The Miers Misstep: What was President Bush thinking?

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | October 06, 2005 | Peggy Noonan

[AntiGuv]

That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.

The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

[TalBlack]

No one can really fathom ALL of the things that goe thru a Presidents mind at a time such as this. This Justice pick is the so-called 'swing' justice. If she gets thru the President himself may feel confident of her fundamental mind if she gets thru the Senate, but he may not expect her to get thru, and that is not an unreasonable thing to conclude.

Consider that the Dem's see this seat as the one which will foil their means of forcing their 'enlightenment' upon the rest of us.

They CANNOT afford to wait and see how this particular woman will vote. They ARE going to try to take her down--like they have never tried anything before. Cannon fodder.

[cynicom]

I cannot believe you did not see the inner rage displayed by Bush on his TV appearance trying to defend Miers. There was neither a look or sound of confidence, none.

His, "bring it on attitude" was totally missing.

[skinkinthegrass]

Doesn't take too much dirt scratching to find other examples where Bush has reached into his memory bag to pull out highly capable unknowns to place in high profile positions.

HMM!...like RWR than done w/ North and "the Bear"

[safisoft]

But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives.

She hit the nail on the head. Here at FR, it is becoming clear who the conservatives are - they ones that know they have been stiffed.

[Varda]

Good for Peggy, add her to your long list of conservative who use reason to guide their decisions.

[counterpunch]

>>It's not about how she is going to vote (if confirmed). I imagine she would vote just fine.

>If you believe that then we don't really have a disagreement. To me that's all that matters. The rest is desert and perhaps we weren't ready for, or couldn't afford desert at this point in time.

Some people have an attitude of "the ends justify the means." That is unfortunate. We are not the Democrats, and we should not only care about winning, but also how we win.

There are also larger, long-term things to consider.
If Miers' opinions are not well respected, if she is seen as a dim light on the SCOTUS, then she will do harm to the conservative legal movement.

Do you believe she will be a role model for a new generation of aspiring law students who can point to her opinions as sacred law, or just point to her as hack and a laughing stock, and conservative legal thought by proxy?

We need people like John Roberts who will establish a solid intellectual and legalistic foundation for conservative principles, rather than faith-based ones.
I think George Bush is just fine for the White House, but not for the Supreme Court.

We need more than just people who will make the right decision. We need people who can make the right decision for the right reasons and back it up with the right legal argument.

Do you believe Miers will make us proud in that regard as Chief Justice Roberts will?

[OldFriend]

More likely that Noonan jumped the shark when she blasted the President for mentioning G-D in his inauguration speech.

There certainly is an undercurrent of religious bias rearing it's ugly head.

[OldFriend]

So Peggy supports Buchanan's premise. Very interesting.

Reinforcing my thought that there is religious bias showing here.

[safisoft]

Or maybe the President did what was right for the movement rather than what would've made the members of the movement happy. His personality is more like that of a parent than that of a petty politician

How Clintonesque. We are conservatives because we believe that we know what is best for us. We are conservatives because we don't want a parent government. We are conservatives because we know that if there is relationship between the governed and the government, it must be that the government works for the governed - not the other way around.

Ronald Reagan believed it - Bush is sadly just a wanna be.

[TalBlack]

"and angels dancing" ------ LOL... Which angels would they be?



The same ones which inspired to courage and accomplishment the heroes and heroines of our culture, our nation and our civilzation. From George Washington et al who did what they did in the service of Truth, to the guys who ran into the burning towers who were standing by their oath. Without Angels, my friend, it isn't long befor a human being becomes just another self-serving, mealy-mouthed lying sack of shit. Or a Democrat.

[OldFriend]

You may consider Buchanan, Kristol and Savage luminaries. I have another word to describe them but I'll refrain.

[skinkinthegrass]

Wanting more information is reasonable, understandable and even vital. What the hell looks good???

ibid...not necessary good, I just want/need more information...to be assured of the nominee.

..in any case, "GW" has made his decision, now he must sleep/live w/ it.

[cynicom]

Religious bias???? Surely you jest.

[oblomov]

In other words, she'll be a hick who supports socialist policy in the name of "compassionate conservatism" rather than an elitist who does so in the name of liberalism?

[Racehorse]

"and angels dancing" ------ LOL... Which angels would they be?

Well, Peggy was right about that.  Bork was dazzling.  His Tempting of America, written afterwards, was equally so.

Which angels?  Don't know.  But, watching C-SPAN reruns of his confirmation hearings, I saw them--again.

 But, intellectual grasp isn't all that it is cracked up to be, even when the grasping mind is in the head of a conservative.

And, it is downright dangerous when it is in a liberal's head.

I remember watching a joint press conference held by outgoing President Bush and incoming President Clinton.  Bush stumbled through the Q&A.  Then, it was Bill's turn and you could see the angels dance as he displayed a remarkably genuine grasp for domestic and foreign issues.  Not bad for a third rate Arkansas Governor. The camera panned to Bush.  There he stood with this incredible look on his face, awestruck by the clear and easy brilliance Clinton had just shown--on the fly.

The problem with dancing angels in your head is sometimes you can't control where they dance or why.  Better to look to the music they're dancing to . . .who's playing the tune?

[OldFriend]

The Ronald Reagan who raised taxes on Corporations, probably leading to the economic downturn that affected the first President Bush's re-election.

The Ronald Reagan that gave amnesty to illegals.

The Ronald Reagan who cut and ran from Lebanon.

The Ronald Reagan who allowed Buchanan to insist he visit Bitburg where the SS lie buried.

You are right, George W Bush is not Ronald Reagan.

Thank G-D.

[oblomov]

>>why does there always have to be a fight?

Um, because there are things worth fighting for?

[counterpunch]

Consider that the Dem's see this seat as the one which will foil their means of forcing their 'enlightenment' upon the rest of us. They CANNOT afford to wait and see how this particular woman will vote. They ARE going to try to take her down--like they have never tried anything before. Cannon fodder.

Yes, and unlike Roberts, she is going to be an easy target. The public will forgive the Democrats for shooting down an unqualified Bush crony. They would not have forgiven them for shooting down a qualified black woman such as Janice Rogers Brown.

Hopefully this is Bush's larger strategy. O'Connor will sit on the court until a successor is confirmed. There is no rush to confirm a nominee.

Perhaps Bush's strategery is to nominate a woman with the consultation of Democrats, as they demanded, knowing they were poised to shoot anyone he nominated down, regardless.

Perhaps he wanted to send up a red herring, someone the Democrats could say they're rejecting not because of her religion or judicial philosophy, but because of her lack of qualifications.

The defeat of Miers on these grounds would set the stage perfectly for Janice Rogers Brown. Bush could immediately nominate her, citing the fact that he already consulted Democrats on the vacancies when he chose Miers. The Democrats will have made an excellent case that qualification is the litmus test, not ideology. The public would not tolerate the Democrats blocking Janice Rogers Brown, the anti-Miers nominee, right after they just rejected one for not being everything Brown is.

Let's all cross our fingers.

[McBuff]

CORRECT!

[Mo1]

That wasn't what I meant .. but I think you knew that