Posted on 10/11/2005 5:30:20 AM PDT by 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.
So when the going gets tough the tough get consent forms?...from Harry Reid?
Still waiting?
Excuse me for attending to some responsibities first before checking replies.
You lied by omission in leaving out who Hewitt was speaking to, not just "spinning" all by his lonesome. I didn't catch his name but he isn't a "no name"; he's written a forward to one of Bork's books so I would think he has some standing in the conservative community.
You also offered a truncated list of who is in support as if they are the only entities.
Hewitt offers a valid perspective as do some (certainly not all or most) of the Miers critics and he wasn't spinning.
Can't argue with that.
This has all the markings of a vendetta by Frum. He is burning bridges right and left, especially with his unnamed sources.
When Miers is confirmed and issues her first few opinions, on the side of Scalia and Thomas, these pundits who criticized her and Bush are going to be laughingstocks.
And Frum will be driving the lead clown car, with his shinola'd Hair-Club-for-Men coif plastered to his head like a shower cap.
Amen brother. As I see it they are the one's who broke faith with us not the other way around.
How about all the others, Will, Kristol, Bork, and 50% of al Freepers including me.
Why do you confuse facts with motives, when they are not related? You sound like liberal trying to change the subject.
You win the award for the dumbest post of the day, and the day is still young.
Who else believed Hussein had WMD's? Clinton, France, Israeli intelligence, the UN...
Were they all trying to "snooker" you?
Actually, she only "passed" as a result of a deal brokered by the Gang of 14. Had that not happened, she would not be on the Court today.
Hewitt said it in his opening monologue.
Perhaps you weren't listening. I wasn't around for his shill - er, er GUEST - because I was too busy retching in the corner.
The truncated list is all you need to know. Heck, let's truncate it down to "Harry Reid" and "86" this nomination right there.
Hewitt's entitled to his opinion, so am I. He called conservatives "knuckleheads" in his opening monologue. He oughta stand on the corner with a sandwich board and a megaphone.
To say that Harriett Miers is not "part of the solution" as a member of Bush's administration is ridiculous.
"How about all the others, Will, Kristol, Bork, and 50% of al Freepers including me."
Will is the MSM's pet conservative, who is called upon to trash conservatives and does so with gusto. Kristol is another MSM pet conservative who can be relied on to despise Bush because Bush didn't give him a job. And Bork doesn't believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
You've really got some stellar sorts on your side there.
And that leaves 50% of all FReepers. 50% of all FReepers are below average intelligence. That's an amazing correlation right there. Hmm...
"Why do you confuse facts with motives, when they are not related?"
Because there is precious little fact in Frum screeds, so motive's the main element I have to work with.
No it is not. What has she ever done to advance the cause of a conservative judiciary? Vetted a few judges?
Sorry. She was not the right person for the job. Bush has already struck out on CFR, Education, Drugs for Greedy Geezers, and bloated spending. There is absolutely no reason I should trust his judgement here. The President has proposed her, and she deserves her day in Congress, but, barring a remarkable performance, she should be told to go home!
If America legalized euthanasia for stupid people, your life expectancy would be measured in picoseconds.
You bozos have been criticizing Miers for her lack of a paper trail.
Then you pick two justices WITH paper trails as examples of bad judges.
When your head has stopped spinning, come back and make a coherent point.
Such as?
Even if you are right, what's that 30% going to mean in donations, volunteering and voting?
I received a call from the RNC this morning, and I said NO D*MN WAY until we get a true Scalia/Thomas up for this nomination.
Thanks for clearing that up.
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.