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.
This is the flaw of W's White House - its relative inscrutability. If Reagan was The Great Communicator, W is the Non-Communicator.
"Misdirection. You know she has been one of his closest advisers for years.
Not good enough."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I doubt you do either.
Only when it has been misconstrued.
The phrase "judicial monastery" is not referring to religious judges cloistered in Catholic sanctuaries, but rather, refers to the isolated mentality of judges who know nothing but the judicial Bench (e.g. the real world, the common man, the private sector business world, etc.).
You keep telling yourself that as you pay $3 a gallon for gas, saddle our children and grandchildren with unthinkable debt, squander taxpayer money on $25 billion bridges to nowhere, submit to ridiculous searches and impositions on your privacy at airports, forfeit your right to free speech 60 days before an election, pay for prescription drugs for seniors who are on average far richer than you, pay more than market prices for milk and other agricultural prices so that large agricorporations can be guaranteed an "acceptable profit".
I could go on and on. None of these things were possible when the 'Toon was president simply because the Republican congress denied him whatever he wanted. In those days, the Republicans forced Clinton to accept a balanced budget and deadlocked government meant a robust economy and individual empowerment.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have met the enemy and he is us.
If we beat up on our own enough we will get something ten times even worse.
"Harriet Miers is a trusted adviser, on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice. Harriet has the keen judgment and discerning intellect necessary to be an outstanding Counsel. She is a talented lawyer whose great integrity, legal scholarship, and grace have long marked her as one of America's finest lawyers. I have deep respect for Harriet and look forward to her continued counsel in this new role," stated President Bush.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041117-15.html
Thank you. I love being here.
In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside.
Great. I'm thrilled to know that Bush listened to Reid and Leahy.
I wonder if they're the ones who also told Bush to pick someone "who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery."
Since I've never heard anyone use the term "judicial monastery," I wonder who the "they" are? Maybe voices have been whispering in his ears.
Don't get into facts, and timelines and all that ....you're just elitist!
The same could be said for the accomplishments of our brave defenders in Iraq, who have accomplished so much yet have an Administration inept at promoting those accomplishments. Or concerned citizens who want to protect our borders, yet get chided as "Vigilantes."
"If we beat up on our own enough we will get something ten times even worse."
Well at least we all agree on this: GWB can't be trusted simply to do the right thing.
If that truly is what he thinks, then shame on us for ever supporting him.
I've yet to see one of the insults you claim has been leveled at Miers. Perhaps, you can give us proof of such insults.
In fact, the only sexist comment about Miers I've read come from within the White House where some stated she was no "ass slapper."
Stop making up phony charges in order to defend the cheap shot taken by Laura Bush.
Man, is it me or does FreeRepublic seem to be filling up with angry knee-jerk jerks...? The woman answered a question saying it was a possibilty. Face it, it is.
I think many of the 'It is Not Sexism' crowd protests too much...
Now, I realize that you thought his pledge meant publicly demonstrated, but that isn't stated or even implied
Thank you for reminding me that so many great conservative judges are still waiting for confirmation.
It's sickening. If Bush fought for these nominee's like he is fighting for Miers, it would be great.
You've been on every thread where I've seen these things mentioned.
The above came from one of your own anti-Miers posters, by the way, showing that she even held the official position for selecting judicial nominees (besides being a close GWB advisor for the past decade or more).
Is 12 days enough time to judge a person?
Well, ask yourself how many came out **against** Miers in less than 12 days.
...then apply that same standard to her choices that she sent to President Bush.
Is Bush fighting for Miers? If so, I missed it....in fact, the WH seems to be lying low, trying to read the winds....
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.