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.
So, now, you're dragging Andrew Sullivan and Kitty Kelly out as proof that the Miers nomination is bad?
Kitty Kelly was laughed off the TODAY show when discussing her book about Bush, and Andrew Sullivan declared,not long ago, that he hated Bush's guts.
Desparation, thy name is Map.
This is so typical of your off point venom. This is not an argument for or against anything.
"She was supporting conservative causes when you were pulling the lever for Billy Boy."
That's nonsense. I never voted for Clinton. Read my profile again. Furthermore, Miers has supported liberal causes (which I never did), and still seems unclear in her ideology (which i'm not).
You forget #6. You are anti-Evangecal Christian bigot. That seems to be gaining popularity.
So what do we get when she's confirmed, and casts her first liberal vote? $100? Free hits? Do we get to call those "rank and filers" nincompoops? Sadly, they'll all be on FR saying, "Let's not play the blame game--let's not bicker, about 'oo killed 'oo!"
All I've seen from you are ad-hominem attacks. You haven't given a single logical argument in favor of the Miers nomination. Since ad-hominem is all you have... give me your best attack on each of the following anti-Miers nom. people:
Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, the entire editorial board of National Review, George Will, Mark Levin, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, numerous conservative legal scholars, Phylis Schlafly, John Fund, PoliPundit, etc...
Hardly the 'only' reason why she is "suspect". Try demonstrating with some FACTS on why she should NOT be suspect!
Voting for Al Gore was support for a conservative cause?
Trying for an award as the top smear artist on FR? Kelley's article in the Times concerned Executive Order 13233, under which a former president's private papers can be released only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one---potentially such papers could be kept secret in perpetuity. Are you saying there is no such Order, that Bush didn't sign it, or that it doesn't restrict release of presidential papers the way she says it did?
We'll see who gets desperate, 'spur, sooner than you think.
hahaha....Can't have debate!
Have you seen this informal poll? -> http://rightwingnews.com/
The GOP leadership is in denial. It's angry with the very people that want it to succeed.
I don't give the president the pass on the theory that he nominated Miers because of the weak Senate. He should have nominated the best conservative judge for the job and let the chips fall where they may.
I really think that we're about 2 more election cycles from having a viable 3rd party. Unfortunately that 3rd party is going to be moderates who band together from both sides of the isle. The Mccaniac types.
No, I meant exactly what I said. I said, and meant, THEY don't care.
You need to look again; it's 34.0, plus the 33.3% who won't dive off the shallow end with you.
I love Chuck Muth. I've been getting his newsletter for years.
"Voting for Al Gore was support for a conservative cause?"
I'm not going to spend all day dealing with your ad-hominem attacks. All you've given in support for Miers is attacks on those who criticize the nomination. I told you.. just get it all off of your chest now. Tell me bad things about:
“Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, the entire editorial board of National Review, George Will, Mark Levin, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, John Fund, Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, Phylis Schlafly, etc...
Give them a break. How many times can they post, 'trust President Bush, he knows what he is doing'?
I support Miers because I support Bush. That's a logical argument, since Bush has NEVER nominated a liberal or non-constructionist judge.
You don't like it, because Bush didn't nominate your guy or gal.
You also don't seem to want to wait for any hearings, unless you've changed your stripes again over the last 48 hours.
Wait for the hearings and cool your jets. Your're way too young to be so obstinate.
Precisely. The real GOP isn't anywhere near as whacked as this place is.
Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.
We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.
For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/10/07/159683.html
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.