Skip to comments.White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Captain's Quarters Blog)
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.
My missus tells people all the time to just ask me if they have a question about politics. She defers to me on alot of things. What's wrong with that? But she's a REAL old-fashioned lady. She thinks that women should never have been given the right to vote.
OK, if I'm to buy into this "I'm a sexist elitist" because I don't support Miers, then it stands to reason, and any logical thinker could come to this conclusion, it stands to reason that if I don't vote for Hillary in '08, then I am again a sexist elitist. Is that what I'm seeing transpire here? A damnable situation if that's the way this is going to be framed. No, I don't own stock in Reynolds Wrap. Blackbird.
I think they were caught with the pecker in their hand.
I give her six mounths, not 5-10yrs.
Ahem. The proposed SS reform was a smoke-screen designed to hide the actual reform Bush is putting in place.
He (his appointed SS commissioner, really) signed a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico that among other things, give Mexican illegal aliens access to our SS system.
With the totalization agreement, they can apply for and receive SS benefits at home, in Mexico even if they were working here illegally at the time.
In addition, whereas a US citizen has to work 40 quarters (10 years) before we become eligible to apply for benefits, under the terms of this agreement a Mexican illegal alien only has to work 6 quarters (1-1/2 years).
It also allows the Mexican illegal alien to apply for and receive benefits at home, in Mexico for the illegal alien's wife and children, even if they have never stepped foot in the US.
This is what George W. Bush calls SS reform and he hasn't wasted any time implementing it.
So everyone with close ties to every President is disqualified?!
You're about to make Presidents extremely unpopular!
:-} My wife doesn't defer to me on anything.
Some FRiendly advice? Stick to the POT Threads, they're more your speed. Blackbird.
i guess that is why you have such a lousy attitude about the First Lady. This is sexism, but not the normal route, it is because she did not need a man Like Hillary to achieve greatness. She chose a career over Marriage and many men resent that, and some women also. Tough noogies, the more people complain and lie about her and do not pick up opn the lies of trolls and correct them the more I am sure she is the right pick. Your problem is with Specter and the gang of 14 and you are taking it out on a decent woman, and our President and First Lady.
We can only hope.
Maybe those lemmings will finally get it into their thick skulls that there are people who are willing to stand up for their innermost political convictions, instead of bowing to political expediency and unquestioningly accepting the perceived wisdom of people who we have no reason to trust, based upon their prior actions.
I hope they are lurking.
Maybe a few of them will have an epiphany and realize how ridiculous it is to be part of a cult of personality.
Perhaps they'll realize what a foolhardy decision it was to countenance the subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and grotesque abuse of power by the Clinton administration.
Maybe they'll think twice before falling in lockstep behind a charismatic leader, who may-or may not-have your best interests in mind.
I sure as hell hope they're lurking!
Let them see what it means to stand up for your principles, instead of being a mindless sycophant of one political leader.
First, you are in no position to question my relationship with my wife or our choices. So why don't you keep your PC comments to yourself.
Second, name me one conservative leader, commentator, or person on this board who has opposed Miers because she's a woman?
Third, my problem is not with Specter the Gang or Harriet, it's with GWB. He's the potus who punted. Comprende?
Now cut the sexism crap! The first person to bring it up was that weasel Ed Gillespie. So let it go! And tell Laura that she needs to avoid throwing gasoline on a fire.
If being called a "sexist" is the price I have to pay for not being lumped in with Ed Gillespie, Andy Card, and all of the other GOP crap-weasels that are selling this abominable nomination, then so be it.
I'm willing to live with that epithet.
I just hope that the Miers acolytes are willing to live with their disastrous SC choice.
The GOP majority could make life a living hell for the RINO's and dems. They just seem to want to be the Rodney King wing of politics. Unfortunately when the Repubs are in the minority they become the Reginal Denny wing.
I know that. I thought I said that. I heard the whole replay on (surfin')pmsnbc. I don't know of any conservative bloggers or media types in our circles who would even think of saying that.
She could have been honest and said NO. But it's diss the conservative Republicans month again at the WH, so let's just lay it on. She was in NO BOX. She is very astute about comments.
I'm so tired of this. I never thought until very recently that our Bushes would do this. We took the surprise stealth Roberts nom. without saying anything, and we won't know for a long time where he stands constitutionally...but Miers?!?! My word!
You are mistaken.
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
"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"
He promised to reform medicare. He did not. He created an entitlement. He produced a set of numbers during the debate which we all knew were way underestimating the cost. Now they admit that.
He did not promise to sign McCain Feingold. Prior to signing it, he even said he believed it to be unconstitutional...yet he signed it anyway, hoping that the courts would take care of it.
He also promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Naively, we believed him.
You need to do a little more research before chiming in here like that.
How can I be sexist if I wanted Janice Rogers Brown?
The White House has jumped the shark. The whole freaking affair is mad.
She was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. As Staff Secretary, Ms. Miers acted as "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief." In addition to this important role, Ms. Miers supervised more than 60 employees in four departments.
In 2003, Ms. Miers was named Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. As part of the Office of the Chief of Staff, she was a top domestic policy advisor to the President.
Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February 2005. In this role, she has served as the top lawyer to the President and the White House, and in particular has been the principal advisor judicial nominations.
I don't know, any more that your or the hundreds of other posters on these threads do whether she has, in a judicial context, don't tell me she's a good American, a demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic or has demonstrated that they share his [GWB's]conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution. None of this is in the record. No one knows, other than GWB, it hasn't been demonstrated, yet.
At this point it's probably more important to look to the hearings. IMO they're critical. If she presents herself in the Scalia/Thomas mold, that has been a verbal standard of GWB's, this is a tempest in a teapot as far as the nomination is concerned.
If she doesn't, she might still turn out to be an excellent conservative justice, but from a political perspective she'll set the standard, hopefully not too low, as a non-radical conservative nominee.
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.