and Charles Krauthammer. Coulter is the least credible because she assailed Roberts also. She wants an in your face ideolog. It sells books and gets her face on TV.
I forgot that Thomas Sowell gave a tepid endorsement but his point was that the wobbly kneed senate forced Bush to go stealth. I agree with him. A SCOTUS nominee is a big vote, well above apeals court judicial politics. These votes have consequences which is why you had the rediculous spectacle of 23 Democrats voting against Roberts, they know where the votes are in their game.
Bush's biggest problem is Chairman Specter, the right is furious at Bush for backing him in PA when they felt the conservative could have beat him. Bush lost PA and now he has a "maverick" RINO holding the door to the nomination process.  |
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 2831
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 11:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
i disagree that it was really (only) moderate republicans that did her in. i also disagree that bloggers didn't play a role.
i think the point is that there was a combined effort from the intellectual right -- and that included mainstream print columnists like Will and Kristol, as well as a whole bunch of influential bloggers like Bainbridge the the Volokhs. And most of the Federalist Society rank and file, which is a lot of powerful people.
The NRO's The Corner was the primary collection point/discussion situs for the whole thing. They were pretty brutal.
And that fed into/helped produce the incredible opposition from the Republican staff lawyers on the Senate Judiciary committee. None of the Senators (far right or moderate right) would outright oppose her, but the support was tepid, and all of them allowed their lawyers to leak and leak and leak.
Everyone on the Hill was trashing her, off the record, at every opportunity.
David Frum was the primary dumping ground of the leaks and anonymous trashings. It was amazing the things he kept publishing.
the intellectual conservative wing doesn't have much sway with Bush or with the grassroots Republic base... but it does have a lot of sway with beltway lawyers and Congressional staffers.
in short, i think there were a lot of reasons. it was a combined effort of a lot of people with different sorts of power.
|
|
Retav8or
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 108
Location: Lakeville, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/28/05 11:28 am ::: |
Reply |
|
[Look how the brilliant Supreme Court handled the eminent domain case in CT.
[/quote]
The court ruled that the jurisdiction for eminent domain was a States Rights issue and was therefore subject to state and local laws.
The 5-4 decision was interestingly enough decided by the assumed liberal judges; Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Souter.
O'Conner, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist dissented.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/2005/06/supreme-court-eminent-domain-ruling.php
_________________
Av8r
Go Go Gophers
Win Twins
Skol Vikings
State of Hockey
Los Lynx
|
|
|
|
