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.
It is truly a mixed bag.
My heart wants to support President Bush for his strength on the war against Terrorism. He has been remarkable.
I do trust him.
But alas intellectual honesty is biting at my conscious. I can't get rid of it. Gosh darn it. I think that is what separates conservatives from the libs most of all, do you not all agree ? They swallow the cool-aid,spiked with what, I have often wondered !
As much as I think Reagan was the best President ever, hindsight makes me wish we had spoken up when Sandra OConnor was nominated. I was too young then to really have an opinion. I don't remember, did Reagan think she was conservative, originalist ? I can't recall. But her record proved otherwise.
Ms. Miers is truly accomplished, smart, no doubt. But how will she interpret the Constitution ? As it is written or otherwise ? Or was voting for Bush twice supposed make this understood ? *She will interpret as it was written*
Folks, our inter-party disagreements is part of the phrase, *freedom isn't free*.
Let me explain: We could all appear united. We could all just follow like the Clintonistas do. But would that be the best thing to do in the long run? You know the answer.
Freedom is not free. It sometimes makes things uncomfortable but well worth the good growth(for the party as a whole).
I hope I am expressing this well enough. God, please give us the spiritual fortitude to do the right thing today and always.
Geez, sauropod, we are not on the same page on this one, period.
Our President knows MORE than we know about Harriet as well as about the nominations we all would have liked to see come forward. And if you or anyone else here on FR believes that our President would take a known risk with our Supreme Court, considering his entire life is based upon his faith and his determination to elevate our culture and defend our safety, now and into the future, then geez, there just isn't any discussion.
We are not liberals, we believe in balance and FAIRNESS.
Our President is not the only American around who has to uphold such ideals, we need to do it too.
To blast this good woman so much and so heavily before she has her day before the judiciary committee is just pure HOGWASH and totally liberal-like thinking, imo.
She is not ruth ginsberg, for heaven's sake.
And for myself, I'll take a known quantity of character and observation every-time. Glad our President, who has the RIGHT TO NOMINATE whom he deigns fit, thinks the same way.
Well, if the GOP has left conservatives, why do you think the President should respond to your objections?
I can, but I won't, at least until he pulls the nomination. We have to stay vigilant on this and not woos out like we usually do.
>>>It's beginning to appear that some conservatives are just big cry babies. If they cant have their way...<<<
One think you can be certain of, roddie boy. The elitist, sexist, mentally challenged, cry-baby conservatives are not going to be swayed by the opinions of some Bush Boot-licker, or by anyone else who is Stuck on Bush.
Check the person's sign-up date again; yesterday Ninian Dryhope was rabidly defending the beating of the NOLA man by the cops...and today he/she is beating up on conservatives who are against Pres. Bush's betrayal of the base. Hmmm......a DU plant? Gotta wait and watch.
Frum continues to inch out on that limb. He does not even want Miers to be heard. I guess he's afraid she might be impressive, and his jihad will crumble into dust.
Shinola-head (his hair looks like he colors it with shoe polish) lacks discretion. He'll never work near a Republican administration again.
Though, President Reagan actually pledged-explicitly-to appoint the first female justice, so in a sense, you could say that he was merely fulfilling a campaign promise, however misguided it may have been.
President Bush, on the other hand, promised us Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, not a distinguished-but ideologically ambiguous-legal scholar and a glorified secretary.
What a silly drama queen. No wonder the WH gave him the boot.
>>>I read elsewhere that 80% of the potential nominees decline a nomination because they can't face the increasingly vicious confirmation process. <<<
That is certainly possible since Bush showed little interest in supporting any of his nominees prior to Meirs (that fact, in itself, makes me suspicious of her).
>>>John Roberts is a one-in-a-million, unflawed judge so they attacked his children.<<<
Actually, for a conservative to be attacked by the New York Times tabloid is akin to receiving a high award for outstanding citizenship and service to our nation.
People like you and your fellow Bush cheerleading squad members have been abusing anybody who disagrees with your ideas. I can take enough names but will not descend to the same level as y'all. It is ironic that you call somebody "delusional" while berating him/her for "the thick hate-flled attitude." LOL.....you folks are truly a funny bunch.
When Bush promised the American public "faith-based initiatives" I had no idea that he was referring to future nominations to the Supreme Court.
Actually, it might have happened if McCain in particular didn't have any balls! ;-)
Now, I understand that one could infer he promised to nominate another Scalia, but that is not really what he said. He promised to appoint strict constructionists. Roberts is. Owens is. Brown is. He says that Miers is.
The problem is that we don't have enough information independent of the President's word. You don't believe him. I do.
By the numbers, Miers is the Democrat's choice for the job...The Democrat leader is the one who first thru out Miers name, for criying out loud...
Let's not forget, George is leading us to 'The New World Order'...
Slurring his supporters is nothing new...Those that want to protect the borders of the country from illegal invasion, drug runners and terrorists, Bush has branded vigilantes...His global plan is to eliminate the borders...
It's pretty clear we are divided into two camps...The Constitution, Sovereignty of the U.S. on one side, The NWO, globalism on the other...I'm happy to see some of the feeble Senators finally taking a stand for America...I don't know how Miers fits into this division, but I'll bet she does...
I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it until I'm blue in the face: We missed our chance, maybe our only chance, to do the constitutional option, because the president, who was stronger then than he is now, didn't twist enough arms and because Frist was a mound of jello as a leader.
What else would you expect from a Canuck?
What else would you expect from a Canuck?
>>>No, it can only damage the coalition of the perpetually offended on the far right, and that can only be good.<<<
It can only be good for the Democrats. Are you a Democrat?
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.