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.
"Let's hope no one will have to listen to that habitual idiot Lincoln Chaffee after the 2006 Republican primary in N.H. is decided."
Yep, long as we're being superstitious--jinx jinx jinx!
Actually, I do not recommend ignoring any part of Federalist 76. As a matter of fact, my posts have encouraged taking it as a whole, not parsing out portions to suit our various viewpoints, as some have done.
As a whole, it is a wise and thorough explanation of the Framers' intentions for the authority, process, and procedure for nominations of justices, and their well-thought-out reasons for that constitutional authority and process.
Your point is well taken that nothing in Federalist 76 indicates that it is not entirely appropriate for individual citizens to contact their Senators and urge them to either approve or to disapprove of a President's nominee. Federalist 76 does not, however, prescribe any method for partisan citizen pressure to force a Presidential withdrawal of his/her nominee in the middle of the prescribed process prior to Senate action. It is that kind of pressure and talk on the part of people who claim to be constitutional "conservatives" that is troubling and seems to be at odds with true conservatism.
I don't believe in that stuff.
Then again, I live in a state whose two sitting U.S. Senators are Schumer and Hillary.
Maybe we are cursed.
Is FR imploding from hysteria today or what? What was Laura supposed to say? "No, Matt, I don't think anyone is opposing her because of sexism; I think that everyone that opposes her has many rational reasons other than sexism to oppose my husband's nomination of her that I support."
And now there's another thread fainting that Katie Couric said something nasty about the Bush Admin! OMG!
Is everyone gone nuts?
BOOOO! The sky is blue! ARRRRGRGRGRHHHHH!
No, it was actually provided for the partisan state, until we stupidly changed the constitution to allow citizens to vote directly for their Senator. Now the lobbying that was previously reserved for the elected representatives of the state has been abdicated to the citizen. I am merely exercising this new found right.
Because your stupid question was "precisely the kind of.." question "that is making this discussion so vitriolic, and potentially so harmful for conservatism".
I never accused anybody of sexism. I was kind to you, I allowed for drugs being the cause, I could have simply called you a damn liar.
Stop the freaking whining and victimhood garbage, it's making FR a painful experience.
Please see your post #9, where you say sexism is"possible and even likely."
By the way, you still haven't anwered my questions; you've simply insulted me further. It's not nice to take out your frustrations in public, and it does nothing to enhance your credibility.
You: On precisely what grounds do you claim the opposition is likely to be sexist?
By implication, you assert that I have made the claim that the opposition to Miers is sexist. That makes you a moron or a liar and I don't particularly care which.
I have not, nor will I, make that argument. I simply acknowledge that there are undoubtedly some who feel that way and even though there are some who feel that way it has nothing to do with the Miers debate.
Then to compound matters in your last post, you quote out of context so you can whine some more. Go whine somewhere else.
Ok, first you say it's likely that some of those opposed to her are sexist, and then you call me a liar and a moron because I want to know why you think so.
After thinking it over, I'm inclined to agree that you're partly right. I can't imagine why you call me a liar, but trying to get an intelligent opinion out of you is indeed moronic.
I explained it to you twice dipsh6t. Once more because I'm a nice guy. Implicit in your question was the assertion that I held the position that all opposition to Miers was sexist. That is a stone cold freaking lie which makes you, since I have ruled out moron, a stone cold liar.
Thank you for ruling out moron. Implicit in your statement was the belief that at least >some< of the opposition is probably sexist. I'd like to know why you think so.
I didn't imply anything, I stated that:
"More of the same garbage. She answers a question posed to her that is is possible that some do oppose her because of she is a woman. Of course it is possible, it is even likely and it has nothing to do with anything."
And my statement is factually correct. There is a broad group of Americans who would oppose any woman for any high office, they are the ones who make their women wear burkhas.
But not only is my statement factually correct, I even went so far as to say that it has nothing to do with the nomination.
But that didn't stop you from trying to make an issue where none existed by misquoting and making false assertions, did it?
"There is a broad group of Americans who would oppose any woman for any high office."
Thank you, thank you, thank you---that's what I wanted to know. I'm honestly amazed that that's still true---I'm such a non-snobby Northeasterner that I really find that hard to believe about the most of the rest of the country, expecially when we've now had two women on the Court.
In all fairness, there are some Black Muslim women around here who do wear burkha-like things, but I didn't think you were referring to them.
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.