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.
American food....instead of French?
Hoorah to you. More people need to be saying that.
Hoorah to you. More people need to be saying that.
"A Gallup Poll shows only 58% of conservatives supported Miers"
It's the definition of insanity. And those here putting party over principle STILL haven't learned...
So...
Do you mean that Harriet could make a real contribution to the others on the bench since she would have expertise that they do not?
Yes.
Its not about Frum. He talks about wide spread criticism of the choice. FreeRepublic is very sceptical as well. I did not see a poll here, but reading the many threads can predict a large % of disapproval votes.
Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Patrick Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Bill Bennett and many more are against, and Marc Levin and Sean Hannity are not happy but explaining the choice by the Senate's weak knees. Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved are cautiously optimistic. The critics group is diverse enough to have respect at least to some of them.
So, the problem is much bigger than just Frum.
Maybe if I spell reeeaaaallll slooowwww ...
Perhaps you're confused, Meirs is not the subject of a filibuster, which is of course what both Kristol and Krauthammer were referring to.
What per cent oppose her?
And
most importantlyHow many conservatives are really doing the "right thing" andwaiting to make their final decisions on her after she has spoken at her hearings?
I don't know about you, but I feel like the PUBS have deserted me with this nomination.
And it is also possible he has a personal/non-political grudge against Meirs, that you conviently left out.
Before or after he was kicked out of the White House?
You mean old "Flip-Flop Frum"... The one that wrote the article in July 05 about Harriet Miers being on the short list of potential nominees and extolling us to "remember you heard it from me first" then claiming he was just joking in July on Sept 29?
Please...Does anyone else feel like we are being prepped for a McCain run for POTUS?
I have said for days that this bloodletting is a really good thing. This is morphing into a battle for the soul of the GOP. The battle needs to be fought.
Hugh and others just want to patch over this battle. Big mistake. In the future the pro-Miers crowd will start sucking up to the anti-Miers crowd in the days ahead. I look forward to hearing their pleas for help. They will no doubt say: do you want Hillary or a Dem Senate? Those please will start to ring hollow.
Give President Bush credit for all the great appointments to the District and Appellate courts.
Remember that their decisions mean nothing if the Supreme Court overrules them.
Some of her defenders (yes, you people) may be happy with a "solid" vote on our side, I'm not. Don't misunderstand, I want that solid vote, but I want a skilled jurist who can clearly explain Constitutional issues.
Face it, she is not "the most qualified person for the job".
Face it, we have no proof that she is "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas". We have only Bush's word. Bush will be gone soon - she stays behind.
"Therein lies the rub. We don't KNOW what MS Miers is about and won't find out until she's on the bench. We will have to trust GWB."
The history of S.C. nominees proves that not knowing what you are getting can be very unpleasant. Republican Senators should vote Ms. Miers down if they cannot verify that she is an originalist, strict constuctionist.
"The inability to trust the president appears to be the largest drawback so far, eh?"
Agreed. I have come to learn that I cannot trust him on spending and limiting the size of government. Therefore, why should I blindly trust him on court appointments? And look what we got with the last president who would only say, "trust me" (i.e., peanut boy).
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.