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.
Bush's major mistake was to put a Laura aura of guiltlessness and beyond reproach attitude on the whole matter.
This is a fatal blow. You just do not repusle questions, Bush should simple say let the Senate do its job.
WHY FOAM AT THE MOUTH TO CONSERVATIVES WHO VOICED CRITICISM AND ADVICE TO THE SENATE?????
THE bushes are overreaching here, clearly. And conservatives should not run his affairs either, but go to the Senate, period, end of story, no hard feelings.
Before he "does himself" further and growing harm? He's certainly not the guy out there blasting himself 24 hours a day. Frum should be honest, and at least admit that he is willing to do the President "further and growing harm" if necessary to defeat the nomination.
"You can be an evangelical and you can be self-described pro-life, but it doesn't tell us what she will do about a decision like Roe that has been set in stone now for over 30 years," Bauer said on Fox News Sunday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-10-09-spectermiers_x.htm
" The truth is, Frum and some conservatives have decided to declare war on our President."
Try a great many conservatives, and the number is growing daily.
It's more serious than cronyism, I fear. Miers' now got him by the b@lls coz she got Cheney in Texas to be declared non-Texan so he could run with Bush.
She interpreted the law liberaly to get him on the ticket for us, and now the price is her getting nominated as a liberal supreme... Corners have been cut and Bush cuts corners all the time on all issues and it costs a lot in the end.
He basicaly caves in to those asking him to steal for them, it's a typical communist pressure which gets him further condemned. No one should be put in a situation like this, but he lets them do it.
>>>If there's one thing everyone should've learned about Bush by now, it's that he NEVER withdraws. In fact, pestering about withdrawals might just make him more adamant in refusing to do so. This is one of his strengths; it's refreshing to have a President who will actually stick to something he does.<<<
You have to admit Bush's support for the Meirs nomination is unusual. This is the first time Bush has shown even marginal support for one of his nominations to the federal bench.
Prior to Meirs, Bush 'nominated and forgot', leaving his nominees to their own devices to be confirmed. But the Bush machine support for Meirs includes, in some cases, left-wing tactics, such as deceit and slurs. One would think Meirs was a Clinton or a Kennedy, with all the praise the Bush's are heaping onto her.
My question is, what is so special about Meirs that has caused the president, first lady, and his other cronies to throw slurs at his conservative base, when their support for the previous (conservative) nominees to the bench was weak, at best?
When Roberts was nominated there was a big outcry from people who wanted 'the list' folks nominated.
Our President has enough on his plate without instructing supposed statesmen and pundits regarding their jumping the gun before the facts are on the table.
This is all insane.
And if people in our party are so mistrusting of our President, considering the judges he has placed on the bench thus far, considering the tremendous character and quality of the people he has chosen to advise him, taking into the account the people he has picked for cabinet posts, thinking about the stellar secretarys of state and defense and knowing that this good man has stayed the course on the war on terrorism dispite having to take horrific crap from the liberal media and pundits continuously, etc., etc., etc...well, THANK GOD OUR PRESIDENT IS IN CHARGE AND NOT PEOPLE WHO RUN OFF HALF COCKED BEFORE OUR PRESIDENT's NOMINATION EVEN HAS A CHANCE TO SIT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
It is pathetic, immature, unfair and very creepy over-reaction, a willingness to follow in the liberal footsteps known for unfairness and lack of trust.
If our President believes that Harriet would be a good addition to our court, then giving her a chance to sit before the judiciary committee where her qualifications or lack of qualifications will be determined in detail via a great big bunch of disrespectful blowhards.
I trust our President. He has had my back for a long, hard time.
>>>Those who are "sinking" are Miers' opponents.<<<
You are dreaming. What is sinking is the big-government, reckless-spending, CFR-supporting, open-border-supporting Republican Party.
He said he would nominate an originalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He believes he has done so. Your capitalized words not withstanding, you cannot accuse him of breaking the promise without knowing something that the rest of us don't. Now you can argue that we cannot independently verify her views, but you undermine your point by trying to proclaim that he broke a promise.
Thank goodness she didn't initially join a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) or a related brand called Church of Christ (non-instrumental).
You might ask what kind of court rulings we can get out of such a person ~ and the answer would be "kinda' conservative, most of the time". These Christian Church break-away groups usually attempt to recreate the First-Century church ~ so Ms. Miers ought to be pretty much a Right To Lifer ~ maybe even a pacifist (with a self-defense exception ~ SEE: Peter, Sword), and probably against capital punishment. Somebody besides a couple of Catholic priests and a bishop or two has to be a "seamless garment" type, and you will definitely find such people in this kind of church.
Someone else can find out, but does this congregation refer to it's members as "brother" and "sister"? Do they have a business meeting on Saturday, and is it their general practice to gather for an evening meal on Friday?
The closer they get to Primitive Baptist standards, the more confident I would be that this lady is more conservative than can generally be believed in the 21st Century.
If people on the pro-Miers side won't disavow such comments, what am I to think? Those comments were made right here on FR, and they were certainly offensive to me.
I have explained repeatedly that I had wished for a more obvious nominee but that we do not have the votes to get one through. I have posted the names of those who I believe are in the non-conservative camp. I have made a reasonable case for why I think we have this nominee.
I will not back down on my opinion. I am not being hysterical, nor am I embellishing or making things up.
I have been called a Bushbot, Kool-aid drinker, DU type, non-conservative, and probably a host of other names I have missed.
I do not think it right that disagreement with this nomination tranlates into personal attacks by some people. I have done my best to argue this based on facts and rational suppositions, but apparently any disagreement is now "intellectually dishonest" and "stupid."
Well, you certainly made your case for why I am wrong. Dishonest and stupid, that's me. Tell me again about those rational arguments you guys are making, won't you?
I completely agree with your post.
I would add only one thing for clarity: that I do NOT believe the bulk of the blame for the filibuster/ nuke option situation lies with Graham and DeWine who seem to have been acting responsibly, but rather with the other truly liberal and "maverik" GOP senators of the "gang of 14" - added to a few others, particularly Specter and some other "off the radar" GOP senators, who Graham and DeWine didn't believe they could trust to vote for the nuke - despite Frist's belief and assurances.
Um, no. His wife stated explicitly that she strongly preferred a woman in this spot. Usually, first ladies in White Houses represent a significant portion of the WH administration staff. Remember Hitlery?
All of these comments were made without knowing anything about the woman, which is my objection. They didn't even attempt to talk to anyone about her...they just blasted away. Bill Kristol was on TV within 2 hours of the nomination, and has asked that she withdraw her name.
I find this type of wolf-pack punditry very offensive.
Miers deserves to be heard. Frum wants to silence her. I am supporting Miers if for no other reason that, since her good name has been trashed by so many, she should have an opportunity to reclaim a portion of her reputation.
I know. I'm just a Little Person.
I have a friend that is being hurt in a major way by gubbermint takings. Pisses me off to no end.
Hear hear! Although I don't count myself (yet) as a supporter, this is one of the wisest (and most compassionate) things said on these threads.
>>> The polls were not taken the day of the nomination ... Having created a climate of unease, the pundits have affected the numbers.<<<
Get real, miss marple. This conservative was outraged by the Meirs nomination from the beginning. I expected the conservative pundits to give Bush a break -- the ole wait and see approach. To my surprise most stood by their principles, which has only increased my respect for them. My respect for those who support this nomination ranges from marginal (for the "let's wait and see" crowd), to zero (for the "if you do not support Meirs you are a sexist, elitist, etc." crowd).
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.