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.
What I don't understand is Frum's obsession on getting this nomination derailed before she even comes up for a vote. It smacks of fear, and for the life of me I can't understand why they are afraid of her. If she is so incompetent, then she will flub in the hearings. If she is a stellar candidate like Roberts, then what's the problem?
What are they so afraid of? I just don't get it.
It's a terrible way to have to appoint a scotus but, it is the world we live in.
The difficulty in withdrawing the nomination is that there may not be anybody else with whom to replace her. I read elsewhere that 80% of the potential nominees decline a nomination because they can't face the increasingly vicious confirmation process. A nominee might be a great jurists, great legal mind, and a great legal writer, but not have it in her to speak brilliantly ex tempore when facing a blistering attack from the sluts on the Senate Judiciary Committee; nor would many a fine jurist be able to present a career and personal history that cannot in any way be faulted by the savage liberal press. John Roberts is a one-in-a-million, unflawed judge so they attacked his children. Who can face that kind of thing?
frum... a "sinking", unemployed wordsmith".
LLS
The senators will preen, she will dodge-or attempt to doge-questions, and we will have gained no insight into her broader judicial philosophy.
Demanding that the hearings take place is tantamount to demanding that she be confirmed.
That's a risk that we just cannot afford to take.
Six.
Just a reminder for those who hadn't seen Frum's July 4,2005 blog entry:
JUL. 4, 2005: DARK HORSE ... ... in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all.
There are minuses too of course, beginning with that same discretion that recommended Miers as counsel: Supreme Court justices are often expected to have achieved a certain public profile before their appointment, while Miers has gone out of her way to avoid it.
But if the nomination process bogs down - or if President Bush's first choice of nominee should somehow stall or fail - then Miers might well be his back-up nominee. Scoff if you like. But if it happens, please remember that you read it here first.
11:38 PM
Rass has him at 48%. You believe CBS if you wish!
LLS
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Ginsburg.html
Uh, no N00b. The President and his supporters declared war on the conservative base back when he signed CFR and the Farm Bill without so much as even a threat of a veto.
And stop crapping all over the forum swiping at conservatives.
If that's the case, then I am proud to be "stuck on stupid". My loyalties are not with any one person, not even Bush. The conservative principles I believe in are what is more important to me than supporting a Republican who makes decisions that I can't support.
NORTHEAST RINOS WHO WON'T VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE
Susan Colllins
Olympia Snowe
Arlen Specter
Lincoln Chaffee
COWARDLY GOP WHO BOW TO THE PRESS
George Voinovich
Michael DeWine
John Warner
PEOPLE WHO ARE MAD THAT THEY AREN'T PRESIDENT
John McCain
Richard Lugar
Chuck Hagel
That's 10 names of people who are doubtful pro-paper-trail votes. You can't pick a fight when you have this many squishy votes. It would be political suicide.
This is not something I made up out of whole cloth. Thomas Sowell detailed this situation in his column last week.
Shhhhh.... Don't disturb the 'bots. They're sleeping.
No offense intended, but what "brand" of conservative are you? I'm not sure how one could defend the Miers' nomination on conservative principles alone (assuming that, like other "brands" of conservatism, the composition of the federal judiciary is of great importance to you).
What trashy comments have I made? I don't think I've made any trashy comments on FR, ever.
"You want fries with that?"
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.