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.
I am not making that point. Yes, you should look everywhere you can find a Scalia/Thomas type, including outside of the Judiciary.
The fact that the President wanted to focus on someone outside may have given us a stealth nominee.
I must have missed the memo.
I don't remember writing a campaign contribution check in her name either.
I have never heard any of these things. I think that you are making this stuff up (aka "lying").
You haven't known Miers for 14 years like Bush has, how do you know he didn't do just that?
Have we not been over that already?
It all boils down to "Trust Me". Souter? Kennedy? O'Connor?
"Great. I'm thrilled to know that Bush listened to Reid and Leahy."
Why do you right-wing conspirator types always assume the worst? He could have listened to Spectre and Chaffee and Snowe and Graham!?!?!
Oh, hang on...
On Maher's show, Ann Coulter said that the President nominated the cleaning lady.
On this thread, you will see the other references I made: Posts 45, 50 and 52. Here
That's the point! That is exactly what the First Lady said. "Some." "Possible."
IT'S THE TRUTH!
Then we have Freepers pretending to be oh so offended because they're sure she was referring to them.
You still ignore the point, which is the First Lady responded, when asked, that it's possible that some, etc.
Clearly, some of it is. And I only posted some of the more obvious examples. It's there. Laura did not bring the subject up but answered honestly when asked.
Also, the assumption by many -- not just some -- conservatives posting here that Miers is an affirmative action choice is sexist. It couldn't possibly be because the President was looking for someone he could be as sure as humanly possible would be a strict constructionist and continue to be so throughout her career on the bench. No, it has to be because she's female.
Take more or less drugs, whichever it is that allows you to grasp reality.
I could not have said it better.
You are preachng to the choir at me, however. The question I posed was a rhetorical question.
I and many of us conservatives agree. The list is lengthy and Bush has proved he is not even in the conservative radar range.
NO--precisely my point. Taft was, by temperment, much more suited to the Court than to the White House.
"Take more or less drugs, whichever it is that allows you to grasp reality."
Your's is precisely the kind of answer that is making this discussion so vitriolic, and potentially so harmful for conservatism. Instead of silly insults, why don't you try answering my questions?
Interesting, you completely ignored this part
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.
We are just trying to inform our Senators that we think this applies to this nominee .......spirit of favoritism in the President, from family connection, from personal attachment
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.