Posted on 10/05/2005 9:26:43 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON -- Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected.
Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination.
Miers hardly seems the true believer the Republican base was anticipating when the president's agents spread the word last week that his choice would please conservatives. In 1988, she was contributing to Al Gore's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers's intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the president's father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no president ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.
Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court.
Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of Federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of Fourteen, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon. But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.
The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.
OMG... I loved that!
So true!
Hey there Pup!
Well ... Pony's are fun .. But sweaters are more practical in the long
I trust the President but I wish that on certain big issues (the size of government, the importance of choosing the best qualified) he would trust us, his core support.
I wish he had a line item veto .. because if anyone watches the Senate and the House .. they would know they have a bad habit of attaching all kinds of spending amendments to important legislations they know the president won't/can't veto .. and then turn around and point fingers at the President
With that said .. yes, there are things the President had not done
That's all it's about. Fighting. Screaming. Yelling. Blood on the floor.
I'm calling these people the "hooligan conservatives." They don't care about scholarship or what ultimately happens on the SC.
They want an all-out brawl with Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.
I just watched the fired speechwriter, David Frum, wring his hands and moan on CSPAN for 45 minutes over "Harriett." He was disgusting in his backhanded criticisms of her.
I was not overjoyed when the nomination of Harriet Miers came up, but after witnessing the flippant and hasty putdowns from Coulter, Will and many on here on FR I think I'll just support the President on this one. And no pictures of Ann Coulter. She just doesn't seem all that attractive any more.
There are many types of Republicans. They post all day on this site. I don't see anywhere on the Free Republic that to participate you must be a, "real Republican."
You go too far! :>)
---NO NEW ANTI-GUN LAWS!
But he said he would sign the renewal of the AWB if Congress passed it.---
Fine. Here's a little story for you that I had posted to another thread:
Here in Montana in the last election there were three candidates running for a particular State Representative's seat. One was a liberal from California, the other a Republican, and the last was from the Constitution Party. The last thing most folks from that district wanted was a liberal from California, but the Republican wasn't conservative enough for many. So what did they get? A liberal from California.
The vote split almost evenly 3 ways. Those folks have learned the hard way why we have a 2 party system and what compromise in politics means. 2/3 of them will be sucking hind tit until the next election.
Excellent response to a group of people who deserve
no response at all, considering they have done nothing
to show that the President did anything wrong in
nominating Miss Miers.
Why do I have the feeling these, our friends in
our conservative cause, are upset because Miss
Miers is a Christian?
The resulting problem wouldn't have arisen if the republican had been more conservative. Which is why conservatives are puzzled when the GOP moderates, capitulates, and otherwise goes wobbly on advocating and implementing conservative principles.
---The resulting problem wouldn't have arisen if the republican had been more conservative.---
He said as Hillary started to redecorate the country. :^)
Want to bet?
the pragmatists will.
the coulda shoulda woulda idealists will kvetch continually, it's what they live for.
Golly. I hope not. As with your Montana misfortune, the problem won't arise if the republican is openly conservative. That's the message that conservatives have been SHOUTING to the GOP for years. In many districts, with resounding success.
Another point being that the GOP holds the keys to its own success, or lack thereof. Blaming the voter is a cop out.
There is nothing more importing or lasting than the picks a President makes on the US Supreme Court.
GWB could royally screw up the budged, or FEMA, or education or whatever - and I still would be willing to offer support as long as he stuck to good solid principles in the Judiciary and in the WOT.
He just blew at least 50 percent of his credibility with me, if not more.
Plus consider that the US Supreme Court could ultimately influence HOW WE FIGHT the War on Terror.
This whole fiasco is so frustrating because it simply did not have to be this way. There are so many people involved in the process who were ready to go to the mat for a good nominee with merit.
Unfortunately Harriet Miers has no judicial merit. Yes she is a good Christian who is a friend of the President, but sometimes that is simply not enough.
Brilliant, Miss Marple. Thank you for putting into words that which many of us have been trying to get across.
I am "the base" also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.