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.
You need to read the forum. It appears that the "rank and file" conservatives think you guys are elitists and just plain wrong about Harriett Miers.
Bushs's supporters seem to support this on the grounds that you have to concede some tactical ground in order to win the war. They forget that SC nominations are the war.
Flashbunny, you really are a piece of work, you know that. If you represent what it means to be a "conservative" these days, count me out, chickie poo, because you make me want to hurl.
Unfortunately, I'm late for work so won't be able to stick around and get into it with you. Another time, perhaps.
As recently as FIVE YEARS AGO you were supporting a continuation of the Clinton neglect of terrorists?
Well, well, well......
"It appears that the "rank and file" conservatives think you guys are elitists and just plain wrong about Harriett Miers."
That's an absolute joke. I am as "rank and file" as you can get. This is just part of the Miers apologists "You're all sexist and elitist" campaign.
check the poll of members of this forum
only 30.1% are saying "we trust the president". And that's dropped over the past week. A flat out "no" is at 26% and those wanting more info before supporting her is at 40%
I'd take that over the word of party hacks (who, by definition, cheer for the party) who say everything is peachy keen.
'Fraid not, DNC-breath.
The vast majority of the "rank and file" did not vote for Gore in 2000.
"Unfortunately, I'm late for work so won't be able to stick around and get into it with you. Another time, perhaps."
Nice. Hit and run. Seems to be par for the course from the squishy republicans these days. Try to make a slam using liberal tactics and run away. Avoid discussing the real issues and instead accuse anyone who dares question this pick of being an elitist, sexist, or just plain mean.
"YOU voted for Gore? LOL!!!"
What a ridiculous ad-hominem attack. I voted Republican in 2002 and for Bush in 2004 (and got many other people at my religious college to vote as well). All I hear from you is the most babyish ad-hominem attacks, which tells me that I've won on the facts and logic. Actually, this is the lowest any Freepers have ever sunk to. I have had many disagreements on many issues with many freepers, and none of them has ever dug as low as criticizing me for having once been a Democrat and having come over to the conservative side. That's not even coherent as an ad-hominem attack.
You make a big mistake thinking that it represents GOP or conservative opinion in the country as a whole.
It doesn't.
Here's part of Andrew Sullivan's take on it today:
In the matter of the Supreme Court, Bush's fundamental motives are sticking a finger in the eye of his intellectual supporters, and keeping a crony so close to him that his executive running of the war on terror will never be subject to real Congressional oversight. (Miers is insurance for the executive-branch-worshipping Roberts). Kitty Kelley notes how this president has sealed off from the public decades of presidential data that are vitally important to making democracy work. But this president is and always has been as much a dauphin as a president. He's responsible for a dynasty as much as a democracy. Miers is the dynasty's constitutional guardian - as well as potentially a minimalist Justice, in line with Roberts. No other candidate could fulfill both roles. Bush, in other words, is treating the Court as a means for personal protection and dynastic noblesse oblige. The question is simply whether the GOP wants to become the vehicle for a crony-ridden aristocracy or something more transparent and meritocratic.
If Sullivan is correct, Bush is trying to tell the grassroots with this nomination that he doesn't need them anymore, and that they can go do it flying. Not a message to give Congressional Republicans the warm fuzzies.
and you fool yourself if you think some party activists saying "gee, the base supports this pick" is indicative of anything other than their ability to suck up to party leaders.
First question, how come there are so many of us then? While many of us would like to think that conservatives are the "elite" there are probably too many of us in the opposition for us to be taken seriously in a claim of being "elitists."
Second can you guys seriously come up with no better argument in favor of Miers than that her opponents are "elitists?" That is what the Clinton WH would have done.
Third, what is so damned elitist about demanding that the best serve on the SC. I am not a better person because a great mind sits on the SC. No country club memberships or WH dinner invitations will fall my way because of it. Hopefully, however, I will live in a better country.
And on Friday I wrote both my (Democrat) senators, enclosing a photocopy of my GOP voter registration, and telling them both "as a registered Republican since 1978 who has never voted for a Democrat for national office, I strongly urge you to reject Harriet Meirs for the Supreme Court."
His base is the republican pundits? Hey, if they want to destroy the party, that's their perogative, but the truth is, Bush is not running again so stirring up trouble will only hurt the party. If that's their aim, perhaps we're finding out more than just about Harriet Miers.
Well, pard, you have absolutely no credibility as a short-timer to come on here and act as if you have been somehow violated by the nomination of Harriett Miers. She was supporting conservative causes when you were pulling the lever for Billy Boy.
I'd say Miers is more smoked brisket and Lone Star--which I would prefer to filet mignon and Dom.
Miers got her undergrad degree in mathematics and packs a 45 revolver--I'm interested to hear the hearings.
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.
So you make an "ad hominem" attack on FR and further commit a collectivist fallacy. No one claims FR is representative of anything. It is nothing more than a collecton of statement by individual posters within guidelines set out by Jim Robinson. What seems to bother you is that a very large number of individual opinions are falling outside of the collectivist talking points that others have prescribed.
I think you mistyped. I think that should read: "Bush is not running again so he doesn't care about hurting the party." I'm sure you realize that's just what he's done with the Miers nomination.
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.