Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's unpleasant surprise
Townhall ^ | 10/06/05 | Robert Novak

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; nominee; novak; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-238 next last
To: Republic of Texas
Rest assured, there were many of those.

Unfortunately, President Bush seems to have an allergic reaction to Democratic opposition.

61 posted on 10/05/2005 11:56:02 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: catpuppy
*snicker*

I'm sold!

Why do I get the distinct impression that this is akin to what embracing Scientology feels like?

62 posted on 10/06/2005 12:02:40 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
Stop the Miers nomination. Withdraw it, GW.

Talk about being childish. That's not going to happen. Barring some revelation of incompetence or corruption the president's nominiee will be confirmed overwhelmingly. Even if you threaten to hold your breath until he withdraws her name.

63 posted on 10/06/2005 12:05:19 AM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

You've really come into your prime with all your Bush bashing these last few days.

You seem to be really enjoying it.

And, yes, you can make that FOUR.


64 posted on 10/06/2005 12:07:37 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

Let's not much up the drama queens fun with pesky facts, okay?


65 posted on 10/06/2005 12:10:17 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999; MJY1288; Miss Marple; Mo1; onyx; xsmommy
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's...

Interesting choice of words there, isn't it? Tolerated.

Some people might think that they've only "tolerated" him all these years, that he wasn't and would not have been their choice for president.

Oh, wait, that's right, isn't it? These "real, true" conservatives never wanted Bush as GOP nominee in the first place, did they?

Now that I've remembered that, I'm sitting here why I should give a big damn what they think about Bush and Bush's nominees anyway.

66 posted on 10/06/2005 12:14:18 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; McGavin999; MJY1288; Miss Marple; Mo1; xsmommy; sinkspur; BigSkyFreeper; kayak; ohioWfan; ..

This post sums up the ones here who claim Bush has let them down --- (received in FR mail) and the explanation was written by a BRILLIANT poster who shall remain anonymous.





"It doesn't matter at this point if she ends up voting more conservative than Scalia. The damage has already been done. Bush has played into the hands of his critics by nominating a close friend who wasn't exactly first in her class."

811 posted on 10/04/2005 9:51:05 AM PDT by XXXXXXXX (name removed so as to not embarrass the poster)







That, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of how the fringe operates. They can NEVER be satisfied. Their argument today, in one form or another, is that it no longer matters whether or not Miers is conservative. The long-term impact of changing the balance on the court doesn't matter. What matters is that is the highly temporary public relations battle. Or, as some are putting it, the chance to do battle with the Dems in the senate.

You see, the fight is what matters to them. Nothing more. Nothing less. They live their lives in a perpetual battle over things large, small, and immaterial. The battle is all. The outcome matters not a whit.


67 posted on 10/06/2005 12:23:27 AM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Impeach the Boy
This has always been one of MY personal favorites:

To: u-89
Rockwell, and his band of self-professed true patriots, are a gaggle of silly long winded arrogant know-nothings. The problem with this tiny cirle-jerk, is that THEY believe THEY have the TRUE compass, and wish to DEFINE all and everything under the sun by their divine revelations.....Conservative can come in more than one shade, and 99.9% of conservatives are NOT going to let these goofy dipsticks define them...and they will not allow them to create a Hilter BROWNSHIRT "Committe To Determine Who Is Really Conservative".
45 posted on 03/25/2003 3:01:52 PM EST by Impeach the Boy

68 posted on 10/06/2005 12:27:45 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

I always thought that a presidential candidate would possess a short list of people that he or she would want to put on our highest court. Miers may or may not have been on Bush's list but, sure as sh*t, the president could have made some effort in presenting Miers to the world at large. It is the President's responsibility that Miers comes on the scene as a complete unknown. There is much that he could have done to make Miers a known and respected personality.


69 posted on 10/06/2005 12:32:20 AM PDT by thegreatbeast (Quid lucrum istic mihi est?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

LOL! I like that too.

This "base" business is so damn tiresome and false.

WE are the base. The ones who support him and trust his judgement.


70 posted on 10/06/2005 12:36:02 AM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onyx

The "base" doesn't use thier vote as blackmail.


71 posted on 10/06/2005 12:42:45 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Gunder
This is the thanks we all get for working our arses off.

I've been working my ass off since 1988 when I registered to vote at the age of 18. Even if that meant voting for GHWB and Bob Dole. Did I feel betrayed? No, and I didn't go around with a defeatist attitude written all over my face. You don't win battles by not showing up at the ballot box, and you don't win battles by betraying your own grassroots army which comprises the base.

72 posted on 10/06/2005 12:57:37 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Gunder

Most importantly, you don't turn your guns on your fellow base members or your own leader because you feel defeatist and betrayed.


73 posted on 10/06/2005 1:00:32 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: onyx
"What matters is that is the highly temporary public relations battle. Or, as some are putting it, the chance to do battle with the Dems in the senate." I can think of bigger battles to wage with the left, this is not one of them. This nominee is turning out to be a rope-a-dope on the left.
74 posted on 10/06/2005 1:03:02 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dagnabbit
"And you should be embarrassed to have put anything suggesting this President is anything other than Ted Kennedy when it comes to immigration and the borders."

Oh please. What do you know about our borders that didn't come from supermarket tabloids?

I just spent 9 days along the U.S. - Mexico border, including 2 days around Playa de Tijuana and Tijuana itself. Unlike what you'd see 5 years ago, you don't see hordes of illegals running and swimming across the border. You *do* see U.S. border patrols, U.S. Coast Guard ship patrols, helicopter patrols, and a big steel fence that GWB built after 9/11.

Now granted, this increased border security probably isn't perfect, but it irritates me that people are claiming that we've "done nothing" or that our borders are still "wide open" and other such nonsense.

Yes, there are remote desert areas where environmental groups have successfully sued the Bush Administration in order to slow the construction of the steel fence. Yes, those remote areas *are* passable on foot (but you'd better bring a bunch of water and be prepared to hike for miles) for now. So clearly more needs to be done.

But we also have to give credit where it is due, and there has been substantial progress on border security in the last 4 years, contrary to the people who keep writing articles based on pre-9/11 information.

Once easy, Illegal Immigration Now Risky:President Bush Builds 12 ft Tall Steel Fence Along Mexican Border From The Pacific Into Arizona, Plus Around Major Populated Areas In Arizona and Texas

Illegals Deported By The Planeload Now

75 posted on 10/06/2005 1:30:58 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Gee .. I don't even know where to start with this article .. except to ask, do these reporters ever watch the news before they type an article??

Though, yes .. one reason I voted for the President was the Judges .. but it was NOT the only reason why I voted for him

There were many reasons .. the important one being ... I Trust Him!

As for the spending??

Have these reporters ever watched what happens on the Senate Floor with regard to spending and all the Amendments that are tacked onto important legislation Bills??

They do this for a reason because they know the President won't veto a Military Bill

As for Harriet Miers ... we shall see at the hearing what kind of Judge she could be

Call me crazy .. But I normally like to hear what a person says before I throw them under the bus or not

Oh and that comment from Reid about Gore?

It's taken out of context .. Reid didn't just mention it ... a reporter asked him what he thought about that news

76 posted on 10/06/2005 1:31:31 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: faithincowboys
"Yeah he was good when he needed us to give him the ability to go to war and get re-elected. Now he doesn't need us and he is crapping on us..."

Can you link to a single post of yours that was **ever** complimentary of President Bush (just so that I can sleep at night knowing that you aren't some DU troll in "conservative" drag)?

77 posted on 10/06/2005 1:32:39 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Can you link to a single post of yours that was **ever** complimentary of President Bush

No. It's too busy posting that Harriet Miers shouldn't be ruling on family life matters because she's never been married or had any children.

78 posted on 10/06/2005 1:34:47 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
Novak's wrong. Originalist who will look to the Constitution and not international law, that's what we fought for. Not "conservatives" to send the court "rightward."

Frankly, compared with the present court, an Originalist who will look to the constitution and not international law would be a conservative that would send the court rightward.

79 posted on 10/06/2005 1:39:29 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: onyx
That, in a nutshell, is a perfect example of how the fringe operates. They can NEVER be satisfied. Their argument today, in one form or another, is that it no longer matters whether or not Miers is conservative. The long-term impact of changing the balance on the court doesn't matter. What matters is that is the highly temporary public relations battle. Or, as some are putting it, the chance to do battle with the Dems in the senate.

You nailed that one!

80 posted on 10/06/2005 1:44:10 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-238 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson