Posted on 10/10/2005 8:55:12 AM PDT by Warhammer
Misunderestimating The Furor Over Hurricane Harriet By Chuck Muth October 10, 2005
The White House's spinmeisters are either ignorantly misreading or intentionally mischaracterizing the general conservative opposition to Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. They continue "misunderestimating" the furor at their own peril.
It's not that conservatives think she's "unqualified." We accept the fact that one need not have been a judge to sit on the Supreme Court. We accept the fact that many a fine justice had no judicial experience before joining SCOTUS. On the other hand, a lot of really lousy former justices had no judicial experience either.
We also accept the fact that Miers is an accomplished lawyer who won't "legislate from the bench." And we're fairly comfortable that she won't "go Souter" on us.
And it's not that she isn't "conservative." Conservatives not only accept that she's a conservative, but is most assuredly a social conservative, as well. We also accept that she's probably a very nice, but tough, lady who "has a good heart" (whatever the heck that means to one's ability to interpret the Constitution).
And it has nothing to do with the fact that she didn't come from an Ivy League school. Most of the other individuals on the short-list of nominees who would have been warmly embraced by grassroots conservative activists and leaders didn't come from Ivy League schools either. In fact, NOT coming from an Ivy League school is probably more in her FAVOR among rank-and-file conservatives who are not exactly enamored with Harvard and Yale ivory-tower liberalism.
And it's not that we don't "trust" the president - although after McCain-Feingold, Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind program, LBJ's prescription drug bill, that pork-filled highway bill, his federal Marshall Plan for New Orleans, losing his veto pen, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc., perhaps that trust should come into serious question.
And it's not that Ms. Miers is a close, personal friend to the president. Although the charge of "cronyism" is, indeed, a legitimate point, that really isn't what all the hubbub is about.
No. This is about Republicans never blowing an opportunity to blow an opportunity.
The visceral objections to Harriet Miers have more to do with the fact that many conservative activists have been toiling in the political trenches for many years to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate for the expressed purpose of being able to seat individuals on the nation's highest court who have the conservative judicial and intellectual star-power and brain-power we were denied by the Left when they "borked" Robert Bork. The fact is, with Republican kiesters warming 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, a superior Bork-like nominee could have been confirmed to join Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Instead, we get...Harriet Miers?
We could have had filet mignon. Instead we got hamburger. We could have had Dom Perignon. Instead we got Pabst Blue Ribbon. We could have thrown a touchdown. Instead we ran it up the middle for a two-yard gain. And then to rub salt in this open wound, the president insulted the nation's collective intelligence by claiming, laughably, that he "picked the best person (he) could find." Perhaps he should have extended his search beyond arm's length.
It's not so much that Harriet Miers is "bad," but that we had an opportunity to do so much better.
There are only nine seats on the Supreme Court. Vacancies don't occur very often. Why settle for a second- or third-stringer when there were so many experienced, bona fide super-stars sitting on the bench waiting to get into the game? With the World Series on the line, why send an untested, inexperienced rookie to the mound when you have the likes of Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson at your disposal? This nomination is the sort of decision which would get a major league manager fired on the spot.
Nevertheless, there are still some GOP partisan loyalists out there who are blindly accepting the president's nomination on faith and disparaging anyone else who dares voice objection as not being a "team player" or a "true conservative." These Bushophiles need to wake up and smell the coffee. For the record, here's just a partial list of prominent, bona fide, card-carrying conservatives who have expressed reservations, if not open hostility, to the Miers nomination over the past week:
Former Judge Robert Bork, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, columnist Charles Krauthammer, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, columnist George Will, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, columnist Thomas Sowell, columnist Mona Charen, former ACU executive director Richard Lessner, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), columnist Robert Novak, columnist Bruce Fein, columnist Peggy Noonan, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, columnist Terrence Jeffrey, columnist Michelle Malkin, the Wall Street Journal, Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Coalition, the Federalist Patriot, columnist David Limbaugh, Gary Bauer of American Values, Alan Keyes of Renew America, columnist Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
All of these people are wrong and the president is right? All of these people aren't "true conservatives"? All of these people aren't "team players"? Come on.
George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible. He made a mistake. But it's a mistake which can and should be rectified. The nation need not settle for second or third best with this lifetime appointment. President Bush should take a "mulligan," withdraw this nomination and appoint someone such as Judge Janice Rogers Brown instead. Absent that, Ms. Miers should take herself out of the game - for the good of the conservative movement and for the good of the nation.
-----------
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com. Talk show producers interested in scheduling an interview with Mr. Muth
should call (202) 558-7162.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
6. You're a longtime "sleeper" DU troll.
7. You're "stalking" me.
Think of the kittens!
If it had been false, I would.
None of them do. Most conservatives don't post on the internet. They go to work, raise kids, go to PTA, and use the web to order books from Amazon.com.
That's why, it seems to me, most conservatives will support Bush's pick of Harriett Miers. They don't get into Supreme Court arcana, and they would never dream of making a judgement on a person before that person has had a chance to make her case.
The 26% "NO" should be a red flag. It is to anybody in the party who is honestly reviewing the scene.
Fair point, but that does not mean that we do not have a good sampling of conservative thought here. Can you think of any web forum that has a better cross-section of modern American conservative thought?
"go to ANY conservative gathering and 80 percent of the people have never even heard of FR."
Your comment reminds me of the media elite dumbfounding after the Reagan landslide. "But, I've never met anybody who voted for Reagan.
You should reassess your circles.
Can you think of any web forum that has a better cross-section of modern American conservative thought?
Absolutely not; that's why "sleepers" come here to distrupt all the time!
Rainy days and Mondays, and conservative kindred souls
slanging back and forth, well, they always get me down.
Nothing to see here, let's move along.
I don't need to reassess them; I know people from the White House to the local level; they are NOT anywhere near as "mouth frothing" as we are.
You might want to look up Clifton 9th circuit before you continue to spread simply what the MSM wants you to believe.
> The official "Cult of Bush" mascot...the Howler Monkey! <
LMAO!!
Who in the White House?
Not always. In fact, in '92 it lost, BIG TIME after just four years of GW's father. It appears GW is returning to form. 2006 and 2008 could get real ugly real fast.
Trashing inside the fence opposition or trying to move the fence is not going to help this argument one little bit.
You do it for me. I have no idea who "Clifton" is.
The problem is everyone wanting to count the 40% in the yes category to show that those who have questions should be marginalized.
Because the unappeasables sat home or voted for Ross Perot.
As if I'm going to name names. Not Bush though.
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.