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 hate to say this but the Buchananites have come out and destroyed part of this party, and together they have jumped the shark including Rush. They can never take back what they say, and Rush, Laura,Ann ETC will know shortly that somethings even a good Christian cannot forgive. One of those things is trashing our First lady because of their Reactionary attitude. This is a sad day.
it's not hilarious-- it's quite sad.
that individual is not worthy of response-- i simply ignore him/her.
I have no criticism of war on terror foreign policy.
And I have plenty to say about the Dems. But the topic today is GWB and Miers.
He did, in fact, give us the prescription drugs entitlement. I am using the term in the strict sense; you are not (referring to war on terror as an entitlement...whatever). The fact is that that passed ONLY because Bush pushed it and it passed only because the White House whipped GOP votes to get it. It is in fact the larges entitlement (in fact the only new entitlement) since LBJ ...and it is disastrous. If it is not repealed, it will bankrupt the country.
No conservative...indeed no moderate should be anything less than furious about that.
With regards to our standing in the Senate, some blame is to be shared. We have no majority leader. Of course...if you think about it? Who lobbied so hard to have this particular spineless Majority Leader? That's right...the White House.
With a real conservative as President, we would have NO prescription drugs entitlement, and we would still have a few shreds of the First Amendment.
The sad thing is that he could have taken the conservative stand on both of those items and it would NOT have cost him a thing politically. It probably would have benefitted him. But, we are told, we just have to trust teh political ops at the White House...they are geniuses, they play chess not checkers, blah, blah, blah....
Interesting that these comments come up to show Miers qualifications. Did you get those comments from the WH?
I have understood that the AG's Office and the President's Counsel supervises and directs the search and vetting for judicial nominees.
Ms. Miers was by no means in either of those positions until Feb. 3, 2005, by which time all the nominations of which we are aware had already been cleared.
Reread 36. Thost statements nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic and demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution. were from the Republican Platforms of 2000 and 2004. I didn't "hear" it from GWB, I read it in the platform he ran on. That's not an internal definition.
...................
2004: nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic
2000: demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution.
The key word, demonstrated.
She may well turn out to be a good justice, but she’s a lousy nomination because GWB turned his back on the very requirement, demonstrated respect for the Constitution which he campaigned on twice.
…………………………………..
Main Entry: dem•on•strate Pronunciation: 'de-m&n-"strAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -strat•ed; -strat•ing
Etymology: Latin demonstratus, past participle of demonstrare, from de- + monstrare to show -- more at MUSTER transitive senses
1 : to show clearly
2 a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples
3 : to show or prove the value or efficiency of to a prospective buyer
SHOULD IDEOLOGY MATTER?: JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS 2001
To Advise and Consent: The Senate's Role in Evaluating Judicial Nominees
Supporting Judges Who Uphold the Law--Judicial Reform: Courts That Work, Laws That Make Sense
Yes she did vote for Gore in 88. And my reply was about her changing. You did not address that issue. By the way, if you have not noticed, there is disagreement across the country about Miers within the conservative movement.
Bush promised nominee's in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
If you believe that she is, thats your choice. Many of us don't believe that.
I love George. I think he has the potential to be a great president. But he's acting like he's in a fog. Someone needs to stick some ammonia in his face and get him out of this stupor. He needs to approach the Libs the same way he confronts terror, with no mercy. It's not enough to be stubborn about a third rate SC pick. His response on the Today show seems juvenile. He needs to get the eye of the tiger and show everyone he is to be feared.
(Implied sarcasm.)
You mean that we have proof that Bush turned his back on his campaign promise?
Miers has been White House Counsel since 2001, and advised then-Governor Bush since the mid 1990's. Miers was not only part of that selection process, but was in charge of it for the 12 days prior to the submission of those right-wing judicial appointments.
Bush has taken a lot of heat from the left for not having a hillary care universal health care plan.
You put the dems back in power the first thing you will get is universal health care which will dwarf the prescription bill.
I have to agree with you. Laura disappointed me with her comment. Would someone point out to her that Owens, Brown, Jones are all females tried in the fires and would have slaked the desires of the conservative base. I love the first lady, but this is not about sexism. That sounds like crap Hillary Clinton and her sycophants would propagate.
"I think it hilarious that a GOP president is playing the sexist card in order to get his nominee approved.
I think anyone honestly suprised by George's politics and policies with this nominee is equally comical.
Glass ceilings and pioneering is feminist PC-speak.
you are right in general, however, what would you call a woman that holds a position that had never had a woman hold previously? a pioneer? "Feminism" as it is today may be way off base, but there is certainly no doubt that sexism still exists. denying that is ...well...sexist?
After all that, believable or not, you don't recognize what a good choice you made?
How many of those complaints he had no control over.
Do you not remember him promising in his campaign to give a prescription program, No Child Left Behind, and Campaign Reform?
If you didn't like it then, you should have saved your money.
George Bush liberal? Bwahahahahaha
That's not an internal definition.
Dems cannot filibuster spending and budget bills, and the vast majority of questionable issues have been on spending and budget issues.
Besides, how can you say this and then not see the obvious way to circumvent it? Introduce popular initiatives (or a popular conservative judge) and force the DIMWITS to filibuster and then take our case to the voters in the next election. Instead, Bush is nominating stealth candidates to try to get along with them. It's a stupid miscalculation, and symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Republican party these days.
I honestly believe that moderate Republicans lament the fact that the party has been so successful. They mistakenly believe that they would be better off with checks and balances, even at the expense of our liberty. And so moderate Republicans placate the Democrats in the hope that the DIMS will make some inroads in the next election and make the moderates, who gain power only because they occupy the center, even more powerful.
An the country club, the elitist Republicans and elitist Democrats hobnob together. They place elitism above party. Would that conservatives would put conservatism above Republicanism. Now that would be something.
Look. We are talking about a frickin SC nominee. No one on my side of this debate would suggest that JRB, Owen, Jones or Clement would be unqualified. The fact is that they are latching on to this in a pathetic attempt to pump up this nomination. It's pathetic.
This coming from a master at dodging direct questions? You will have to do better than that.
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.