Bush's unpleasant surprise

Townhall ^ | 10/06/05 | Robert Novak

[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.

[Howlin]

Blood lust.

[rbmillerjr]

It is amazing to watch the Party try to spin against every conservative opinion writer....and quite telling.

[Mo1]

Yep

Ya know, as a political junkie .. I'd love bringing the Dems to their knees as much as the next person

But some things are more important to me

Like the future of our country

[Howlin]

And what if we can win without firing a shot?

[Southack]

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

Why, because he uses an oblique approach rather than headfirst hack-and-slash tactics?!

Name an area where Democrats won a fight for their agenda at our expense and President Bush's expense.

Income tax cuts?!

Banning partial birth abortion?!

Deploying our national missile defense systems?!

Putting Hussein in jail?!

Disarming Libya?!

Kicking Syria out of Lebanon?!

Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan?!

Approving 60% more oil drilling permits than did the entire 8 years of the Clinton Administration?!

Opening up the Alaska Petroleum Reserve to new oil drilling (and soon, opening up ANWR)?!

Repealing the estate tax?!

Cutting the double tax on dividends?!

Killing Kyoto?! Killing the CCCP-U.S. ABM Treaty?! Killing the ICC?!

President Bush, in your words, has "an allergic reaction to Democratic opposition?!"

Do you think that **any** of the above came without Democratic opposition??

You've been lax in supporting your new-found criticisms, too...what happened to the old Do not dub me shapka broham...the Do not dub me shapka broham who would list facts instead of appeals to emotion?

Where did that Do not dub me shapka broham go?

[Mo1]

Like Reagan ?

[Howlin]

Yeah. I don't remember a lot of demands for blood on the floor back then.

I just can't figure out where that's coming from.

[Mo1]

It's the new generation of Democrats

I've said it before and I say it again

The Dems of my parents generation no longer exists

It's been taken over by the radicals

[Howlin]

It looks like our "side" has just as many radicals and their side.

[BigSkyFreeper]

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...

You've acted like you've been crapped on for 5 years.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I look at my 88 year old Grandmother that I've lived with since 1991, going through the usual motions of Alzheimers. Even though some of her short term memory has gone by the wayside, she still can't believe the Democrats of today.

[Mo1]

They are trying .. but haven't suceeded .. yet

[Caipirabob]

LOL!

[xsmommy]

There is much that he could have done to make Miers a known and respected personality

yeah, great idea. you really don't know much about the process do you? do you realize that there are interest groups that make it their life's work to prepare to destroy these nominees and the hearings? do you know that they stand, arms folded, in the back of the hearing room, staring down the Dem senators that owe them allegiance, completely out of sight of the cameras ? Their names are Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, etc. Yeah, what a great idea for the President to bring out his judicial pick and let american KNOW her, as the enemy sets about destroying her.

[cspackler]

And then there's that little Anwar thing. And oh yeah, tax cuts....

[xsmommy]

shhhhhh.... the 'inside the box' thinkers can't conceive of any other way. if they haven't thought of it, these deepthinking keyboard constitutional scholars, then it sure as hell is the WRONG thing to do. it wasn't luttig, owens, or brown, therefore we are doomed, doomed doomed. it's over howlin, i have your purple shroud and nikes right here, we need to wait for the next Hale=Bopp.

[Miss Marple]

Yet another article and thread filled with the usual suspects, who refuse to even use common courtesy in debate, and fill the threads with sophomoric objections, vulgarity, and exaggeration.

Where is the supposed rationality of conservatives? All I see here are the rantings of a group that I fervently hope are NOT involved in local politics; anyone presenting themselves in the manner I see here will drive people to the democrats in droves.

Southack, in response to an exaggerated claim that Bush doesn't even act like a Republican, posts an extensive list of President Bush's accomplishments. The reasoned response? "Bush crapped on his base."

> Well, there, that convinces me! Why should I consider facts when such witty bon mots are bandied about?

Let me tell you complainers something: YOU are not the base. I have been here long enough to see you in action through three elections. I don't care if you really voted for the President or not; you don't support him when you disagree with his actions, and you actively work to undermine his support.

It's people like ME who are the base. We are the people who loyally support him even when we don't agree, who have maintained our faith in him because we know what a good man he is, who take the time to look at accomplishments as well as problems.

George Bush is President of the United States and I thank God for this every single day. He has turned this nation back from the Clinton era of yielding to foreign manipulation, set an example of excellence in government, managed to give conservatives some hard-won victories, and has done this while elevating the reputation of the White House and living his Christianity in a manner that I can only aspire to. He has done it without petty shots at opponents, vulgar comments to the press, or meaningless fights over small potatoes.

I am the base. Howlin is the base. Mo1 is the base. Southack is the base. As are millions of others across this nation. He hasn't lost us, and unless I find him suddenly messing with interns while taking bribes from the Chinese and proposing massive tax increases, he will not lose me.

I have had it with this juvenile whining. I proudly support the President, and I support Harriet Miers. I personally don't care what any of the nay-sayers on this thread have to say anymore. I have a list of them saved, and when the next issue brings forth the same sort of opposition, they will appear again, mouthing the same tired, juvenile insults and rants.

Are these people going to be supporting George Allen? If so, I sure hope he has a way to distance himself from them, or Allen will have trouble winning the primaries, let alone the general election. As I say, I have had it.

/rant>

[cynicom]

Bush has lemming followers just as Clinton did. He lost sight of the fact that CONSERVATIVES do expect something in return for their votes. Bush lovers here need to rethink their false allegiance.

[mystery-ak]

Thank you Miss Marple...you have put into words what I feel too....

[RobFromGa]

I hear you and agree with your post. I have stopped reading these threads for the most part because the far-right judicial activists are not much better than the ones on the left. Thanks for saying it.