Did the White House Smear Alice Batchelder?

NRO ^ | October 13, 2005 | Jonathan Adler

[sinkspur]

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.

I'm defending her right to a hearing. If she tanks, I'll join you in calling for her defeat.

But this pre-emptive jihad some of you have declared on Bush and Miers ought to be embarrassing to you.

You scream when Democrats won't give our nominees an up-or-down vote, yet you want to deny Harriett Miers that very thing.

[america-rules]

They are letting it slip as time goes buy that many on the right want evidence of conservative activism in the nominee and not someone who will follow the constitution.

I said this here the day after Bush announced Miers and I've said it many times since.

I've now heard it many times when CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and Fox have these people on to slam the Miers nomination.

It's been said using code words but I've picked it up pretty well.

[The Old Hoosier]

The nomination is an embarrassment to Bush and to anyone who wishes he would succeed.

[The Old Hoosier]

From Another Thread: Freeper Burr5 reported on an article by David Brooks:

"You know I was one of Bush and Miers' staunchest defenders until this morning. Ann Coulter's column was a big blow. Peggy Noonan's was even bigger. But when I heard what David Brooks had written about this nomination, that was the last straw. I'd provide a link, but the NYTimes is registration-only, and people have to do that for themselves.

"Essentially, Brooks quoted excerpt after excerpt of Miers' own writings from her days with the Texas Bar Association.
They are the barely coherent ramblings of a singularly unimpressive mind- cliche-filled, garbled, ungrammatical, and devoid of any facts to buttress her assertions. It's like listening to your boss at a meeting prattling on about synergy, thinking outside-the-box, and win-win situations.

"I was wrong. Maybe she would vote to over-turn Roe. Maybe she would do what Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts suggest she do. I thought that would be good enough. It is not. I don't support this nomination anymore because the woman simply DOES NOT DESERVE this job. Not with legal geniuses like Janice Rogers Brown out there.

"Peggy Noonan. Ann Coulter. Glenn Beck. Laura Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh. David Frum. David Brooks. Robert Bork. Pat Buchanan. Mona Charen.

"I wanted all those people to be wrong. I thought it fair to get to know Harriet Miers before opposing her. I know enough now."

[sinkspur]

The nomination is an embarrassment to Bush and to anyone who wishes he would succeed.

Says 17% of the GOP. 54% think she's just fine.

Me, I'll wait until the hearings.

[sinkspur]

David Brooks is a good guy, and a great writer.

And Burr 5, I don't know who the hell he is.

Give her a hearing. This trashing of Miers before her opportunity to answer the only people that matter, the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate, makes those who are engaged in it look like a bunch of unreasonable bastards.

[america-rules]

Good god Old Hoosier use your own mind and watch the hearing and think for yourself.

All the people you quoted want the fight because it's their reason for being.

They have radio shows and books to sell and they are getting alot of air time right now and they all have their book cover (except Rush) right there on the screen when they talk.

Listen to the hearings on her and see what she says on the issues important to you then make up your own mind !

[AD from SpringBay]

because of a record of “judicial activism
Class of 98, not that that means much - My GOSH - trust is in short supply these days. I understand that. But I'm almost persuaded that this President (whom I voted for) is finding someone who will read the law into the law, so to speak. I've not posted on many of these Meirs threads. But I'm thinking, according to the president (which isn's a popularity contest btw) here is a nominee that will interpret as interpret does - at least that's what momma used to say. Unnerstand?

Sometimes the administration's water needs to be carried. Who ya gonna trust?

[dsutah]

Good Grief! What is wrong with the President putting this lady up for the nomination? Is she a monster, or something? All this carrying on! It's as if she's committed a crime, the way some of you are talking about her! What's the problem? I don't know that much about her myself, but why not let the lady get her "day in court"?

Come on, lets let the senators decide whether she is qualified or not! If they don't like her answers, they won't vote to confirm her, ok? I've never seen such a firing squad aimed at any of his other nominees! What's the Pres. supposed to do? Hang his head in shame, and say: "Oh, I was only joking, I'll remove her nomination right away, don't shoot me!"? Ok, I'm being overly dramatic. However, I'm still mystified by this continued bad attitude against this woman.

What are people afraid of? She apparently helped to vet the other nominees, and the others were quite conservative, weren't they? Look what they were subjected to! Don't you all (those that are against her)see what happened to all of the others? It took them at least 4-5 years for them to get confirmed. All kinds of trash was thrown out on them! Don't you see that if it was known she is a dyed-in-the-wool, strict 'originalist', strong conservative as you wish, what would happen to her? Just consider!

[SkyPilot]

You had best start dealing with that. I wouldn't want you to slit your throat, or anything.

Ah yes. Who is being overly dramatic now sink?

It is sordid. She was not the most qualified, and Bush nominated a friend, not a jurist. Moreover, we are being asked to allow the future of our nation's moral base into the hands of a former Democrat who has demonstrably showed ten times the loyalty to a single man (Bush) than to Conservative ideology.

You may be right with your shouting: "NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW MIERS"

That is his and our misfortune. His "my way to the highway" approach has already caused horrific damage to the party. Is that too overly dramatic for you to accept?

Moreover, I blame the White House for this entire fiasco (and it is a fiasco). It didn't have to be this way.

[hershey]

Maybe Brit fired up his computer and did some digging on his own.

[SkyPilot]

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.

They may come around, but they have dug their heels in even further because they are embarrassed.

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.

Agreed, but I see no clue of that on the horizon.

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...

After watching the hapless Scott McClellan yesterday, I must say your observations are dead on. This is painful to watch.

What happened to Karl Rove's management and leadership of these people? Why is Bush reacting with such venom towards his own?

[SkyPilot]

But this pre-emptive jihad some of you have declared on Bush and Miers ought to be embarrassing to you.

It is this kind of rhetoric that is inappropriate and uncalled for. So now, Miers opponents are akin to Islamic Fascists launching a jihad?

I have fought against that ideology sir, and have endured hardships and family separations to do so.

I will add now being a "Jihadist" to being a "Sexist", "Elitist" (from the White House attacks).

Glad to know you all want Miers so much you are willing to sew these seeds of such hostility. Perhaps it is all of you supporters of this nasty episode who should take a breath and look in the mirror.

[sinkspur]

Stop with the drama, will you?

Look, I want to give Miers a hearing, and then make a decision. It is jihadi-like (and, yes, I use that term intentionally) to want to drive her out of the process before she gets an opportunity to answer the queries of the Senators.

You say that Bush has a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude, while you take the very same stance yourself.

Bush has NEVER disappointed in his judicial picks, yet now you think he is betraying you for one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

I just don't get it.

[SkyPilot]

You know what sink, I give up. I thought The White House and other Conservatives would not be this politically tone deaf as to let this mistake of a nomination linger on as long as it has. That isn't "drama", I am just disgusted and exhausted with this whole fiasco (and it is a fiasco). I am tired repeating the same points over and over again. Moreover, if George Will, Ann Coulter, David Frum, Pat Buchanan, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin, Peggy Noonan, and all the rest of these people (who are much more eloquent than I) cannot convince you people what a calamity this is, then I never will be able to.

This should have ended last weekend, with her withdrawal. I am finally seeing the end that you have been advocating: she won't withdraw. Andy Card, Scott McClellan, Ed Gillespie, and the rest of the goons sent out to sell us this pig in a Polk will only continue their scorched earth policy against their own supporters. I finally realize that the bridges over the Rhine are already blown to toothpicks and are set ablaze.

If you don't see that this nomination has ripped the GOP apart, then I cannot paint the picture for you. Bush should have realized his error early on, and corrected it. I can now see that he won't. So be it.

For all who have argued so vociferously for Miers, I surrender. It looks like you are going to get what you wanted.

Enjoy the Pyrrhic victory. It was well earned.

[sinkspur]

If you don't see that this nomination has ripped the GOP apart, then I cannot paint the picture for you.

Well, only if those who want to rip it apart keep it ripped apart.

According to Rasmussen, 54% of Republicans support Miers' nomination. Only 17% say, at this point, that she should be voted down. That's not a very large "anti" number.

Most Americans are very fair people, and they are willing to give Miers a chance to make her case. It is un-American to put somebody in the arena, then have her chased over the wall by a pack of howling dogs before she even gets a chance to open her mouth.

The more the pundits rant, the more unfair this treatment of her appears to be, and the more certain it becomes that she WILL get her hearing.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The poster who quoted the 2% figure admitted to being facetious, of course, but don't get your hopes up. Miers will be on the court and she will be a strict constructionist.