Posted on 10/13/2005 4:31:05 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
White House press secretary Scott McClellan today got a bit impatient with reporters asking him about the possibility of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination to the Supreme Court, asking rhetorically at one point, "Isn't it my right to talk and say what I want to?"
The verbal jousting began as a reporter asked about a possible withdrawal by Miers, President Bush's choice to fill the seat of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"Some conservatives have suggested this week, or speculated, that while President Bush would never withdraw Miers' nomination, that she might decide that she can't weather the storm and withdraw. Can you give us just some idea of her tenacity to be able to withstand all this fire from the right and the left?" asked one reporter, according to the official transcript.
McClellan bristled at the suggestion, saying, "Those who know Harriet Miers are strongly supportive of her nomination, and strongly support her being confirmed to the United States Senate [sic]."
The spokesman then challenged the reporter, saying he had not reported on Miers' qualifications.
Said McClellan: "I haven't seen you out there reporting about some of her qualifications and her record, and I see by the tone of your question that you want to get into some of these side issues."
A charge then came back to McClellan: "You divided your own party," referring to the many GOP senators who have not committed to supporting Miers.
Later, the spokesman responded again to the possibility of a Miers withdrawal, saying, "Anyone that knows her record and experience wouldn't be making such a suggestion. … Some of you all wanted to focus more on religion. We focused on her qualifications and record."
Indeed, WND asked McClellan earlier about Miers' religion, receiving a response devoid of the subject. Said McClellan: " The President believes that a Supreme Court justice should strictly interpret our Constitution and laws and not try to legislate from the bench, and that's what Harriet Miers is committed to doing."
At one point during the fracas, McClellan was asked, "Scott, isn't the idea we ask the questions and you provide the answers?"
I suspect the White House Chief of Staff did the picks with a nod here and there by the Prez for people like this.
Don't knock him to quick...this is a tough, tough position. He may not be the very best, but he's there and doing the job.
I'd put LTGen Honor'e their when and if I could...the animals in the briefing room need some discipline. McClellan is too nice. He needs to kick some ass --off camera first...one on one...and then ZOT the rebellious ones.
Excuse me, but did Bush 43 nominate any of these people?
I think it's ok to call this pick for what it is - a terrible nomination and indicative of a Presidency that is increasingly losing it's compass.
I don't trust the President's "trust me" nominations anymore.
We don't need stealth nominations - we'd have the votes to push Bork through if he wasn't older then dirt. Give us a legitimate conservative with a demonstrable record and more then a handful of years from retirement - I don't think it's too much to ask.
"This nomination is far, far too important to gamble with, and that is what we are being asked to do."
I assume you voted for GWB. You didn't know for sure how true he would be to your values, but you trusted him to do the right job at the right time. It's time now to trust him and believe that he has done his job with this nomination. He has known Miers and had her work for years, why should he cave to a bunch of weak kneed people?
This is the Supreme Court "swing" vote we are talking about. It's the next 20 or 30 years. Yu get a bad President, he's out in four years and no matter how bad, you know he is better than the Dem alternative. You get a bad justice, you are stuck--for a long time.
Welcome to FR. Nice try anyway.
I'll take them if nobody else is....will pay for postage.
Amen, brother.
I think Bush is the one being weak kneed here. If he were truly a man of his word he would have nominated the type of justice he said he would, a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He had a number of qualified candidates with and without judicial experience to choose from who met this criteria.
Instead he tried to get cute and play it safe by picking a candidate with a very thin resume professionally and not much of paper trail in terms of writings on constitutional issues. I see no evidence that she's even read the constitution much less ponderd it as the foundation of our legal system.
I worked very hard on election day to help the President. I spent over 15 hours working as a presiding judge in a largely Democratic precinct in the State of Ohio. I was there at ground zero in this election to make sure that, at least in my little corner of Ohio, the President got a fair shake. My reward for that effort is that I'm called a sexist or an elitist and told to "shut up?"
The day that we, as conservatives, set aside our core beliefs and principles to satisfy political expediency is the day the Reagan revolution breathes its last.
What is her record?
It looks like the revolution may be in the hospice, amigo.
I trusted him with my vote. That does not mean I give up my right to question him, or tell him that he is going over a cliff. Frankly, it appears that the POTUS went a little wobbly in making this nomination.
>>>Suddenly, he grows a backbone, and it is over this disastrous nomination?<<<
The entire Bush machine has suddenly grown a backbone over this nomination. Where where any of them when other Bush court nominations were being trashed? Where where any of them with Mike Brown was being trashed?
There is something very fishy about this nomination. Does Harriet have something over G.W. Bush?
Oh please. Hundreds and hundreds of appointments and you point out McClellan and Miers as proof positive that Bush is deficient in that particular process? McClellan is drone-ish but that is a style that is effective in general. Ari's livelier style was great but gave more opportunities to allow the press to say the WH was on the defensive. Yes McClellan also gives such opportunities but I'm guessing that among the public, media and intelligensia Ari's style drew more attention (better ratings) which is alright when all is pleasant but a negative when rough waters are being crossed.
McClellan is appropriately monotone for a position that involves issueing both benign statements and plausible denials.
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.