Posted on 10/13/2005 5:03:29 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Did the White House Smear Batchelder? [Jonathan Adler 10/13 03:20 PM] Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alice Batchelder was reportedly on the Administration’s short list for a Supreme Court vacancy at some point. According to FNC’s Brit Hume, she was struck from the list because of a record of “judicial activism.” In response to Bill Kristol’s suggestion that Batchelder would have been a better nominee on Fox News Sunday, Hume said
Those familiar with Batchelder’s record were surprised at the charge. Over at No Left Turns, Robert Alt wonders where Hume got the idea that Batchelder is an “activist.” If the White House was the source of this charge (and other unflattering and even more spurious notions floated about Batchelder in recent weeks), it is very troubling. As Alt observes, smearing qualified candidates for the Court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base.I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that.
When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit’s first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House (unless of course he is simply reporting second hand reports—which would mean that he was engaging in rather loose reporting practices).
Here is the latest from FOX News (a more trusted source than yours as well).
10/13/05 FOX News Poll: Miers Receives Mixed Reviews
"A 37 percent plurality of Americans say they would vote to confirm Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), 32 percent say they would vote against her and 31 percent are unsure. For comparison, in polling conducted the week after Roberts' nomination, 51 percent said they would vote for him and 19 percent against (30 percent unsure)."
So, I guess the majority here on FR who either support Miers or are willing to give her a chance are dumb hicks who don't "follow things"?
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=120;results=1
I also agree. The screamimg is getting old fast.
Due to the increasing membership in the "jump at anything anybody says on FR" club, you can't joke about anything. Some can't discuss facts rationally, so they spit about stupid things. Most of the readers got your point.
"Actually, all you did to correct your error was to cherry pick a poll that you agreed with."
I really didn't cherry pick anything. I have used the phrase cherry pick and I have always wondered about the origins. Anyway, I just pulled the relevant section from the Rasmussen page I went to. If you have another poll that says I should not like her, that's ok too, I'm flexible.
"Among Republicans, 57 percent say they would vote for Miers, down 17 percentage points from the 74 percent that said they would vote for Roberts (July 26-27). Support for Miers among Democrats is 12 points less than it was for Roberts."
Hmmm. 100% - 57% = ?
2% was the figure quoted as not supporting her?
Sure.
Not to worry. Miers will probably be out of this by the end of the week, and then we can have a real nominee.
FOX is one of the few polls I accept as unbiased. Along with Rass, Mason Dixon and Battleground. Those numbers aren't good.
Just out of curiosity. For all those people, and I include the administration, that think people can be shamed, guilted, put in place by intimidation or namecalling...
What are you going to do in '06 and '08? If the people opposing these tactics are resistant now, what makes you think the same tactics will work during the election year? The elections are close in most states. Turnout is key, especially in a midterm. Think all these people attacked are going to forget and show up to vote in spite of it?
Maybe they will, because they love their country more than they are motivated by hurt feelings. But that is the gamble you are taking in these crude attacks. Is it worth it?
I'am speechless.
ELITISM!!!! Ivy League-educated Bush doesn't like Batchelder because she went to the University of Akron Law School!!!
Where did you come to that conclusion?
I'm addressing those following the W.H. lead that believe calling their supporters' names, intimidating Conservative Republicans on the Hill, and ramming a nominee down everyone's throats only the President is happy about is the key to motivate turnout in '06 and '08.
I cannot fathom what the White House is thinking. They seem to be very angry, and are very, very defensive about the whole sordid Miers affair.
There is a real danger that the attack approach they have launched against their own base will be devastating to the party. If they wise up and withdraw Miers' name quickly (and I mean within a few days, not weeks) then things will be patched up.
If they continue with the my way or the highway on Miers, it will hurt the GOP badly. How badly I cannot guess.
Kristol's 15 minutes of relevance (not fame) are long gone.
S'okay.
I've been subject to the same. Apparently I'm evil and a Traitor for objecting to this nomination--and I haven't even joined the chorus demanding her withdrawal--Yet. Not that I'd mourn that event. And forbid I have a problem with the namecalling from the W.H.
IMO, if they continue this road the only thing that MIGHT save them is enough people giving a damn about our troops not to make Reid Majority leader. But if the Reps keep sponsoring protections for terrorists, that might not even save them.
I haven't a clue what's happened to the W.H. I'm actually shocked at the immaturity. I do not think they are thinking at all clearly, and pray they wise up soon before it's too late.
At this point at very LEAST apologies are in order for calling their own people that re-elected them with sweat, tears and drains on financial budgets sexist and elitist.
The one phrase that keeps running through my mind, though, is "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child".
We've had verbal spats with the W.H. before, immigration was a beauty, but this is the first real spanking they've ever had. They are shocked, red faced, humiliated, defensive, angry, etc...
They need to get over it.
I think it's being used to describe Brit's reaction.
I didn't see the show, but from the description ('Kristol questioned ... smear tactic'), I would assume that Kristol made some comment or accusation to that effect, and Hume was incredulous (disbelieving, expression of disbelief) that BK would infer he was involved in a smear campaign.
IMHO, of course.
In all candor, he did admit to being facetious in using that number (2%; see post 16).
IOW, we're stupid, and the Beltway elitists are smart.
Got it.
"Sordid"? Aren't you being a bit of a drama queen?
Bush is NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW MIERS. You had best start dealing with that. I wouldn't want you to slit your throat, or anything.
90% of the people on this site are smart. I don't think they're all "beltway elitists."
It's striking that someone of your intelligence can defend a nominee so bereft of qualifications. You're really drinking the kool-aid this time, Sink.
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.