Experts hopelessly stuck in Harriet Quag-Miers
by JohnHuang2
"I'm disappointed . . . I'm depressed . . . I'm demoralized," the Weekly Standard's William Kristol wrote. My goodness. Get back on your meds, bud. Kristol says he's depressed because he "expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record . . . " Someone President John McCain would pick. Or President Colin Powell.
Bush chose White House Counsel Harriet Ellan Miers. Had a hunch it wasn't gonna be Alan Dershowitz. She was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. She was educated at Southern Methodist University. Bush betrayed Harvard! Yale law school! Bastions of conservative legal thinking.
It's a missed opportunity to pick someone from the cloistered, insular world of the judiciary. Now we're stuck with someone with real-world experience and Texas values. How unhealthy. 'This is the best qualified person for the job.' Yeah, sure (har-dee-har-har). Oops -- that was Bush's dad nominating Clarence Thomas.
She's White House Counsel, Bush's chief adviser on judicial nominations; was Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, top domestic policy adviser; she headed up the process which gave us John Roberts. She supports restrictions on federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, is a patron of a Texas pro-life group, attends a pro-life evangelical church, opposes gay marriage . . . gee, wonder if she leans right or left -- any idea?
As head of the Texas bar, she fought the ABA's pro-abortion stance, urging the ABA's policy-making committee to put the abortion issue to a vote. Which means Miers wants voters deciding the issue of abortion. The N.O.W. gang will love her. "Surely this is a pick from weakness," says Kristol. Bush's "weak" because of Katrina, Michael Brown, and charges of "cronyism." So he picks a "crony" in "capitulation." Makes perfect sense now.
Sen. Patrick Leahy blasted Miers for her notorious reputation of "being loyal to this president," pointing to her mile-long rap sheet of "serving as a close (Bush) adviser and in working to advance his objectives," rather than working to advance Leahy's objectives.
Bush chose Miers the same way he chose Cheney. I wonder how that turned out.
The case against Miers per the Kristol camp: She's a Bush loyalist. She gave Al Gore's '88 campaign $1,000 for inventing the Internet. So she's not a Bush loyalist. Too old and inexperienced. Safe pick. We know nothing about her. Other than a long and distinguished career, no track record. Dangerous pick. She's a stealth candidate. We know everything about her. That's how we know she's no conservative. OK, she may be conservative, but only 'cuz she's surrounded by conservatives. No telling what'll happen once she sits on the bench next to Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. Bush says she's conservative. But what does he know? He didn't consult with William Kristol. 'Sides, you never gamble on someone you've known for only over 10 years. You go with Kristol's solid advice. He doesn't know her.
Anyway, Bush didn't need a "stealth candidate." Not with Senate Republicans in charge -- Republicans like John Warner, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Mike Dewine, Lincoln Chafee, John McCain. Real fighters! You can always count on that crowd.
~~~~~~~~~~
But some Democrats are happy about this pick -- a sure sign Miers is really a liberal.
Sen. Joe Lieberman said he thinks this "is a credible nominee, and not one that, as far as we know now, has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist."
Sen. Mark Pryor said his "sense is, so far, so good."
According to a report in the Omaha World-Herald, Sen. Ben Nelson "said he will wait to decide how he'll vote until after the Senate's confirmation hearings," but "he sees nothing now that would derail" the nomination.
Sen. Harry Reid praised the nominee, telling reporters that "the President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein was ebullient, telling CNN that, from what she's heard, she's convinced the nominee is "qualified, yes. I don't think (the nominee is) an extremist."
Sen. Barack Obama was effusive, noting that the candidate "clearly has the legal background and intellect to serve."
Sen. Jon Corzine was effusive, too: "I think the White House did its homework. They found an individual that is brilliant, clearly capable as a jurist."
Sen. Dick Durban heaped praise on the nominee as someone "legally skilled, a very bright" individual who "has no questions related to . . . honesty or ethics that I'm aware of. And a good temperament."
Oh, wait -- all 8 quotes above were about John Roberts. Back in July, before the hearings. Sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Post's John Podhoretz writes that "it is highly unlikely that (Miers) will be a good Supreme Court justice, because there is no indication in her 35 years in professional life that she has intellectual interests, that she has committed herself to the study of Constitutional theory and practice or even that she can write a decent English sentence. And it beggars reason to think that a person at the age of 60 can suddenly emerge as an intellectual powerhouse."
I see. It takes an "intellectual powerhouse" to look at the Constitution and find that gay marriage isn't in there. Sorry, Charlie. To paraphrase William Buckley, I'd rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Texas phone book than 100 Harvard "intellectual powerhouses."
If you think Miers is a David Souter, here's what you have to believe. Miers knew George W. Bush would run for President someday, so she fought the ABA on abortion, faked her evangelical Christian conversion, pretended to be a conservative, tithed from her income, gave to pro-life causes, taught Sunday school for 10 years, got active in GOP causes, attended church regularly, secretly contacted Souter for tips -- all of this to infiltrate the Bush inner circle and keep Bush from moving the Court to the right. Years and years of laboring as a mole -- then voila! Bush names her for SCOTUS. The plan worked. Abortion's now safe! Podhoretz says Miers probably can't "write a decent English sentence," but boy is she a Machiavellian genius!
Here's the genius of the Bush Team: Before the nominee was announced, the White House floated lots of trial balloons of possible nominees -- names garanteed to scare the bejesus out of libbies. This goes on for weeks. Libbies create a run on antidepressants. Then -- just when liberals expect Bush to name Michael Luttig or Pope Benedict XVI to the bench -- Bush introduces this soft-spoken, genial and reassuring individual. His name is John Roberts. Libbies seem relieved. We won! It wasn't the Pope! Some conservatives worry he's another Souter. Why pick a stealth candidate? Bush has a record of appointing excellent conservatives to the bench, so why trust him now? Then out come the John Roberts White House memos. Conservatives are relieved. Democrats are split.
Let's see now, before the Miers announcement, lots of trial balloons were floated of possible nominees. Democrats create another run on antidepressants. Then -- just when libbies expect Bush to name William Bennett to the bench -- Bush introduces this soft-spoken, genial and reassuring individual, Harriet Miers. Liberals seem relieved. We won! It wasn't William Bennett! Conservatives worry she's a Souter with boobs. Why a stealth candidate? Stay tuned. Libbies are about to blow their gaskets.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- - 
