FRUM: 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.

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.

Dictionary.com> Democracy: # Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Only difference in this and a republic is the republic has an addition...a president, ah but he (it) is elected...so he (it) must be an elected representative too? Now we can talk about the electoral college? But hey, If you want to call it a Republic it's ok with me but the point still stands. And yes I do know the difference. By the way, The word Republican is mentioned only once in the Constitution IIRC and that is in Article 4 where it is used to guarantee to each state their governments would be republican.

[ Dictionary.com> Democracy: # Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Only difference in this and a republic is the republic has an addition...a president, ah but he (it) is elected...so he (it) must be an elected representative too? Now we can talk about the electoral college? But hey, If you want to call it a Republic it's ok with me but the point still stands. And yes I do know the difference. By the way, The word Republican is mentioned only once in the Constitution IIRC and that is in Article 4 where it is used to guarantee to each state their governments would be republican. ]

You are quite confused.. Are you a democrat?..

What on earth does David Frum have against Harriet Miers? Isn't this like the 4th or 5th story he's written lambasting her since her nomination?

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.