Bush's job rating continues to drop(Miers approval rating one of lowestfor SC nominee)

far right conservatives are charging after them, thrilled in their own righteousness

It's always tempting to demonize your opponents. But let's be realistic. A few of the pundits who have criticized the Miers nomination are regularly anti-Bush, but most of them have generally supported him.

The most recent poll of Freepers show that about 40% now oppose this nomination, and about 21% still want more information before deciding. Do you really think these are all "far right" fanatics? Probably around 2 or 3% of Freepers are prone to vote for third-party candidates most of the time; the rest of us understand that the realistic alternatives at this time are Democrat and Republican. That's why this nomination is so disturbing: because it reveals that the Republican leaders STILL don't understand that every time they kick their conservative base in the teeth, they destroy trust in their promises.

It took Bush a long time to live down his father's foolish "read my lips" on taxes. If he doesn't resolve the present crisis of trust by withdrawing Miers, it may be another five or ten years before conservatives trust a Republican's promise again.

This isn't betrayal on an unimportant issue; this is betrayal on an absolutely critical issue. If he goes through with it, it's difficult to see how trust in Bush will recover. And if Miers proves to be the squishy liberal on many issues that I think she is, then even many of those who are going all out supporting him now will be disillusioned. There is far too much at stake to push forward with this foolish business. Is putting a friend on the court more important to Bush than anything else for the remainder of his presidency?

First let me say that when it comes to the Miers nomination, I am firmly in the 21% who want more information. There are things that really concern me. On the other hand, the President himself has a good track record until now, and I am not ready to throw that over just yet. I'll know after the hearings.

My intent was not to demonize my opponents on this, although I can see why it sounded that way. I'm sorry I gave that impression.

My argument with those opposing the nomination is not over the merits of their case, because I believe there are many sound arguments against the nominee. Conservatives are, and rightly so, proud of the quality and depth of our judicial bench. We expected the next great one, but instead we got an unknown friend of the President. That in and of itself is a huge disappointment.

I do have, however, huge issues over the critics' tactics and methods.

Right out of the box, they were almost hysterically reactionary. The conservative line seemed to be that the President was an idiot who let us down just like his father. That he wasn't really conservative or smart or thoughtful—which many people already secretly felt, but didn't say. In a funny way, many have been just waiting to say "see...we were sold out." I believe that it is, to some extent, a rationalization for allowing President Clinton to be elected, but I digress.

Maybe we have been sold out. But had we all stepped back for a moment, caught our breath from the shock and regrouped, I believe that we would be in a much better position today.

Instead, we ran headlong into the President and essentially knocked him to the ground, something our leftist opponents had been unable to do for nearly seven years. We backed him into a corner where he has been forced to defend the nomination by pushing Laura and a bunch of Texas judges in the path of the mob barreling down on them.

We COULD have given him the political cover he needed to back out without losing. What we've done through our methods is to force him into going through with it. We could also have given Miers enough slack to come out of this undamaged. Instead, we forced her to defend herself the only way she can—by going to the hearings.

There was a whiff of elitism to it, even though I do not think the Miers detractors are all elitists—they just smelled that way for a moment. There was a certain amount of capitulation to the leftist view that the President is an idiot who has stupid cronies who he nominates to important positions. That it is an administration that is rife with corruption (that will come out in the hearings vis a vie Texas Lottery Commission).

Why did this nomination happen? I have no inside information, but I have my suspicions. The first mistake, imo, was to rule out men, but if I step back and look at it, I can see where the President might have thought that nominating anyone else would be a lost cause. Some have used the Roberts nomination as proof that wouldn't matter...but it doesn't work because Roberts was always the Rehnquist replacement and everyone, including the dems knew it. The administration knew that Rehnquist's time was short and that they needed someone in the pipeline ready to go.

Second, I believe the President believed that Roe v. Wade was most important to conservatives as it is to liberals. And quite frankly, after the whole Schivo debacle, I can understand why he would mistakenly believe that. After all, that was his first big blow to his second term administration...and one that also exposed cracks in his base.

Third, I believe that many if not all of "our favorites" had serious issues. Some did not want to have to go through the grueling process again, and asked to be removed from the list. Some had embarrassing episodes in their pasts that would have reflected poorly on themselves or the President. Some would not have withstood Senate scrutiny due to activist records or past indiscretions.

So rightly or wrongly, the President looked at the Supreme court, (and maybe even conferred with sitting SCOTUS judges...I haven't gotten an answer as to whether he can legally do that or not) and looked for someone who was meticulous, orderly, dedicated...and likely to help overturn Roe v. Wade. Someone he felt could make it through and he was confident would be what they appeared to be...ironically, all so he wouldn't repeat the mistakes of his father and choose someone he couldn't be sure of.

It was tone deaf. It played into his opponents hands. It was a mistake, most likely. But we certainly didn't do anything to make it better (and I'm not saying just jump on board the Miers wagon either) and if we are not VERY careful at this point, we have a very big opportunity to make it a WHOLE lot worse.

(Sorry for the long reply. I just thought that your very good response required a thought out answer. :-/ )

Thanks. Not to knock what you say, but I find most of the excuses for limiting the candidates unconvincing. There has been some comment that at least two of the women candidates did not refuse to be considered, but were eliminated because Bush was getting back at their senators. If so, that's not very sensible.

There was certainly pressure to nominate a woman for a woman's slot, but it could have been solved by nominating a solid Hispanic, for instance (not Gonzalez). The Dems would have looked pretty bad opposing that, and they are anxious not to send any more Hispanics into the Republican camp.

I didn't make up my mind on this until after I had read a number of her writings that are posted on-line, and just about everything else that has been said about her. The writings really convinced me, most of all, that she isn't up to the job, that she is a flatter who throws praise around effusively especially toward important people, and that she is disturbingly soft on social issues such as feminism, diversity, and affirmative action. They also lead me to doubt that she would be willing to stand up and actually do anything about Roe v. Wade, confiscation of property by eminent domain, declaration of a constitutional right to sodomy, or any of a number of issues that would require reversing the court's earlier decisions. She is an establishment player, who has spent many years serving her clients and bosses and getting along. If anything, my objection is that she is not an "elite" intellectually but she is an "elite" socially, a natural born country clubber.

Not to knock what you say, I find most of the excuses for limiting the candidates unconvincing

First, I don't feel like you are knocking me in any way, so no need to tiptoe. Disagreement is good—that's how I learn. I am pretty tough and don't get my feelings hurt when others see things differently. It's not about me, it's about ideas. But I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and it has been sorely lacking around here these past few weeks.

I want to make it clear that I did not intend for those to be excuses as much as a possible explanations. I try to look at all possible motivations/explanations for a decision just to be fair. While I believe it's possible that the President did it out of stupidity, cronyism or some deeper more sinister motivation, that doesn't square with what I see as evidence to the contrary in previous nominations. So, I have to look at other alternatives.

Couple that with the fact that I trust absolutely nothing that the press or our esteemed Senators say...and I am sort of left waiting for the hearings to begin so I can get a feel for this first hand. I have the uneasy feeling that some of her writing has been selectively reproduced to put the worst possible light on it. That puppy card that has been floating around is embarrassing...but most of us have those sort of things in our past, which when taken in context wouldn't look so, well, stupid.

The most compelling observation you made is that she is an elite social climber/flatterer. I've been trying to put my finger on why her flatteries bother me so much on an instinctive level. I think its because on some level they just feel disingenuous and over the top. But being from the West, and the Northwest to boot, I thought perhaps it was a regional thing having to do with Southern culture. When I traveled in the South and the East I was actually really surprised at the differences in how we treat each other.

Anyway, I totally understand your reservations, and while I will not make up my mind until I hear her own defense, you have helped me more fully identify my uneasiness.

Thanks!

Now for the good news. Today's questionaire shines Miers in a more positive light; but one of the "most Conservative judges ever" would not openly support Affirmative Action. She was a big part of watering down White House opposition to the Michigan Affirmative Action case; she was and is of the position that the Supreme Court should uphold Affirmative Action.

That being said, today's new info has me a lot less hostile and a lot more curious. This is perhaps the first rallying point I've found for Miers, thanks to a bumbling and stumbling White House up until now on the issue.

For the first time we have solid information that she is Pro-Life. Not conjecture and second-hand references, but words from her own mouth and written by her own hand. That, combined with a satisfactory explanation of the role of the Judiciary on social issues, and a public statement that she would favor outlawing abortion except for life and death situations (1989), is a very big step in the right direction.

I am now 95%+ sure she is currently Pro-Life,
75% sure she'd vote to overturn Roe v. God,
and 90%+ sure she'd uphold Affirmative Action.

That being said, a Stevens or Ginsberg retirement could remedy Affirmative Action by reversing a 5-4 decision if Bush appoints a true Conservative to replace either of them. Miers may well be a step in the right direction on Roe, but we still need a Stevens or Ginsberg retirement to remedy that activism. That being said, it looks like Miers might be a small noodge to the right for the Supreme Court, which would make her acceptable, though still not anywhere near what we could have had.

For the first time, I have moved from the "stop Miers now" camp to the "let's hear more" camp. I still think we could do better; but making a gain, at least on Roe, would turn out to be a net positive for the Conservative movement.

Unlike National Review, et al, I would be satisfied with a solid Conservative vote for 15 years. I don't need a movement Conservative to replace a swing vote; I need that movement Conservative when the overall direction of the Court changes, which would be with one of the next retirements of a liberal justice.

That being said, I am holding my breath and listening right now. The leaks about the secret meeting are very interesting; it is beginning to look more and more like a White House arranged leak that is untraceable. Smart move, if true.

We'll see......we'll see.......

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.