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.
The same people trying to crucify Harriet also believe Gonzales to be a Liberal or worse yet he served on the same seach committee. This says lot about how much the Antis know of any of these people. I will take Bush's appraisal of them over the Antis 100% of the time.
Even sentiment in that post is bs of the highest order.
BUMP
- 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.
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/leaders/Miers/Miers_bio.html
Miers met Bush in the 1980s and became his personal lawyer, helping to resolve a title dispute in the 1990s on his East Texas fishing house, and then working with Bush's campaign when he ran for governor of Texas in 1994. [she vetted his background for dirt]During the 1998 reelection campaign, when Bush was facing questions about his National Guard service, his campaign paid $19,000 to Miers to help investigate. Bush also named Miers head of the Texas Lottery Commission, when it was mired in scandal.
By helping out Bush, Miers built her career - The Boston Globe
NAN ARON: Yes, I am. She conducted background checks on Bush before he ran for Texas governor in 1994, helped him during the 2000 presidential campaign. She served as his advisor and helped with ensuing litigation. She represented then-Governor Bush in the legal challenge of whether Cheney could be on the presidential ticket because he was from the same state as Bush. She has been a long-time friend, advisor, lawyer to the Bush family, and obviously, that secured her appointment today.Bush Nominates Longtime Friend and Attorney Harriet Miers for Supreme Court
After watching the Hissy Possie for a week surely you are not surprized by this behavior it has been that way from the beginning. Utterly unfair from the very start.
Gonzales is a demonstrated judicial activist. He and Owens were on opposite sides of the Texas Parental Notification case.
I read the respective opinions in order to come to the conclusion I just asserted. The majority of the Texas Supreme Court read a parental notifcation law such that a minor is presumed to mature. A showing of "mature" plus "informed" is all that is required to get a court-issued override to a doctor having to inform the parent.
The legislature files a brief withthe Texas Supreme Court, taking the side Owen was on, and against the side Gonzales was on. That, in my book, is judicial activism.
It points to the closed nature of the judicial world view of the liberals. We often complain about how out of touch it is and this is what Bush is pointing to.
You are wrong about that. Gonzalez was in charge of it, and Flanigan was likely the individual who did most of the actual vetting.
They're not persuading anybody---they're just going around "pushing buttons" without any regard for the consequences. GW needs to get some sense: this nomination and the moronic way it was vetted and is being defended now looks as likely to implode the Bush Presidency as it does the GOP and the conservative movement.
Excellent points which I am sure will be met with well deserved scorn. Imagine the timerity of lecturing a Lynch Mob on fine points of political theory. You should be ashamed.
Total bull. There has been no Bush actions deserving of impeachment and Cheney would do no different. What world do you live in?
Hello again. I see your medicine is still missing. Keep looking!
It means if you disagree with him he's going to heap invective on you until he drops dead at the keyboard, and you're supposed to like it.
Guess that beats imrightshutupanddontbotherresponding
Give me a break, the MF law in NO WAY "enviserated the First Amendment." Read the law. Butting easily avoided restrictions on political parties has ZERO impact upon the First Amendment which was not intended to apply to political parties but to individuals. Read the law. Individuals lost NO rights by MF.
Your friends and allies don't even know what it is you are upset about or why you should even be upset. We are witnessing a Collective Hissy Fit.
They have more strings than Pinochio.
That was pretty much my feelings from a post that I made earlier today on another thread.....
I suspect if she does well in the hearings she'll be confirmed. On the other hand if she does poorly then it maybe that she'll be rejected and rightly so. She doesn't have a large public tract record to examine so her ability to put forth ideas and philosophy that she believes if very important in the hearing process. Note: If should have been is..
Here's hoping we're right, she has to be forceful
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.