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.
"For the Bush Administration to suggest that opposition to the present nominee is motivated by "sexism" is insulting, preposterous, and a sign of terrible political weakness."
An off the cuff remark made by Laura in response to a specific question does not represent the official position of the Bush Administration and to suggest that it does is insulting, preposterous, and a sign of terrible political dishonesty.
"No, it can only damage the coalition of the perpetually offended on the far right, and that can only be good."
Yes, I find the perpetually offended on the far right to be almost as obnoxious as the perpetually offended on the left. A dose of common sense a little practicality would do wonders for both.
"And stop crapping all over the forum swiping at conservatives."
I am a conservative myself so I am not swiping at conservatives, I am swiping at those conservatives who think it is smart to shoot themselves in the foot.
I don't recall her name being across from George W. Bush's on Column A when I went into one of the prehistoric voting machines they have in my city in order to cast my vote for POTUS.
I'm having trouble seeing how a First Lady fits into major, consequential policy decisions undertaken by the White House.
Please elucidate.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but it was not merely an "off the cuff remark". The same charge was repeated - and amplified - by the Attorney General of the Untied States this morning on a national news program.
Please don't misunderstand me - from what I have heard, I think I would like Harriet Miers as a person. I think she deserves a fair hearing, and I hope she demonstrates a solid grasp of Constitutional issues and conservative principles. If so, I will support her. What I resent is the cheap, dishonest way in which legitimate questions about her have been framed. The President did not choose the most evidently qualified candidate. That is not an arguable point. Instead of admitting such, and explaining why Ms. Miers would nonetheless be an excellent Justice in spite of her lack of "credentials", the Administration went into a defensive posture, lobbing mortars at its own supporters.
Look, I've said it twice today on this forum, an I'll say it again: it's not about her. It's about him. Many Conservatives have serious doubts about George Bush's judgment on a range of issues, and this nomination just brought the issue to a head. His response has done nothing to alleviate those concerns. To the contrary - they have revealed a lack of candor.
That hurts. I worked for the guy. I've shaken his hand. (How many of you can say that?) I am disappointed that he has not kept some promises that I thought were vitally important, and I am doubly disappointed that he would allow this dispute to divide his own supporters and fill the opposition with new hope and undisguised glee.
"And conservative support will be missing the remainder of his second term."
So you think some conservatives will sit on their hands, and cut off their nose to spite their face, perhaps leading to a disaster such as a pull out from Iraq before the job is done?
There are lots of issues that need work and we need to support the President where he is right and hold his feet to the fire where he is misguided, not sit in the corner and sulk like babies.
"withholding judgment" is a good idea at this point in time. Whey don't you try it?
Well I agree with you 100%! :-)
LLS
In other words, 46% of the respondents did not immediately support the President's choice to fill the O'Connor vacancy.
Correct. That, you can say. But you can't say that the poll showed that 46% of conservative respondents were opposed to Miers.
I don't recall the #'s on Rob'ts but those are in the link I posted. He's a done deal so that part of the poll wasn't of personal interest.
Even if another vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up during the remainder of Bush's presidency, I can almost guarantee you that you'll never see a "fight," at least not over philosophical differences or political convictions.
FUND????? Have you ever watched him on Fox? I never got the impression that he was a solid conservative. More of a Blue-Dog Democrat.
Granted, no one would ever confuse him for Paul Gigot-except perhaps, H. Ross Perot-but I don't think anyone can credibly question his commitment to conservative political principles or to the Republican Party, regardless of what you might think of him personally.
Maybe he's just bad on Fox, and maybe they need him to play the "moderate" next to Fred Barnes.
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.