Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
Al Gonzales. Next SC Justice. Proposed WH Bio: He vetted all GWBs court picks. He's a pioneer in the legal field. He was the first Hispanic CJ of the Texas SC. He's the first Hispanic AG. If you don't approve of him, you're a racist. </sarcasm>
Remember she's a desperate housewife.
Thank you for proving the point; she should be disqualified on this issue alone. Please refer to Federalist No 76 for Hamilton's opinion on judicial review and favoritism.
Don't bother, the Bushbots are in full force on this latest fiasco. Just add it to the lists of moronic things done by this White House as against those who elected it.
Comedy or satire?
You are so wrong, bunching all the bitching and complaining that has built up for 20 years into trashing a decent conservative woman that has achieved a lot more in her life than 95 % of the people trashing her is nothing but horrible damage to this Party. The Democrat Underground has been lurking all over these threads and has been stirring the pot that the Buchananite nut jobs started, and most of the Miers/Bush haters were too crazed to even zot the Trolls. When even Rush trashed Laura today I knew it was over for the far right nut jobs because they are on a feeding frenzy like Sharks that cannot help themselves. None of the Bush/Miers haters stopped to even bother to tell the other crazies that something had been disproved or was an out and out falsehood or do not believe that lie, they just piled on with the DUmmies.
That's true today.
But she proclaimed that SHE wanted a woman ON INTERNATIONAL TV some weeks ago, while she was OVERSEAS. That was the first time, and she has repeated her desire for a woman to take SDO's seat many times since.
Methinks Laura was lobbying W every chance she got in public. Laura and W must believe in Affirmative Action EVEN on the SCOTUS.
There were and are many qualified women and minorities waiting in the wings!!! Instead we get a CRONY.
Nobody is advocating putting the Dems in power.
But...even so...the political reality is that the GOP would fight Hillary care. And we'd win because we'd be united.
The Bush Administration has gotten away with a "third way" approach which in its own way "triangulates," on the Dick Morris model, between the conservative and liberal philosophies of governance.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:
- On the conservative ledger:
- On the foreign relations front - which is the essence of the constitutional role of the federal government - Bush has led as a president should and must, whereas Democrats posture rather than leading. On the core mission of the presidency, Bush earns high marks compared to any alternative which has been on offer.
- On taxes, Bush has been steadfast in his opposition to confiscatory tax rates.
- On Social Security, Bush has put sensible reform on the table, even if he has gotten nowhere with it.
- On the unconservative side:
- On controlling discretionary spending in order to protect the value of the dollar, Bush has not led.
- On controlling immigration in order to protect the national sovereignty, Bush has not led.
- And on the make-or-break issue of defending the political honor of his base against the arrogant assault of "objective" journalism and the rest of the left, George W. Bush has not led. The failure of Jack Kemp to do that was the final nail in the coffin of the Dole/Kemp '96 campaign.
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.
. . .
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.
Bush considers it critical that he avoid having a SCOTUS nominee fail of confirmation, and he has good reason to think so. Both Nixon and Reagan had that experience - and nothing good came of it for either president, or for the country. Bush thinks to assure the confirmation of his nominee by naming someone in whom he has every confidence but who has no public bona fides as someone who has a bone-deep philosophical commitment to the Constitution.But in mounting an affirmative-action offensive in favor of the Miers nomination the WH is demeaning its own political base. Especially when that is viewed in the context of its other triangulations, that is playing with political fire.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Federalist 76 doesn't trump Article 2 any more than Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Bapists is authoritarian in the SCOTUS.
The senate can certainly take it under advisement but Article 2 is pretty clear, cronies are not disqualified for being cronies.
Unless, of course, it is in the penumbra.
I cannot believe you said what you just said. Just ask my husband? Hopeless and tone deaf!
A.Hun says: This coming from a master at dodging direct questions? You will have to do better than that.
Cautor replies: Maybe I should take the intellectual route you demonstrated in your prior posts on this thread. They were certainly substantive Bhhhhhhaaaaa! I list them below by reply #
26. Hello everybody!
29. I see you two have your routine down pat.
39. You said it not me!
48. Most of the Miers detractors do not care, and some here will actively promote that lie.
51. Good answer!
55. Misdirection. You know she has been one of his closest advisers for years... Not good enough.
67. Thank you. I love being here.
81. Personal attack? Your SOP. Classy!!
91. As if you ever did...
101. That makes entirely too much sense. Good job.
103. Ya'll sure are running out of talking points, aren't you.
116. bwahahahaha
156. 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
160. This coming from a master at dodging direct questions? You will have to do better than that.
you are correct though; it is pathetic.. how quickly the right can look like the left when they dont get their specific way and start eating their own...
but I guess the plus side is:
now your side of the argument can rail even more against the President, fueled by an answer his wife gave in a lefty interview.
Whatever gets one thru the day i suppose.
LOL
No matter what side of this issue one comes down on, the political consultants for Bush were deaf and dumb as to how a very large portion of their base would react. I think they were caught with the pecker in their hand. They simply did not see it coming. What a mess this has wrought! Now they are just trying to put out a fire by pissing the fire. If they cannot deveope a reasoned stategy to deal with this problem of their making, they need to keep their yaps shut.
Only partially. My wife usually defers to me on anything political. She's too busy doing important stuff.
She did not vote for Gore in 1988, she voted GOP, what part of that do you not understand? I supported Gore in 1988 in the Dem primary because I was a DEMOCRAT then. He was a different person in 1988 and the least offensive of the Crap that represented the Donkey party. I voted for Bush in 88 just like Miers. Keep trashing people that changed party affiliations, that is a really good way to build the party. Almost Any GOP function that I have attended in the last 13 years I have gone from table to table asking how many were orginial GOp, and it used to be maybe 60 percent, the last time I did this was a year ago and it was down to about 1/3, but you Miers/Bush haters are bound and determined to screw all that up. with friends in the party like Buchananites who in the hell needs enemies? The President of our Republican women's group was a Democrat up until 1994, and like almost every former Democrat I know, we work a lot harder than the long time GOP'ers and are decidely more conservative, and will fight harder for our country values, and we do not have to trash the President and his wife to do it.
Then she is the perfect replacement to O'Conner. A middle of the road wash out. Great...
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.