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.
I must clarify that I meant that FR is a good cross-section of American conservatives, not Republicans. We do agree that FR is more conservative in general than the GOP.
No one.
O.K., so then you admit you were wrong stating 'the GOP wins elections.' We now know they lose elections when the 'unappeasables' sit at home. Guess what! Those 'unappeasables' are what some people call 'the base.' I repeat, things in 2006 and 2008 could get real ugly real fast.
What percentage of people at this forum are dedicated third-party types who loving the heck out of a potential division within the GOP? Should it really be a red flag to the GOP that the Go Pat Go types have voted NO in a Free Republic forum poll?
Absolutely.
We've certainly won more than the Reform Party has, that's for sure.
The "unappeasables" aren't the base; the base in anything is something you can count on.
No one you'd know.
My first vote was for Al Gore in 2000 (straight democratic ticket).
Sure.
I'm sure you don't know them.
anyways, since Google takes, oh, all of 5 seconds, here you go:
I don't know how to make it a hyperlink, so if you can BEAR to copy & paste here you go. If not, it will be here for others willing to see that Bush has not been 100% in his judicial appointments. (oh and BTW, it's been reported that Clifton gave $8K to Bush's campaign... just keep that in mind as you read some of these RIDICULOUS decisions...)
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13520
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3985/is_200306/ai_n9296332
In the 9th circuit, Judge Richard Clifton determined the common denominator to a decision is that the robber knowingly made one or more victims at the scene of the robbery aware that he had a gun, real or not. The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bailey that the term "use" requires evidence sufficient to show an "active employment" of the firearm, something more than mere possession. "If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not used," Clifton wrote.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180364625
"The interests furthered by the federal DNA Act are undeniably compelling. By establishing a means of identification that can be used to link conditional releasees to crimes committed while they are at large, compulsory DNA profiling serves society's 'overwhelming interest,'" wrote 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain for the plurality. He was joined by Chief Judge Mary Schroeder and Judges Barry Silverman, Richard Clifton and Consuelo Callahan. Judge Ronald Gould wrote a separate concurrence.
Shall I go on?
No, the GOP shouldn't care if there is no substantial risk of losing votes. And I have no idea how the political demographics of a FR poll shake out.
I think the GOP bigshots know they have an issue on their hands, despite their public propaganda that asserts otherwise.
"Seriously I think that way too many conservatives have lost (or never had) a clear conception of what a Supreme should be. Miers is a logic and detail person, not a ideological fountainhead, and thus may be perfect for filling one of the nine seats."
You know, I would love to see some information on how the Founding Fathers viewed the Supreme Court. I know that one of them (John Adams or Thomas Jefferson) said SCOTUS should be the least dangerous branch of the government. Looks like it's become one of the MOST dangerous.
Nah, I believe he/she thinks you misspelled "Clinton", too rich!
BETAILLE VOTED FOR GORE IN 2000????
That says it all
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Thanks for the gutteral guffaw
That too. It would have been interesting to have an "Are you satisfied with the nomination?" question.
Have you seen this poll? -> http://rightwingnews.com/
George Bush has really started something with this pick.
Then suffice it to say that "something you can count on" is shrinking dramatically with this nomination. Or do you disagree? Do you actually believe the Miers nomination will enhance GOP prospects in 2006 and 2008? And, if so, how, exactly?
YES!
Composite Opinion Yes 34.0% 2,004 Need more info 33.3% 1,962 No 27.8% 1,638 I'm voting Hillary! 3.0% 174 Pass 2.0% 119 100.1% 5,897Looks like across the spectrum only about 27% have come out against the nomination. Some of the need more info group will fall over in the No group, but how many is yet to be know?
The bottom line is where do the 100 Senators in the US Senate fall in this spectrum?..... I'd bet that over 50% will be on the Yea side when the votes are cast...
I never said that. I'm not even in the Yes vote; I'm in the wait and see vote.
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.