Posted on 10/16/2005 11:29:29 AM PDT by indianrightwinger
From the Magazine | Notebook Mike Allen: Why They Can't Hit The Right Note With even Laura off-key on Miers, Bush plans to change the message—again
Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005 Get ready for a whole new Harriet. After a disastrous two weeks, White House officials say they hope to relaunch the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court by moving from what they call a "biographical phase" to an "accomplishment phase." In other words, stop debating her religion and personality and start focusing on her resume as a pioneering female lawyer of the Southwest. "We got a little wrapped around the axle," an exhausted White House official said. "As the focus becomes less on who she's not and more on who she is, that's a better place to be."
So, as the White House counsel begins her formal prep sessions this week for a confirmation hearing that's likely to start in early November, President Bush will hold a photo op with former chief justices of the Texas Supreme Court who will testify to Miers' qualifications and legal mind. The White House's 20-person "confirmation team" will line up news conferences, opinion pieces and letters to the editor by professors and former colleagues who can talk about Miers' experience dealing with such real-world issues as the Voting Rights Act when she was a Dallas city council member and Native American tribal sovereignty when she was chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission.
After enjoying the 78-to-22 confirmation breeze for Chief Justice John Roberts, congressional Republicans are now sweating the Miers vote count and tell TIME that it could be as low as 52—embarrassing but still good enough for a lifetime appointment.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
In your dreams. Even Time thinks she'll be confirmed.
At this point she'll probably be confirmed, absent some blunder during the confirmation hearings. However, it's certainly more likely that she will have said blunder than, say, a Roberts. Or anyone who's dealt with constitutional law to any extent.
I never questioned her confirmation. That is in fact a reason for my frustration.
A long-time liberal with no background in jurisprudence, recently converted republican, and a friend of the President is going to be confirmed, not matter the reservations from true conservatives.
I'd hate to be the guy in charge of the success of this phase of the campaign.
Oh, great. The "love her she's Evanglical" approach didn't work, so now they've gone back to the drawing board and plan to say that she's an outstanding example of feminist accomplishment. I thought that changing the language instead of the substance was a current Democrat technique.
They want to play up the three former Supreme Court Justices in Texas that endorsed Miers? Wow two are democrats and one of them John Hill is about as liberal as Bill Clinton. What are they smoking in the White House?
But I thought the Bush team paid no attention to the polls or what others felt or believe. And now they are changing their talking points again. Geez, have the Clinton's test the waters team taken over?
I thought from the beginning that that was probably Bush's ploy: Put up an Evangelical woman candidate, get the Democrats to hammer her for her religion, and that way get them to weaken themselves even further in the heartland. A woman works better for this than a man, because it makes them look worse when they hammer her.
The only trouble with this ploy is that she isn't qualified to sit on the court and is only doubtfully conservative.
"Pioneering?"
She'd hardly have been "pioneering" 100 years ago; now she's only "pioneering" in the sense that women attorneys are also allowed to be mediocre...
Sandra O'Connor was 3rd in her Stanford Law School class. First was some guy named William Rehnquist.
"true conservatives"
And who are they? Sincere question.
That is not what the objection to her qualifications are. The objection is that she should be a really smart lawyer as demonstrated by something she has done. Her so-called record has been combed pretty thoroughly, and there is no evidence that she is a really smart clear-thinking lawyer. Also, a background in constitutinal law is a requirement because what SC judges do is interpret the Constitution. It is a pretty brief document, but thorougly grounded in princples from English common law, the Federalist Papers, and other writings of our founding fathers. The constitution does not just say what it says and nothing else.
Bush's friends contend that it is the conservative elite, not the President, who miscalculated and that self-righteous right-wingers stand to lose their seats at the table of power for the next three years. "They're crazy to take him on this frontally," said a former West Wing official. "Not many people have done that with George Bush and lived to tell about it." If a Justice Miers eventually takes her seat on the court, vocal critics can only hope the Bush Administration handles the punishment of the treasonous as poorly as it is currently promoting one of its most loyal subjects.
No, Bush is the one that is a fool to betray his base in this manner. He represents the people. He isn't king. And, if he thinks he is going to be a lame duck and not a bigger failure than his father if he doesn't withdraw this nomination, he is a fool.
I guess it depends what you mean by qualified. Normally, a president should nominate the best candidates available. Whether they want a knee-jerk Roe v. Wade supporter or a strict constructionist, they should still nominate the best in these categories. I don't think that's the case here. There are probably thousands of corporate lawyers who are equally well qualified--which is to say, not qualified--for such a cricial job.
In any case, the doubts about her conservatism, and the many small bits of evidence to the contrary, are more important. Better a second-rate conservative than a first-rate liberal; but best of all, a truly stellar conservative.
Deserves repeating.
"No, Bush is the one that is a fool to betray his base in this manner. He represents the people."
Here's what I sincerely don't get. Why is it that you think "the people" means the far right minority of his party? Even though you are not the majority in his party, he has done well by you, I think, in his judicial appointments.
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.