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.
When will Republicans wake up?!
:(
Actually, MM, I am wanting the President to go on national TV and attack people of BOTH parties (read McCain) that have bastardized the confirmation process.
Because he has not done this, we are left with a confirmation process that will result in more Miers-like confirmation for years to come.
Public heat on the Senators is long overdue.
Thank you for the kind thoughts!
If you read some of the comments from those that are angry over this nomination, you can readily see the hate in the posts. Maybe it is hate misdirected, but it is there in "some" posts.
LLS
Some kind of a written record of her stance on a number of issues would be nice.
Objecting to the presentation of a total enigma for confirmation to the SCOTUS (ESPECIALLY after Kelo vs. New London) is not "elitist" to use your characterization.
Good point inasmuch as Laura is also on record as knowing Miers' heart.
The worst of it is, Bush only considered women for the seat. By arbitrarily excluding all men from consideration he engaged in exactly the sort of indefensible, noisome sexism that Laura is now accusing good conservatives of engaging in.
For the record: I wouldn't care if all nine justices were women IF they were all strict constructionists of a similar intellectual or moral stature as Scalia and Thomas and they were the best picks going head to head against men nominees.
But Bush's crony Miers, I fear, comes up way short on all accounts.
Maybe he is. But others may be wusses by casting innuendos without having ther backbone to explain them. Eh?
...withdraw the nomination...
Proof of this person's lack of knowledge in the matter. Miers will be confirmed.
I hear that if you repeat that phrase often enough-while simultaneously clicking your heels together-the Wizard will grant your wish.
The concern over Ms. Miers is not a Conservative hissy-fit. It is grounded in serious concern over the direction of this nation. Mr. Bush could have chosen any one of a dozen or more qualified sitting judges, and found his core supporters united behind him. Instead, he gave in to what is evidently a personal flaw - his misplaced trust in his "instincts". In reality, this behavior serves as a mask for the President's preference for the known and the comfortable - and his aversion to risk.
Since many of us favored Rogers-Brown for the seat, you can assert that we must hate white nominees.
Unfortunately, that cuts against the elitist gynophobe accusation.
Not that consistent logic is a hallmark of liberal (or Miers' defenders') argument.
http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/taki.html
So you can imagine my surprise when in NR’s last issue I found myself and my colleagues Pat and Scott listed as “unpatriotic conservatives” in “a war against America.” Mind you, I was in excellent company. Others accused were people like Tom Fleming, Llewellyn Rockwell, Robert Novak, Sam Francis, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, and Eric Margolis. I was flattered until I saw the writer’s name. One David Frum.
Now let’s get one thing straight. Unlike Pat and Scott, and despite the advice given to me by an NR higher-up, I will not take the high road. If this bum Frum thinks he’s the only one who cannot see a belt without hitting below it, he’s got another thing coming. From what I’ve heard, Frum is a climber who fouls everyone and everything that takes him in, with the White House being just one example. This buffoon was fired by the Bushies, then went around threatening to sue if someone hinted that he didn’t quit on his own. (You were fired Frum, and I welcome your lawsuit.) He is a cheap Canadian careerist who jumped on the neocon bandwagon and is now using anti-Semitism as a stick to beat us with. Mind you, to be called “unpatriotic” and an “anti-Semite” by this shameless publicity hound has to be a compliment.
I only met Frum once, at a Conrad Black party, where he came up Uriah-Heep-like, actually looking more like the oily Peter Lorre in “The Maltese Falcon.” I know his kind. He will use anyone—including his wife, which he did in spreading the claim that he invented the phrase “axis of evil”—in order to advance his career. Like his icon Sammy Glick, Frum tries to make it by stepping on bodies, but he will end up like Glick, a marginal fellow who tells tall tales about himself. He reminds me of another David—Brock—both of them being ugly pipsqueaks who specialize in telling without having kissed.
IF so, you make a good point.
You want "foul"? How about your fellow Miers-fowl who were on this site last night equating opposition to Miers with terrorism?
What a rancid pound of baloney.
Benjamin Braddock
;-)
Frum and Fund are engaging in a lot of hysterical wishful thinking.
I missed all that. My work hours do not allow the Nightly Fights here in my life.
;-)
Librarians fault
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.