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.
Probably not a fair characterization. His judical nominations have generally been good, that this one doesn't have the visible "qualifications" doesn't make him a liar.
Possibly (it's been known to happen).
Perhaps I would have been better served by saying that she was **an** advisor on Judicial nominations since 2001, and promoted to **principal** advisor (i.e. White House Counsel) on judicial nominations in Feburary of this year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500481/posts?page=6#6
Been there, done that. Click above for best response to this attack.
They can't see the forest for the trees.
There has never been much reason in a Lynch Mob.
"I voted for Bush in 88 just like Miers"
she gave to al gore in 88, and also donated to the DNC days before the 88 election (in support of Dukakis). but you keep thinking that she voted for Bush in 88 if you want.....
There has never been much reason in a Lynch Mob.
Cautor: I've been trying to inform him/her about this same subject, and an hour later Southack is still insisting to me that Miers has been Counsel to the Pres. since 2001!!!
Southack: How does Staff Secretary sound to you? Hummm? In 2004, she was promoted to be Andy Card's assistant. Andy Card is Chief of Staff.
Damn straight; I was done with the whole BushDoleBushDoleBushDole scene back in 1991 and it's really nice to have some company for a change.
Mark Levin on Hugh Hewitt:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500742/posts
Matt Lauer interviewed Laura Bush. Sigh. What else did we expect but something guaranteed to raise hackles? Lauer is a jerk.
Some people can glean a lot about the capacity to serve as a justice from the questions asked. They do not ALL have to be about Roe v Wade. Listening to Roberts made many realize that he was fully deserving to be on the Court. Those whose litmus test he didn't pass are a tiny minority.
You mean this isn't a political plus? I'm shocked!
bump
Actually, he's rebuilding some of what he lost when he first espoused GW to be a Conservative. I turned him off that day. If he's coming back around, I might just tune him back in. Blackbird.
That is not an accurate representation of what happened. She gave a conditional response. Does "perhaps" mean anything to you?
He was referring to the "Well s/he hasn't been a judge" syndrome. Not ordained.
Lol the arguments of the Antis are a hoot.
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.