White House warns holdouts

U.S.News.com ^ | 10/13/05 | Kenneth T. Walsh

[baystaterebel]

White House officials have a message for conservative Republican senators who have expressed doubt about supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

The West Wing types argue that she will turn out to be just as conservative as President Bush says she is, and voting against her would be an embarrassment over the long term. This message is intended for holdouts including Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

"If Miers is confirmed and she winds up being what the president says she is, Republican senators who voted against her will look quite foolish," says a GOP insider. This could cause a backlash against these legislators from conservative Bush supporters at the grass roots.

[baystaterebel]

"That doesn't mean there is something wrong with letting the process play out. My issue is with "politics by stealth" when it comes to seats on SCOTUS."

OK. The one thing I have to reply to the politics of stealth is when did the President actually preform this bait and switch? Also would you also say that the Roberts confirmation hearings did little to illuminate his judicial temperament?

[EagleUSA]

Doesn't matter who President Bush could select....
----
Yes it does.

[af_vet_1981]

Put it all on the line. Let all her opponents destroy themselves." Well I called it a suicidal impulse, I guess this comment shouldn't surprise me. You want to "destroy" and marginalize the conservative movement because George Bush says it's alright? You want to see everyone from National Review to Rush Limbaugh destroyed, for the sake of a woman who no one knows anything about? You realize Bush can't run again and this formula equals electoral defeat right?

You are not "the conservative movement" and neither are they. They can go get real jobs for all I care. Or join the military and do their national service.

[safisoft]

The WH is acting arrogant. I think some true colors are beginning to show.

And vindictive. I am beginning to understand why so many liberals have been frustrated with his inability to admit making mistakes. Regardless of one's political stripes, it is unbecoming in a leader - and reminds me of the creep Clinton.

[empirekin768]

"If the Repub nominee in '08 is Mcain or Rudy....I'll sit home and watch."

Miers defenders wake up and realize that this criticism of Miers is not so insignificant fringe. Our base has a historical proclivity to stay home when they feel shafted or ignored. Believe me, they have in the past and will again if things continue on course. Why this entirely possible (perhaps probable) danger isn't appreciated by the WH, is completely beyond me.

[jdhljc169]

I was just thinking about this - they'll warn conservative republicans that they have to get on board or else, but they'll coddle the RINOs until the sun goes down.

WTH?

Unbelievable isn't it? They want the good guys to toe the line, but give the RINOS a pass. If they would have put up Brown to start out with, they could have used that pressure on the RINO's.

[Cboldt]

The "warning" cuts both ways. Or all 8 ways, if the Senator's constituents do not want to seat the nominee. The summary below assumes, of course, that Miers is seated. If she isn't, we'll never know she would perform. Let's "spin the wheel of judicial fortune, Alex..."

For the "requires judicial restraint" side
Senator (minority) votes AGAINST - Miers is like Scalia - Senator LOSES
Senator (majority) votes FOR - Miers is like Scalia - Senator is a genius/hero
Senator (minority) votes AGAINST - Miers is like Ginsberg - Senator got a lucky break
Senator (majority) votes FOR - Miers is like Ginsberg - Senator has been had! "Trust me!"

Excuse the shorthand. There are all sorts of middle ground as they relate to Miers performance. THere is lots of room between Scalia nd Ginsberg, and many issues. But the general idea will play, using the individual calculus that each of us brings to the table.

[flashbunny]

Can't pressure the rinos to support conservative nominees, or they'll bolt the party!

But we need to support the rinos against conservatives in the primaries, because we them to support our conservative court picks!

We can't put through conservative nominees, because we have all these RINOs in the senate!

I just love that circular, defeatist thinking.

Thank God the democratic party can barely tie its own shoes, otherwise we'd be screwed.

[T.L.Sink]

The only person who should be embarrassed is Bush for nominating a third-rate political crony who - if confirmed - will have to do on-the-job training in constitutional law. Speaking of embarrassment, that's what this nominee is. Bush ignored a score of prospects with judicial temperaments, constitutional expertise, and proven conservative originalist judicial track records. What little we know about the crony is all bad. Instead of a nominee with stellar qualifications he selected a mediocrity (at best) and betrayed his conservative base. But then again, many conservatives know that Bush is NOT a true conservative. He is a reckless spender (Prescription Drugs is the biggest entitlement since LBJ and will saddle future generations with trillions in unfunded liabilities), he cares little about record deficit spending, doesn't know what a veto is, and loves the billions wasted in the pork projects of congressional bills. He makes Kerry look like a moderate. Sadly for his legacy and the nation, Bush has proved himself to be inadequate - over his head - for the challenges of the times. It's time for true conservatives to come out of denial -- Bush is a Chief Executive RINO.

[RFEngineer]

Now is the time to have this intraparty fight. It needs to happen. I think Bush is dead wrong to try to shove this one down Conservatives throats. He couldn't sell it, so now he's gonna have to try to make conservatives eat it.

We'll see what happens.

[tennmountainman]

I have never seen a republican administration turn ugly like this. You read so much about how Bush came to Washington to change the tone.

Well, he has officially changed the tone...when it comes to conservatives who disagree with his pick

[Cboldt]

Why would I lash out at someone who to a principle stand to stop someone they thought would be bad, even if they turn out good?

There is no way to take a principled stand when the princple being measured is not adequately probed. This is a crap shoot for all of us, Senators included.

A choice on principle would mean that this nomination would be a knock-down drag-out battle with the opposition.

I don't like crap shoots for SCOTUS nominations. The stakes are too high, and it isn't a fair exercise for the public.

[empirekin768]

"You are not "the conservative movement" and neither are they. They can go get real jobs for all I care. Or join the military and do their national service."

Appears the WH agrees with you so far on that score. We're going to lose a ton of elections with an attitude like that. One which is dismissive and antagonistic to your own natural supporters for the sake of political courses, which cannot even be plausibly proven are in the movement's interests.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

On one hand this article is just a bunch of smoke. Even if this is only half true, this signals a sad day for the GOP. When the WH starts threatening conservatives for the purposes of ensuring the confirmation of someone like Miers, the bloom has come off the rose.

[jdhljc169]

And vindictive. I am beginning to understand why so many liberals have been frustrated with his inability to admit making mistakes. Regardless of one's political stripes, it is unbecoming in a leader - and reminds me of the creep Clinton.

**

Sorry to say, I am beginning to agree. I can't hardly even look at a picture of Dubya anymore (and it was like that with Clinton from day one). He has certainly lost my respect and will only gain it again by pulling this nomination.

[tennmountainman]

Now is the time to have this intraparty fight. It needs to happen. I think Bush is dead wrong to try to shove this one down Conservatives throats. He couldn't sell it, so now he's gonna have to try to make conservatives eat it.

___________________________________________________________

That really sums it up with minimal words. So true

[jdhljc169]

Thank God the democratic party can barely tie its own shoes, otherwise we'd be screwed.

LOL!!! Good one!! (And ITA!)

[garbanzo]

That's what seems to boil down to - she isn't a member of the aristocracy.

[Mount Athos]

Actually I honestly think, and am more convinced then ever, that this has more to do with peoples friends within little uppity cliques getting the nomination they are sure they deserved.

An intellectually honest person wouldn't stoop to demonizing people with sincere principles who disagree with you. Perhaps your psychic mind reading abilities are unreliable, and have misled you into maligning the motives of others en masse.

And once again, you or anyone else for that matter, has yet to cite a lucid argument as to why she should not be allowed her day in committee.

The major objection to Miers, is that she has no documented history of a judicial philosphy that calls for interpreting the constitution as written.

George Bush bypassed a large pool of candidates with this history, for one particularly lacking it. The results of such stealth "trust me" candidates without this documented history, has been quite dire.

There is nothing Miers could say in the confirmation hearings, that would suddenly make this documented past history of her judicial philosophy appear.