The Miers revolution [Offending your supporters has real-world consequences]

National Post ^ | Oct. 11, 2005 | David Frum

[conservativecorner]

'It's not a rebellion, sire: It's a revolution." With those words, the duke of La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt broke the news to Louis XVI that the Bastille had fallen. Looking back on the events of the past eight days, I wonder whether the Bush White House does not feel the same way.

The President's decision to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor with his White House counsel and former personal attorney, the underwhelming Harriet Miers, has detonated an uprising within the President's own party.

Conservative commentators Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Patrick Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin and many, many others have condemned the choice.

Washington's tight-knit and usually close-mouthed network of conservative jurists and lawyers is dismayed by Miers' thin record and weak abilities. One Republican lawyer told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel a year ago. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, Miers left to return to the office. There was a silence. Then somebody hopefully piped up: "Maybe if we can find her a really strong deputy ..."

The anger of conservative legalists and opinion leaders is echoed by rank-and-file Republicans. Last week, I asked readers of the conservative National Review Online Web site to tell me how they would vote on the nomination as U.S. senators: They voted 5-1 to reject the nomination. And while the aye votes were usually expressed in cautious and uncertain terms ("I think we just have to trust the President"), the nays were furious ("not just no -- hell no!")

These impressions are confirmed by opinion polls. A CBS poll conducted last week found that the Miers nomination was the most unpopular since Robert Bork's in 1987. Gallup found that while 77% of self-identified conservatives had supported the Roberts' choice, only 58% supported Miers. Both those polls were taken before at the very beginning of last week's spasm of negative media commentary.

CBS last week also released new presidential approval numbers, based on a survey conducted October 3-5. Bush is down to 37%, the lowest presidential approval rating since the Carter years. That number is buoyed, though, by the President's continued high approval rating among conservatives: 80%.

But Oct. 3 was the date that the Miers nomination was announced. As conservatives digest their disappointment and betrayal, their approval of the President is likely to decline. It's hard to say how powerful this effect will be overall, but here's one clue: A poll Monday of 200 right-of-centre bloggers by the RightWingNews.com Web site found that 49% regarded the appointment as a "bad or terrible" decision. Only 9% rated it "good or excellent." And while 4% of the bloggers said that the decision raised their opinion of President Bush, 53% made them view the President less favourably.

While it would seem unlikely that conservatives overall would react as strongly as these intensely political bloggers, the trend and tendency are both clear.

The problem is made worse by the White House's publicity campaign in defence of Miers. Advocates of the appointment have accused critics of "sexism" and "elitism" -- charges that have been echoed by left-wing Democrats like Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. There are probably few tactics less likely to impress a conservative audience -- or more likely to convince that audience that Miers is indeed the unqualified crony her critics say she is.

The only thing worse may be the White House's second talking point: emphasizing Miers' personal qualities. Former White House aide David Kuo tells this story in an op-ed posted on the beliefnet.com Web site:

"Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&Ms in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&Ms in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&Ms were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: 'I like M&Ms and I like sharing.' "

This anecdote almost invites the retort: Well why don't we go all the way and put Barney the purple dinosaur on the court?

More seriously, it disregards and insults the seriousness with which conservatives have worked for three decades to bring change to America's high-handed courts. There is no domestic issue that conservatives care about more, nothing for which individual conservatives have made greater personal sacrifices than to get ready for the day when a conservative president and a Republican Senate would at last hold the power to fill that crucial swing seat on the court.

President Bush's decision to award that seat to his personal attorney in thanks for her years of service to himself personally has enraged his political base. Ann Coulter expressed that rage in her inimitably astringent way two days after the nomination was announced: "Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a 'Best Employee of the Month' award. However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on The West Wing, let alone to be a real one."

Offending your supporters has real-world consequences. With one grave misjudgment, George W. Bush has shattered the coalition that brought and returned him to power in 2000 and 2004.

[Warren_Piece]

Exactly the type of comment that makes her deserve a hearing....to defend her self from the rock-throwers.

I'm telling ya', this is playing out just like the debates in 2000 . Coulter, Frum and the rock throwers at FR have painted her as such a dim bulb that we'll tune into the hearings expecting to see all the coherency of Jocelyn Elders! She'll seem brilliant (compared to the expectations set for her). Something tells me Bush KNOWS this (having been the beneficiary of the exact same thing)

They naysayers have jumped the gun, moved too soon, and overplayed their hand. They have no one to blame but themselves.

[RGSpincich]

You are an idiot,,,you are counting all undecideds for Miers lmao.

I didn't say undecideds were "for" Miers. I said they were unopposed. They did not vote "no" which was an option, therefore they can be counted as unopposed. You tried to use some flawed numbers to express your personal viewpoint on Miers, the numbers don't back you up. Me an idiot? You in a glass house? Keep LYAO but watch out for flying glass.

[jveritas]

GO ahead and force her to withdraw. Do you have a solution on how to force her to withdraw.

[jackbenimble]

His father's cronies were acceptable, but his aren't?

I don't think you heard that charge of cronyism coming from very many conservatives during the first term because his appointments were solid, experienced people with great reputations. They were the A-Team. With the exception of Condelezza Rice we have not seen the same exceptionalism during the second term. I'm sure you are not going to sing Bernard Kerrick's praises.

[rbmillerjr]

"only 58% supported Miers in the Gallop Poll..."

Over 40 percent of the activated conservatives could be deactivated next election and beyond...this is not small stuff this is huge.

[Little Ray]

I find it despicable that he picked a crony over the folks who did the real work. Doesn't have to be a lawyer. Doesn't have to be a judge. But they should have been part of the solution, not a friend of the family.

And she could be a "guns for me, but not for thee" liberal. We don't know enough about her to say otherwise.

[cyncooper]

No, but you know that.

You've already shown you are willing to lie in order to advance your misguided point.

That makes your "thoughts" worthless.

[Rutles4Ever]

If you're going to call me a liar, please specify.

[cyncooper]

If you aren't aware she has a proven record of making hard calls (the complete sentence I stated) then you ought not be opining about her.

I've posted about it before and don't have time to look it up just for you.

Google is your friend. Use it.

[jveritas]

You did not answer my post # 163 because for a simple reason "YOU do not have a solution". You just want to bitch and whine like liberals and losers.

[duckln]

She's knows she's splitting the party and should do it on her own. I don't think W should withdraw her, what's done is done.

In frustration, IMO, W is playing the gang of 14 and liberals of both parties. It's a dangerous game because Miers may actually be approved.

[syriacus]

It would have been interesting to see the hoops the democrats would have had to jump through to deny her appointment to the SC at this point. It was all set to go and Bush blew it.

I was looking forward to a good fight, too. But that battle has been called off, and it is time to face a new day and get ready for a different fight, instead of vandalizing and pillaging our own towns.

Fighting yesterday's fight gets us nowhere. Anyone who has tangible objections to Miers should contact the White House or the Judiciary committee or their Senators, instead of making up stories about Miers and about Bush's reasons for chosing her.

Here is a breakdown of Frum's arguments to continue the rock throwing:

1. "Miers nomination was the most unpopular since Robert Bork's in 1987"
   (Is this a good reason for Bork-loving conservatives to attack Miers?)
2. "As conservatives digest their disappointment and betrayal, their approval of the President is likely to decline. "
   (Self-fulfilling prophecy----"Conservatives" like Frum attack Bush. Bush's numbers go down. Conservatives like Frum attack Bush for his declining numbers...etc)
3. "Her door was always open and the M&Ms were always available."
   (Now we know Harriet Miers shares candy like Ronald Reagan did---is that a bad thing?)
4. "Offending your supporters has real-world consequences."
   (I'm not offended at Bush. I'm offended at the folks throwing rocks at the "unknown entity" Harriet Miers, before her hearings)
5. "With one grave misjudgment, George W. Bush has shattered the coalition that brought and returned him to power in 2000 and 2004.
   "(Frum says practically anyone of any importance is aligned against Bush. So the coalition is still strong... it's just not strongly in favor of Bush, who isn't running for office again )

Frum's column is good for one thing, I have to admit....as a source for the names of the people aligned against Harriet Miers before she has her hearings.

While all this arguing is going on, it's a good time for conservatives to search their hearts to see if they really wanted "originalists" on the court or if they really wanted "conservatives" on the court.

[A Citizen Reporter]

There is only one thing on which I agree with the odious Mr. Frum in this article.

"Offending your supporters has real-world consequences"

"Conservative commentators Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Patrick Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin and many, many others have condemned the choice."

Being as these people need to make a living based on a market of people who will listen to their programs and buy their books, I'd be a bit concerned were I them. I'm not listening to any of them anymore.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"None of your points matter of course."

So why the flip-flop between 7/4/2005 and the present?

"The question is whether Frum makes factual points in the article concerning President Bush and conservatives."

Anonymous sources engaging in gossip does not equal "factual points."

Frum's PO'd at Miers, and his behavior is that of a man with a long-standing feud.

"Everything else you throw out is just static."

Frum is nothing BUT static.

[whitedog57]

C'mon. It IS a stupid choice. Bush had no business putting his personal attorney in the SOTUS. It is exactly what we scream at Democrats about. So, if WE do it, its OK?

George, baby, grow up and stop flexing your power. Nominate a serious candidate. Think of all the qualified people who are being overlooked. George is really starting to pi$$ people off. Even me.

[wardaddy]

Polls show only 50% of GOP support her

The poll here only shows 33% support at this time....the rest being negative or wait and see for hearings.

Since when should we need hearings to vette our own friggin nominee?

"prior to having hearings" ....do you really think the hearings are some kind of trial?

that GOP senators are going to grill her and Bush will capitulate should she falter?

get real...

the hearings are only for the Dems....the GOP will grumble a bit here and there and the Dems are only too happy to endorse her.....most already have....including Reid.

the hearings...lol....oh yes....the hearings will fix everything.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"What did your 3 stupid questions to Frum have the do with the points made in article?"

Everything. Frum's gone on a jihad and is engaging in all manner of anonymous rumormongering. The only explanation that makes sense is that he has a personal animus toward Miers.

[Rutles4Ever]

I'm still waiting, cyn. You called me a liar. What lie did I tell?

[KDD]

I was looking forward to a good fight, too. But that battle has been called off, and it is time to face a new day and get ready for a different fight, instead of vandalizing and pillaging our own towns.

So when the going gets tough the get consent forms...from Harry Reid?

[F16Fighter]

"George W. Bush did not want to get burned. He did want a nominee who could get on the bench. He chose someone who he KNEW. Someone he TRUSTED."

The problem for the President is a credibility problem.

If he couldn't be "trusted" to enforce the border and immigration laws after 9/11...

Or veto CFR...

Or deny Kennedy his Education Bill....

Or control federal spending...

Or take the side of the Minutemen...

Or ask us to accept the assignment of his father palling around with Bubba Clinton as ambassadors, then blind "trust" of his judgement IS certainly in question.