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.
I think Miers deserves an up or down vote. I just think it should be a down vote. That's all.
Bush should not have chosen her. He jumped her over a bunch of men and women who paid their dues and endured the slings and arrows of liberal lawyerdom, then told us "trust me."
Not an effin' chance.
Yep she stays behind on the court. So for sure let's get Coulter etal to slam her as best we can... so that she's good and alienated with the right. We wouldn't want a friend on the court. We want to make sure that she loaths the way we treated her prior to her confirmation. Yeah... that's the smart thing to do.
Ah so you relish your role as a political whore.
A bit of an overstatement, imo. Conservatives still revere Reagan, despite two DISASTROUS SCOTUS picks. Conservatives still lambast Bush I, despite one TERRIFIC SCOTUS pick--they won't forgive him for Souter. (The pick was very very weak.)
Conservatives need to take a breath--listen to Miers, and if she turns out to be a reliable Constitutionalist on the court, I would like to see a full-page ad expressing an apology to the President and Ms. Miers. (It won't happen.)
One thing is for sure: Bush ought to be right about her, having known her for so many years. Another thing is for sure: abandoning the most conservative of the two parties isn't good for anyone: liberals routinely put up liberals on the courts. Surrender to liberals means liberal courts forever.
Very diplomatic of you!
"A Gallup Poll shows only 58% of conservatives supported Miers"
"How many conservatives are really doing the "right thing" and
waiting to make their final decisions on her after she has spoken at her hearings?"
The point is that the nomination is seen as so bad to conservatives that the nomination never should have happened. She will be confirmed, there's no big secret there. This IS NOT ABOUT PROCESS ie if she doesn't say anything stupid she is confirmed. She will be confirmed I concede that.
The point is that a great many conservatives realize they have been betrayed...the Gallop Poll shows that.
LOL. I'm not confused at all. (Thanks for your concern about my mental state.)
The underlying question is whether people can block the President's nominee. Both Krauthammer and Kristol felt the President's nominees deserved a vote.
Kennedy had the solid conservative credentials that everyone is clamoring for. (Wasn't he the replacement for Ginsburg, who was the replacement for Bork?)
In fact, if the Kennedy of then had been nominated instead of Miers, all of the elite conservatives would be happy. They'd think they had their guy.
Instead, Kennedy changed when he got lifetime tenure. Are their sleepers out there? You bet.
I had one guy put some lady lawyer named "Mahoney" on the list of acceptable conservatives who are supposed to be FAR BETTER than Miers. I looked up her on google and hidden in one of the links was the info that she was the lawyer who LED AND WON the Michigan State Affirmative Action case for the Democrats. Asked how that squared with her conservatism she replied that she was very comfortable WITH the result.
Sleeper?
Hmmmmm.......
We need friends on the court. Not enemies.
Many conservatives are dumber than a box of rocks ...
Then why is such a vocal minority willing to throw stones at the President's nominee before the hearings?
Do they have a secret death wish and hope to be killed by an errant stone flung by one of their fellow "revolutionaries"*?
*Frum likened this to an uprising.
Not an effin' chance
Where in the US Constitution does it spell out that there is a definate career track one must follow before going on SCOTUS?
I find it refreshing that GWB picked someone who is outside the judge bubble and has real experience in the legislative branch(Dallas city council) and in the Executive branch(GW Bush administration).
BTW, Ms. Meirs seems to know that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unlike conservative judge bubble rock star, Robert Bork.
Oh yeah, look at all those titanium backbones in the conservative controlled Senate. This notion that conservatives are owed something reeks like New Orleans on a sunny day.
It would have been smarter for these pundits to have written to Bush privately about their objections to Miers.
That's the difference - I care about conservatives winning - not Republicans. If Republicans sell out there conservative principals (as they have done timae & time again lately), what is the point of having them in power???
You think she's so petty that she'd rule against conservatives because we're "mean" to her? Where is that found in the Constitution?
You have a lot of faith in this strict constructionist. Hah!
You gotta step into the real world. People are people. This is a political court. Making enemies on it is just plain stupid. You can stand on ideological philosophy all day... but in the end you want people who will vote the way you want them to. Demonizing them is not a great way to get that to happen.
"Then why is such a vocal minority willing to throw stones at the President's nominee before the hearings?"
Because despite the fanfare and bluster, she will be confirmed, the hearings are meaningless (most of the Dems will vote for her). She should never have been up there in the first place.
"a vocal minority"....lmao , nearly 50% according to Gallop, that is the death knell...Terrrible selection.
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.