Misunderestimating The Furor Over Hurricane Harriet

GOPUSA ^ | October 10, 2005 | Chuck Muth

[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.

[Howlin]

I realized I was a conservative during college.

Well, since you're so young, what if you change your mind again?

[Map Kernow]

It doesn't matter what she was talking about, Kitty Kelley's an exposed liar.

Step back if you can from your gleeful character assassination and tell us how she lied about Executive Order 13233.

BTW, if this type of "argument" of yours wasn't absolutely EMBLEMATIC of Clinton defenders in their day, I don't know what was.

[Map Kernow]

I don't know if we're being lied to or not.

Nor do a lot of other people. That's exactly why they can't support this nominee. "Trust Bush" doesn't work on this one.

[Betaille]

"Well, since you're so young, what if you change your mind again?"

Wow you're really scraping the bottom now. You've got nothing. Why is EVERYTHING you post an ad-hominem attack against one of the anti-Miers people and not a single one has been a logical support of Miers?

P.S. I didn't change my mind, I just realized what I was.

[Howlin]

Kitty Kelley is a PROVEN liar over the years; ask anybody she has EVER written about; why you would want to listen to one word she says is beyond me.

Your little remark about Clinton is ridiculous; I'm not the one running to a proven liar for backup; who's next, Dan Rather?

[flashbunny]

why should I not be surprised, howlin is wrong yet again.

I stated 'members'.

The numbers you are stating are not the 'members' number, they are members + non registered users.

But what does it matter - facts aren't your strong suit. Slinging personal attacks and then playing the victim is.

[flashbunny]

I also forgot "why do you want to ruin this woman's life!!!"

[Howlin]

I ask you a simple question and you went off halfcocked.

Why is it that everything anybody says to you is an ad hominem (there is NO hypehn) against you?

[colorado tanker]

It's a mistake to restrict the blame for this to Bush and the Miers pick. The seeds were sown when the White House refused to fight for Estrada and Frist and the Senate pubbies backed down from a fight on the filibuster, handing the appointments power over to the Dems.

We worked for six years to get a Republican President and Senate precisely to put a majority on the Supreme Court and Bush, Frist and McCain hand it all back to the Dems. I, for one, am one da#$ed tired Bushbot.

[Betaille]

"Why is it that everything anybody says to you is an ad hominem (there is NO hypehn) against you?"

Not everybody, just you and the other Miers apologist hack on this thread. I'm assuming that all you've said are ad hominem attacks because you have no logical arguments in support of Miers.

[Howlin]

facts aren't your strong suit.

Evidently they aren't yours either!!

The numbers you are stating are not the 'members' number, they are members + non registered users.

Really? Well, I looked again and you were right; my numbers WERE wrong; I looked again and when you combine the yes and those "fools" who are willing to wait until the hearings, it's even MORE when you just look at memebers!!! (And those definitely against her drops to 26 percents of the people on FR)

Member Opinion
Need more info	39.9%		1,051
Yes	30.1%		793
No	26.0%		685
Pass	2.4%		62
I'm voting Hillary!	1.6%		42
	100.0%		2,633
Are you in that 1.6% that is voting Hillary????

[rbmillerjr]

"The real GOP wins elections, something most of you pitchforkers can't say?

LOL, I thought I was part of the GOP...lol, I'm a pitchforker now (wait are we elitists or pitchforkers?, with all of the spinning it's a wonder you foolish party hacks can keep it straight. Now, scurry on and find next weeks talking points.

Your work in the Party is very valuable. Hell, around election time it almost seems essential. But what you do means very little substantively.

[jmc813]

Free Republic is representative only of Free Republic. You make a big mistake thinking that it represents GOP or conservative opinion in the country as a whole.

I disagree with you here. FR is the largest conservative forum on the web, and therefore has the most accurate cross-section of conservative thought. If not FR, which other web forums do you believe represent conservative opinion better?

[Howlin]

Not everybody, just you and the other Miers apologist hack on this thread.

So, basically, anybody who disagrees with you; good to know.

[AndyJackson]

Why is it that everything anybody says to you is an ad hominem

Because it is what it is.

[Howlin]

I never considered any of you all elitists. :-)

But what you do means very little substantively.

Feel better?

[AndyJackson]

Were 40% in the undecided category for Roberts?

[Howlin]

and therefore has the most accurate cross-section of conservative thought.

Ridiculous; go to ANY conservative gathering and 80 percent of the people have never even heard of FR.

[flashbunny]

Hey, are you ever going to apologize for falsely calling me a liar, insinuating that I was on drugs, was gay, and 'had a problem with women'...all because I disagreed with you?

Just keep posting...unlike miers, your track record grows longer every day.

[Howlin]

That option wasn't asked; just Yes, No, Pass. (Unless the poll was changed, as they sometimes are.)

And it's not 40 percent "undecided." It's 40 percent needing more information.