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.
I missed that. Must've been stomach churning.
Impossible that this could be a valid point.
President Bush nominates MEN all of the time. He also nominates women, Black women, Hispanic men and all that I may have failed to mention. These people have no point whatsoever, when they pretend that he "excluded men" simply because for this particular nomination he wanted to pick a woman.
Clarence Thomas was picked by Bush 41. He was deliberately picked by Bush 41 because of WHO he was, not solely due to his record. Others had better records, and one of them was named Edith Jones. Bush 41 had that right.
Conservatives love Clarence Thomas, but most of them posting against Miers and President Bush cannot stand Bush 41 or Bush 43 or Harriet Miers. Truly strange.
The "Bush excluded men" therefore he is sexist against men has to be one of the most stupid claims yet.
What do you want me to explain? I thought I was quite plain.
Actually, it was John Fund.
(or was it Woody Allen?)
You yourself call Ms. Miers a mediocrity. How is she mediocre?
If YOUR side wants to persuade, get your allies to drop this type of attack. Ann Coulter persuaded no one with her over-the-top rants, and the same goes for those types of rants here on FR.
When the petition hits, my name will be on it. I have already sent faxes and letters and emails to my representatives, the President and www.gop.org.
Not being able to track this fine woman's record is the biggest thing that keeps me personally from being able to support her nomination.
Maybe bts doesn't mean you, MM. Could possibly mean others in the punditry class, or some here on Free Republic? I sure hope that is the case. But I will defer to bts's reply. BTW, you are doing a great job. Some of this is insanity. A poster said that he was ashamed that Bush allowed Laura to say anything about this matter. Another said that now he is convinced that Laura Bush made the President select Miers. Insanity, gone to seed.
So it's just fine and you can't say anything about it. (Well, maybe if you're Lawrence Tribe or an Ivy League law prof, I suppose you can.)
Pulling the race/feminist card is a nono. This about does it.
And the "trust me" statement by Bush is insulting.
That said, the President cannot let other conservatives run his business, even if under suspicion the "women" of the WhiteHouse apparently are.
But he cannot either expect to garner blind support from us either.
This is a case of David vs. Saul, Saul delivered to David's hands did not yield to his condemnation. Yet Saul did recognize David's mercy and respect of the position and repented afterwards.
All we want from Bush is the truth, whether he pushes Miers or not... but I am not holding my breath for Presidency to take over political party here, and that is the real problem.
FRUM, while right and appologetic about the need not to sink each other, but he words his petition in a manner that makes it impossible for Bush to accept.
This situation is total crap and attacking Bush or the conservative base unashamedly is evil.
This was an explicit affirmative action-read quota-pick, and there's no use in denying the obvious.
If Governor Wilson were in the shoes of George W. Bush, he would not have even conceived of doing this.
Not for a moment.
Miers was picked for two reasons, and two reasons alone.
1. She was a woman.
2. She was a Bush crony.
She fulfilled both requirements, and that's why she was selected to fill the O'Connor vacancy.
You, for one, said that Miers was not "intelligent".
As well as Ronald Reagan when he nominated O'Connor. He was quite explicit about it.
Could it be that he's a bit confused about who might be an Evangelical? If so, that's typical of the crowd over at NRO.
That is an odd comment, isn't it?
I confess that I might have like to see a Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Mike Luttig nominated instead of Harriet Miers. This might have happened if our GOP Senators had any balls. But they do not. There is no unity of party within the GOP side of the Senate. They waffled and retreated on the "nuclear" option. The filibuster is still alive regarding judicial nominees, and there is no assurance that a nominee with a more substantial record could withstand the assault by the Dem (and some GOP) Senators. If you are looking for someone to blame on the Miers nomination (which ultimately, I predict, will result in a very good Supreme Court justice, when all is said and done), look no further than our GOP Senate caucus. They did this. President Bush merely responded as best he could under the circumstances.
I have read most threads on this subject, and that is a ridiculous characterization of the arguements against Ms. Miers. Most of the insultative comments come from the supporters. I support Ms. Miers but only because I think Bush has screwed this up so much this is the best we can get right now. But any questioning of Ms. Miers is met with personal attacks. If anyone needs a lecture on 'normal discourse' it is the Miers supporters.
"President Bush is not responsible ffor the hysterical level of discourse from people like Coulter and Frum. President Bush is not responsible for the venom I have seen posted here."
Of course he is responsible. He has neglected to live up to the promises he has made to the American people. This "Trust me" was just the last straw.
GW did NOT nominate the type of a person that he told us he would. Miers is not the best candidate and it wreaks of cronyism. His chance of changing the SCOTUS with this nomination is minimal, at best. This has the appearance of weakness on his part when the likes of Leahy and Schumer can dictate who he cannot nominate and he takes the advice of Harry Reid, even over his own base. GW is doing what he said he would not do by this nomination.
Wanting us to trust his decision is NOT an option to some of us. His judgment of people in the past has left a lot to be desired and does not bode well in this case, IMO. Some of us remember his being burned or embarrassed, in the past, by placing his trust in the likes of Bernard Kerik, Paul O'Neill, Linda Chavez, and let's not forget Doug Wead and Christy Todd Whitman.
His failure to protect our borders, among other things, leads many of us to distrust his decision making. Calling Americans that are putting themselves out in order to try and protect our borders VIGILANTES, is unforgivable and further makes us wonder about his choices.
Many of us have worked diligently and donated much money to causes to get GW elected and re-elected because we liked what he said he would do and many of those things are not being done.
At this point, if his assessment of Miers is wrong, it will be too late to change it, once she has been confirmed and we gain no ground, perhaps even losing ground on the direction the SC takes our country in the future. If we are to keep this country headed in the direction our Drafters of the Constitution intended, we have got to nominate someone that has fought the battle with the liberals and WON, somewhere along their way.
He has sewn the seeds of distrust and now reaps their rewards.
By the way, if Dubya was using Harriet Miers as his dad and other recent presidents have been using their staff secretaries (haven't seen anything for sure, but I'd say that's probable), Miers, as well as being Dubya's "gatekeeper", was also overseeing the speech drafting and staff-clearance ("staffing-out") process when David Frum was working for Dubya. (Don't take my word for it. Google "staff secretary" and see for yourself. The whitehouse2001.org PDF is particularly fascinating reading.) I think it'd be fair to say that she was basically Frum's and the other speechwriters' editor-in-chief. Now, if they'd had a dust-up because of that and he'd been taking an axe to her consistently ever since, I'd understand that. I don't see how he gets from that neutral point in July to where he's at now. It's not because he didn't really know her from Eve at that point and he knows better now. It can't be.
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.