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.
Well, if you didn't actually contribute thousands of dollars to the DNC and Al Gore, if you are younger than 43 years old and your conversion doesn't correspond with a power grabbing opportunity...you are on more solid conservative ground than Miss Miers.
"you have proven yourself to be an ideologue, just like some of the pundits you list. I support Miers because I support Bush."
Then the difference between us seems to be Reasoning vs. Conditioning. Yes, I am a conservative, not a blind follower, and I think that's a good thing, and much stronger than "I support Miers becuase I support Bush".
That being said.... I think at some point the president and whoever he wanted to nominate needed to sit down in a closed room with the dems leadership and say this "if you personal attack this nominee, we will destroy you personally... even if it takes us 20 years". And this nominee if confirmed promises if you personal attack, to make your life and the life of your constitutents miserable, and we feel like as a judge with the swing vote, this nominee can do just that.
"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."
More opinions eh? When there are no facts on your side, just TRUST ME, then opinions are your best friend. Remind me again how many FR members who have voted in the poll believe as you do about Miers?
"The real GOP isn't anywhere near as whacked as this place is."
Irony is thy name...
Did I say it was the only reason?
*bump*
I don't like this nomination at all, but the label "hate Mier-monger" is inflammatory misrepresentation.
"The real GOP isn't anywhere near as whacked as this place is"
The real GOP is a vanilla wafer, hiding inside a generic box hidden inside a surplus saltine cracker store. It means nothing and stands for less.
In this case, it's not the Democrats; it's the Patsies.
The other thing that is true.. is that the WH supported some of these RINO's during their primary elections.
Blasphemy! Ban his columns from FR! Traitor! Inside the beltway elitist!
Most of the arguments in defense of the Miers selection would apply to any shopping cart pushing bag lady that Bush could have nominated.
"Stealth" is right. According to Jonah Goldberg on NRO Corner today, "Apparently she hasn't done very much judge vetting and prepping after all." Add that to the growing list, "She's pro-life," "She's evangelical," "She's conservative," of representations to the "base" that just aren't holding water on close examination. Getting the feeling you're being LIED to about this nomination? I sure am.
I agree... you could have brought the patsies into the meeting to. But you know... the WH supported some of these patsies in their primaries.
Since you admitted voting GOP in 2002 and 2004, and Gore in 2000, you obviously didn't mention 1992 and 1996, which, I'm sure, means we can assume you voted for Clinton.
Now, if you've never supported liberal causes, the question must be asked: why?
She has been the president's personal attorney. He either picked her for that because she's a real good attorney, or because she thinks like he does.
I noted that feeling a few days ago. This nomination has negative ramifications that go deep - even if Harriet Miers judicial philosophy is to the right of mine and she is intellectually superior to Thomas and Scalia combined.
Not only does this nomination show weakness, it creates additional weakness. Loss of trust in the president will occur in some fraction of the voters who tend to support the GOP and the President's initiatives.
"you obviously didn't mention 1992 and 1996, which, I'm sure, means we can assume you voted for Clinton."
Since I state in my profile that my FIRST vote was for Gore, it's safe to assume that I did not vote in 1992 or 96 (was too young).
"Now, if you've never supported liberal causes, the question must be asked: why?"
Because I was never a liberal (unlike Miers). I voted Democrat just cuz that's how I grew up and I liked Lieberman alot. I realized I was a conservative during college.
The real GOP wins elections, something most of you pitchforkers can't say.
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.