Posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire
It's either feast or famine at the White House with the Harriet Miers nomination. Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. The latest comes from the normally classy First Lady, who again promoted Ed Gillespie's barnburner accusation of sexism among the ranks of conservatives:
Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a "role model for young women around the country" and suggested that sexism was a "possible" reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination.
"I know Harriet well," the first lady said. "I know how accomplished she is. I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling. . . . She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, certainly the Supreme Court." ...
Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, "It's possible. I think that's possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments."
Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.
Instead, we get attacked for our supposed "sexism", which does more to marginalize conservatives than anything the Democrats have done over the past twenty years -- and it's so demonstrably false that one wonders if the President has decided to torch his party out of a fit of pique. After all, it wasn't our decision to treat the O'Connor seat as a quota fulfillment; that seems to have originated with the First Lady herself, a form of sexism all its own.
Besides, conservatives stood ready to enthusiastically support a number of women for this nomination:
* Janice Rogers Brown has a long run of state Supreme Court experience, got re-elected to her position with 78% of the vote in California, and has written brilliantly and often on constitutional issues. She is tough, erudite, and more than a match for the fools on the Judiciary Committee, and would also have made minced meat out of any arguments about a "privileged upbringing", one of the snide commentaries about John Roberts in the last round.
* Edith Hollan Jones has served on the federal bench for years, compiling a record of constructionist opinions. She is younger and more experienced than Miers, and has been on conservative short lists for years.
* Priscilla Owen has a record similar to Brown's on the Texas bench and has demonstrated patience and judicial temperament that would easily impress the American people to the detriment of the opposition on the Judiciary Committee.
* Want a woman who litigates rather than one from the bench? One could do worse than Maureen Mahoney, who has argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court, clerked for Rehnquist who also later named her as Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, has been recognized as one of the top 50 female litigators by National Law Journal, and even worked on the transition team in 2000-1 for George Bush.
How does endorsing that slate of candidates equate to sexism in opposition to the unremarkable Miers? It doesn't, but as with those practiced in the victimization smear, the facts really don't matter at all. This kind of argument we expect from the Barbara Boxers and the Ted Kennedys, not from a Republican White House.
It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notices this, too.
I maxed out to him financially early in the Republican primary in 2000.
I gave to him financially in 2004, though I confess I didn't max out.
How much did you give?
Obviously I voted for him on both occasions.
In 2004 when a lot of conservatives were bitching, I posted here talking about his conservative achievements. Some of these are still worthy of note, including war on terror, telling the UN to go "elsewhere" shall we say, and for making some decent pro life stands, including stem cell. For those reasons, especially national security, I urged people to vote for him. Like many here, I was scared out of my gourd on election day in both 2000 and 2004.
Even in this controversy, I have pointed out that his Court of Appeals nominees are outstanding. Perhaps even better than Reagan's. Moreover, I have consistently said that he was a man of faith, a genuine and good man.
That said...I am not going to just keep my mouth shut when anyone gives us the largest entitlement since LBJ (inexcusable), who eviscerates the First Amendment by signing McCain Feingold (which he acknowledged was unconstitutional...but wanted to leave that up to the courts). Nor am I going to keep my mouth shut when someone says that "institutional racism" played a role in the New Orleans response. And let's don't even get started on borders on the "assault weapons" ban.
The bottom line for me is that GWB's domestic agenda is liberal in the extreme. We never would have let Clinton get away with this crap!
And...in that context...came this appointment. This is his single most important domestic act. The second most important was Roberts. And he gives us this. The only defense is that we must trust him.
I agree that if you just think about his court appointments, he might merit some trust. But if you think about his larger domestic agenda, he deserves to be mistrusted, because he has, in fact, betrayed us.
Now people are telling me that if we knock down Miers, Bush is going to really screw us and show us that he's in charge. The only rational conclusion is that he was never for us.
In which case...the only rational conclusion...is that we should not have supported him (in the 2000 primary, that is...after that, there is no real choice).
So don't try your glib remarks on me. My support has been real. As have my criticisms.
The Bush bots are going to just have to accept that this problem was not created by freepers....we are only responding.
George Bush didn't bring up the sexist card.
When Bush was asked by Matt Lauer why people were against Miers he said it was because she was from outside the box.
He didn't bring up the sexist card. Matt Lauer brought it up to his wife. She didn't even repeat it she said an innocent yeah maybe.
Now Bush gets blamed for his non political wife making a once second maybe answer to a question proposed by the MSM.
Laura is not political she is never going to be running for anything. She didn't bring it up, accuse any specific group of it, and her husband the president said nothing about it.
GOod greif.
The media tries to trap people and the sheep just gobble it up.
To each their own, but the statements nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic in the 2004 platform and demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution. in the 2000 platform clearly implies demonstration to the voters. She has no demonstrable positions on most Constitutional issues. She may after the hearings. IMO, playing word games is the wrong way to go, better to wait till her positions are made clear.
I've been here six years longer than you have. I think it is you who need to go back to where you came from, if you can't conduct a facts-and-reason-based discussion on and need to sling ridiculous slurs.
After all, I was one of the people who went down to Washington D.C. and DID demand Clinton's impeachment, way back before it was popular. Where were you then?
Perhaps working closely with her for the past 10-12 years was enough demonstration for GWB?
Now, I realize that you thought his pledge meant publicly demonstrated, but that isn't stated or even implied.
It wasn't the DIMWITS who brought us 25,000 federal agents crawling up our backsides at airports. It wasn't the DIMWITS who brought us prescription drugs for seniors. It wasn't the DIMWITS who brought us campaign finance reform, or farm subsidies, or pork-laden spending bills, or expanded federal spending for everything from education to social welfare.
How many years must we control the White House, congress and the courts before we will finally accept the fact that the most relevant arguments aren't between Democrats and Republicans. They are between Republicans and Republicans. And the conservatives, who are in the majority as far as the vote is concerned, have lost every single solitary one of those debates.
No doubt we will lose this one (Miers) as well. Looking at all that the "moderates" have accomplished, I wonder whether flat out liberals could have done any worse. They, at least, were largely marginalized since 1994. And I have no doubt that, from the standpoint of a conservative/constitutionalist, gridlocked government was far better than undivided Republican government. I can't see that it is even debatable.
I love this knock down drag out brawl. If it spills out into other issues, it will be great for the conservative movement in America. It will give us an opportunity to kick a little @$$ and take some names.
Constrary to the assertions of some, we are not whining. We have put up with being snubbed by the party establishment for a long time. We've been forced to accept CFR, Specter, and out of control spending. This nomination was the last straw. We are engaged in the first round of the fight for the soul of the conservative movement.
Amen!
Ok, I've been sitting on the side lines as was one of the "I trust Bush's judgment..." people. But this crap with the Democratic style "gendered baiting" is really pissing me off. It's a page right out of the lefts playbook for crying out loud. I am slowly coming over to the other side. Any more of this base slamming with leftist like tactics, and I may find myself on the same page as Bill Cristal types...
Constrary to the assertions of some, we are not whining. We have put up with being snubbed by the party establishment for a long time. We've been forced to accept CFR, Specter, and out of control spending. This nomination was the last straw. We are engaged in the first round of the fight for the soul of the conservative movement.
Sheesh if Bush had announced that he had a "hangnail", you guys would be caterwalling about how betrayed you all are. You all are so transparent.
Bush didn't give us the largest entitlement Clinton gave us that by doing nothing about terrorism for all those years. Clinton gave us that by doing nothing about energy police for all those years.
Clinton remember wanted Universal health care if that had passed through he would have had the largest entitlement.
Also remember bush has no line item veto power to control the budget.
Bush also has had 5 of the biggest hurricanes ever and 9/11.
The republicans are the ones that stood up last week and are making Louisiana pay back the loans while Landreui wants 250 billion.
You want big spending look at Blanco and Landreui.
You want really large entitlements put Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary in charge and give us universal health care.
Dems block medical malpractice reform by fillabuster threat.
Dems block the whole gop agenda and budget cuts and gop gets blamed for it. You need 60 seats in the senate to have power. Gop doesn't even have 50 conservatives in the senate.
I hope the Gop never again has 50 to 60 seats in the senate.
Because having 50 to 60 seats in the senate is the worst position to be in. People say you have a majority but it is a meaningless majority because the dems can block your agenda by fillabustering or threats of a fillabuster. People say you have all this power when you don't have any power. If you don't have 60 seats in the senate you have no majority.
I have tried to remain non-commital on Ms. Miers, but the more vitriol I hear heaped upon her education and accomplishments the more I want to support her. LOL!
I must be suffering from grannie's manners syndrome. Whoever has the best manners gets my vote.
Although the story I read somewhere on the net about her making sure a will was made by the dyeing WH aid doing it personally rather than delgating it really impressed me.
Uh remember it's the kristol/coulter types who are going on to leftists shows calling Ms. Miers a cleaning lady(ann coulter on bill maher's show).
Yes, race didn't matter. It was a woman's seat after all.
"George Bush didn't bring up the sexist card.
When Bush was asked by Matt Lauer why people were against Miers he said it was because she was from outside the box.
He didn't bring up the sexist card. Matt Lauer brought it up to his wife. She didn't even repeat it she said an innocent yeah maybe.
Now Bush gets blamed for his non political wife making a once second maybe answer to a question proposed by the MSM."
For those who missed the interview this AM, here is the part of the exchange on Miers.
Q A lot of criticism coming for your nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, from conservatives - people like Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan and George Will and Bill Kristol. Were you taken off-guard a little bit, caught by surprise by the amount of criticism you're getting for Judge Miers?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I made a decision to put somebody on the Court who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery. In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside. And I figured that people are going to kind of question whether or not it made sense to bring somebody from outside the Court.
I would remind those, one, that Harriet is an extraordinary, accomplished woman who has done a lot. As a matter of fact, she has consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States, that she has broken the glass ceiling. She has served as a great example. She is a brilliant person. And that just because she hasn't served on the bench doesn't mean that she can't be a great Supreme Court Justice.
Q But, you know, conservatives are worried about what's going to happen when she gets on the bench, and they're worried about what's going to happen in the future. And I get the feeling - and I'm not sure if this is too strong - I get the feeling some conservatives, President Bush, are feeling let down by you; and they're thinking they've supported you for so long and when an issue that is so important to them comes up, that you let them down. How would you answer that?
THE PRESIDENT: My answer is Harriet Miers is going to be confirmed and people will get to see why I put her on the bench. She is an extraordinary woman. She is -
Q You said she is the most qualified candidate for the job -
THE PRESIDENT: As I told you.
Q -- would you agree with that?
MRS. BUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Q You had pushed for a woman to be a nominee.
MRS. BUSH: That's right. And I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling, herself. She's a role model for young women around our country.
Q Some are suggesting -
MRS. BUSH: Not only that, she's very deliberate and thoughtful, and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, but certainly to the Supreme Court she'll be really excellent.
Q Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that?
MRS. BUSH: That's possible. I think that's possible. I think she is so accomplished, and I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.
THE PRESIDENT: My attitude, Matt, is when people get to know her they'll see why I picked her.
MRS. BUSH: They will. In the confirmation hearings alone they'll see that she what she's like.
Q I think The Washington Times has a story this morning that said they had about 27 Republican senators have serious questions about Judge Miers - or about Harriet Miers -
THE PRESIDENT: No, Judge Miers -- well spoken.
Q I was going to say - kind of getting ahead of myself here. So you are convinced that she will be confirmed?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Not only am I convinced that she'll be confirmed, I'm convinced that she'll be a fine, great judge. And I'm convinced that she'll be the kind of - she won't change. I mean, the person I know is not the kind of person that is going to change her philosophy. And her philosophy is, is that she is not going to legislate from the bench. So I told the American people when I campaigned for President the type of judge I'll pick - I picked that type of person in John Roberts and I picked that type of person in Harriet Miers.
The entire transcript is on the White House web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051011.html
But she didn't say that. It would probably have been best for her to say what my missus always says, "I don't know. What don't you ask my husband." Then they have to deal with me.
You need to get your facts straight. Probably half of the Registered Republicans today at one time were democrats or some other party including myself. Your loonie fringe ilk will keep the NPA or dems from becoming Republicans. When I try to get people to change they are unwilling because of the Pat Buchanan wing that still hangs out stirring the pot. When you are a member of a law firm, you are asked to donate to individuals in Political Parties, she did not vote for Gore and she did not vote for Clinton, she voted for Reagan. Stop trashing the woman with made up stories. Why don't you accuse her of running an abortion clinic next, it would not be any less truthful than the crud I have seen thrown lately. You have jumped the shark as well as a few others with the help of DUmmies from Democrat Underground. You are so full of hate that you agree with anyone that says something nasty about Bush/Miers without even looking to see if they are trolls to be zotted. I have never seen such a bunch of rubes, no rubes is too soft a word. SCHMUCKS! fits better. I will bet that the libs, Soros,etc are laughing their butts off at the Jump the Sharkers.
The dems control the agenda.
The dems have 44 seats in the senate. All you need is 41 seats in the senate to fillabuster and derail the whole gop agenda.
Dems blocked Estrada being a judge. The dems control who goes on the supreme court. Harry Reid and Schumer gave Bush a list of conservative judges they would fillabuster.
Medical malpractice reform blocked by dem fillabuster threat.
Death tax blocked by dem fillabuster threat.
Kyl's 10,000 more border agents going to be blocked by dem fillabuster.
New refinery bill passed by the house going to be blocked by dem fillabuster.
The whole gop agenda is being blocked by dem filluster attempts.
You can't do anything in congress with the dems having more than 40 seats to be able to fillabuster.
If the Gop can't get 60 senate seats then they better have between 40 and 49 senate seats.
Because having 55 senate seats leaves you open to dem fillabuster threats and makes you look weak. Because you have no power to stop the fillabusters but the public percieves you to have the power.
"Constrary to the assertions of some, we are not whining. We have put up with being snubbed by the party establishment for a long time. We've been forced to accept CFR, Specter, and out of control spending. This nomination was the last straw. We are engaged in the first round of the fight for the soul of the conservative movement."
Frustration among a very large portion of the base that has supported Bush in the past is breaking out all over. The list of things he's done or said that ticke me off is getting longer and longer. I finally reached the breaking point when I was defending him over the federal response to Katrina when he came out with his mea culpa.
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.