Posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:33 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 11, 2005: A SINKING NOMINATION There has not been a moment since October 3 when I have not felt sick and sad about this Miers battle, but today may have been the worst day yet. This morning, the president mobilized Laura Bush to join him on national television and accuse critics of the Miers nomination of "sexism." Reading the transcript of the interview, you can feel this kind and gracious woman's disinclination to speak an untruth. "It's possible," she says. "I think it's possible." What a terrible and false position to put the first lady in! And what a sign that the White House has finally understood that it has lost the argument over this nomination. By asking the first lady to defend the nomination, the White House is implicitly admitting that the president's word alone has failed to carry the day: That, in other words, when he said, "Trust me," conservatives said "No." The first lady's appearance was a dangerous confession of personal and political weakness by the president - one that will be noticed and exploited by the president's Democratic opponents. Even more ominously, the Today show interview announces a new strategy of trying to win the Miers nomination by waging war on the president's core supporters. In the first week of the battle, the White House sent out James Dobson to woo evangelical conservatives. That didn't work out too well. So now the White House has switched strategies. It has turned its back on conservative evangelicals and is instead using Laura Bush to woo suburban moderates. But remember: Laura Bush is on record as a supporter - not just of abortion rights - but of the Roe v. Wade decision. Interviewed on the Today program in January 2001, Mrs. Bush was asked point blank about the case. Her answer: "No, I don't think it should be overturned." Is it credible that Mrs. Bush would be endorsing Harriet Miers if the first lady thought that Miers would really do what James Dobson thinks she'll do? It is madness for a 37% president to declare war on his strongest supporters, but that is exactly the strategy that this unwise nomination has forced upon President Bush. And every day that passes, he will get angrier, the attacks will get fiercer - and his political position will weaken. That is why it is wrong and dangerous for Republicans to say, "Let's wait for the hearings." Even if the hearings start in the next couple of weeks, as the White House now says it wishes, the Miers matter will extend itself at least into November. That's a month and more of the president's team accusing the president's supporters of sexism, elitism, and who knows what else; a month of rising tension between this president and the conservatives who elected him; a month in which the president's poll numbers will drop even further. The longer it continues, the costlier this battle will prove for the president. And if forced to its ultimate conclusion, the odds are rising that this is a battle that will end in ultimate defeat for Miers and for Bush. Under these circumstancs, the least bad solution is for the president to withdraw this nomination now, before he does himself further and growing harm. Many readers have asked what they can do to help achieve a good resolution of this crisis. Here are a few suggestions. First, please send an email to Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham thanking them for their brave stance against this nomination. These two broadcasters have been tireless and fearless on this story - but they are under intense and increasing pressure, and it makes a huge difference to them to know that their work is heard and supported. (And let me add: It has made a huge difference to me as well.) Next, communicate with the Republican Senators on the Judiciary committee. Lindsey Graham has already committed himself to the nominee, but the others have not - and Brownback in particular seems to be leaning negative. It will again make a huge difference to these senators to know that conservatives across America will support them if they stand up to White House pleasure. Finally, some friends and I have drafted a petition to the president that we will shortly be putting on a webpage for all who wish to sign. Here's the draft text: "WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn. "The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative philosophy. "The next justice should be seen by all as an independent custodian of the constitution, untainted by any hint of secret pledges or political obligations. "The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and juridical excellence. "For all Harriet Miers' many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself. "Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. President Bush has a wide range of truly outstanding conservative jurists from which to choose. We believe that on second thought he can do better - for the Supreme Court, for conservatism, for America." Comments on this draft text are welcome, but PLEASE do not yet send signatures. When the site is ready to take and forward your message to the White House, I'll post a note and link here at NRO. Don't worry, we'll act fast.
Boy, does that name take me back.
"What trashy comments have I made? I don't think I've made any trashy comments on FR, ever".
You are delusional if you really believe this. It's not so much what you say, but the thick hate-filled attitude with which you say it.
However, it is your right to represent yourself in anyway Jim accepts.
LLS
Do I like the highway bill? No. Do I think that senators demanded their pork in payment for support on other things? Yes.
Same with CFR. Bush told Congress if they passed it he would sign it. They passed it. He signed it, hoping the SC would declare it unconstitutional. I will grant that this was a bad decision, but an understandable error, given that no one thought it would pass muster with the Supreme Court.
So, although I wish the CFR outcome would have been different, I am not willing to throw out all of the good the President has done.
Legislation is not a cut and dried process. All sorts of horsetrading goes on behind the scenes. That is the way that Congress works, and how they work in interaction with the President.
So, I am happy to see whatever we can get advanced move forward. I accept that there are setbacks. I keep my eye on the goal, and accept that I won't agree on everything, no matter who is President.
Lots of people think George Allen would be a good candidate. He voted FOR that torture bill and said he would meet with Cindy Sheehan. Are you going to throw him out? I hear a lot of people liking Mike Pence. He supports a federal shield law for the press. Tom Tancredo? He was ready to have DeLay step down.
NO ONE is perfect. I support the President because he is doing a pretty good job, given all that is on his plate. He is head and shoulders above any democrat. He is an honest and decent man who is trying to do his best for this country.
That's the kind of conservative that I am. I will support the most conservative candidate in 2008 whom I deem electable. I am not going to go over the cliff in order to prove myself a person with principles.
That defense doesn't work.
Some of the Miers opponents are resorting to sexist complaints because they don't have anything else. Notice how many people have cried that Miers is an "affirmative action" nominee? That's a sexist remark.
The automatic assumption that the main reason the President selected Miers is because she's a woman is a sexist assumption. He selected her because he wanted someone he could feel as certain as humanly possible would not legislate from the bench, would interpret the Constitution accurately, and would not evolve once on the bench. But many of his critics insist he nominated her because she's female. That's a sexist argument; it's a sexist assumption.
That many of these people would have supported JRB just shows they're grabbing hold of any argument they can find, regardless of how valid it is, regardless of how much they believe their own argument.
Fund is a Major League @$$hole. I don't know what he has said in regards to this, but I don't trust him as far as I can spit.
I'm just curious as to how you earn this particular descriptor that seems to be in favor among ex-conservatives.
Don't make any assumptions about me. Do not try to lump me into some "bracket" you have created in your own mind.
Understand that if a fellow Conservative disagrees with you on a subject, it does not mean that either one of us is not a "true Conservative".
LLS
"Just glance at the NAMES being used to describe those of us that support the President."
My response to what you said: "Just glance at the NAMES being used to describe those of us that support Miers."
Well, again, I haven't gotten the warm conservative fuzzies from him when I see him on Fox.
Really? I always liked his WSJ op-eds in the Dark Days of the 1990's.
oblomov has been doing no such thing.
And for someone that was just whining a few posts back about being called names, it seems to me you're Mr. Pot.
No it's NOT understandable. Presidents are supposed to LEAD, not wait for SCOTUS to bail them out when they didn't use their VETO pen.
Sounds like the pro-Miers camp in a nut shell.
Lately, it seems if you disagree, you are EEEVIL (and a DU troll). EVIL, I tell you!
Probably so.
However, on core conservative principles Fund is solid as a rock.
I just wish I could say the same for President Bush.
Please explain this "hate". I feel nothing but bemusement and cameraderie when posting on FR.
Disagreement is not a sign of "hate".
You have got to be kidding. Nobody opposes Miers because they think women are inferior to men. Where have you heard that? CONSISTENTLY, the opposition has come from the movement who've worked for forty years to restore Constitutionality to the Court.
That statement by Laura Bush was not well thought out. Sad that it's sunk to this level.
Is David Frum the "conservative" who has an "affair" with his friend's daughter?
Since hearing that, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.
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.