Posted on 10/20/2005 1:27:08 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized Now they’re discussing stopping her visits to the Senate.
Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done — and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers's intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.
The strategists discuss issues on a twice-weekly conference call led by Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who has taken leave to help the White House shepherd the nomination through the Senate. A number of people who have taken part in the calls described the conversations to National Review Online. None wanted to be identified, because they do not want to openly oppose the White House or defy loyalists like Leo who are trying hard to defend Miers. Nevertheless, they paint a grim portrait of morale among those close to the nomination.
"The number of participants is declining," says one knowledgeable source. "With Roberts, these calls occurred five or six or seven times a week. Pretty early on, the calls on Miers were scaled back to twice a week. That says something in and of itself."
"It's been a gradual descent into almost silence," says a second source of the calls. "The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end....Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings."
"They are going to be keeping the meetings that they've already scheduled," says a third source. "But they have scheduled murder boards today from 12 to 5. She has to focus on her hearing. And the questionnaire that wasn't filled out, to me that's an indication [the White House] hasn't done the vetting. She has to spend a lot of time discussing stuff that should have been done before. So between those two things — finishing the questionnaire and preparing for the hearing, which is going to be make or break — they prefer to put her time into that."
"In the early days, there were people on the call who tried to give facile defenses of Miers, and they were immediately shot down," says a fourth source. "And by the way, those defenses weren't as insulting as the White House line — no way would they have done the 'sexist, elitist' line."
In summary, says the first source, "People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove's part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate."
"Demoralization and pessimism?" the source continues. "That's been a constant. We're in the various stages of grief."
Okay. Not wingnut. Thumbscrew then. ;-)
But I think you got my drift - you're able to think about the legal as separate from your faith. Many faithful people lack that faculty. Doesn't make them bad, but does make them amenable to suggestion.
The only way Miers doesn't make it out of committee is if she withdraws her name, because under Senate rules a Supreme Court nominee moves to the full Senate even if the Judiciary Committee votes against recommending her. In other words, the Judiciary Committee is not permitted to vote not to forward the nomination.
There is not the least reason for any Democrat to vote for her. It would be a wonderful opportunity to stick it to "Chimpy McShrub" and please their base. And in any case her lack of qualifications for the job is a totally legitamite reason to vote against her.
And Northeast Republicans will bail too. Forget about Snowe.
Interesting. Is that a fact? I didn't know that.
That's how she tells it. She said she didn't want to be considered. She found out second hand that she was being considered. The rest is histoire, as Rush would say.
Great post - myself and others have tried again and again to make this point. Her religion, hobbies, personality and demeanor are totally irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is her judicial philosophy - something that no one, include Miers herself, has any clue about since she has never been in that situation.
If a person says that they will be an originalist that doesn't make it so. They have to demonstrate it. Most people think they would be heroic in an emergency too, but many of them would panic. That is why the military doesn't just ask fighter pilots if they think they can perform their duties under pressure, they have to demonstrate it.
"Look, I can stop spinning for Harriet anytime I want to--OK? It isn't a problem. I just don't want to stop right now. WHY can't you people just leave me alone? It isn't like this is hurting the GOP or Conservatives or anything, we are just hurting ourselves--OK? Just leave us alone, and stop worrying! Why are you trying to tell us what to do?" Amen.
Who has caused the bleeding? Maybe if we had taken GW at his word and just trusted him.
Yes, that is most definitely a fact. A Supreme Court nomination moves to a floor vote even if the Judiciary Committee votes against. It just gets a negative referral from Committee.
Yeah, that's about where I'm at too. Ready for some big time rubbernecking.
Far right? Me? The meter doesnt go far enough to the right for my liking.
Can someone translate this, please?
Actually, the attempt to "reassure" evangelicals by claiming she's already made up her mind on Roe probably assures not a single Dem vote. They simply can't vote for her now. And you're right. She's now almost certainly lost Snowe and Collings and possibly Chaffee (although not necessarily since the White House and NRSC are running ads against his conservative primary challenger). And do you think Arlen "super-dooper, extra-special, double secret Roe is immutable" will vote for her? If the hearings don't go well (and they only way they can is if, in the interest of affirmative action, they let John Roberts sit in for her during her testimony) I think you'll see 3 or 4 of the more conservative Republicans vote against her (Santorum, Allen, Ensign, perhaps Brownback and one or two others). If all the Dems vote against her, which seems nearly certain, that means only 6 Republicans need to flip, something that is entirely possible given that the situation won't be improving. Every time the woman or the White House puts out a new spin, it looks worse and worse.....that's not going to engender an increase in support but rather the opposite!
I feel a gaffe coming on.
Something that she will say in the hearings. Letterman will pick it up and then SNL and after that it will be all over.
"RAMESH@PRINCETON [Robert P. George] Ramesh wowed an audience of 300 at Princeton last night with a devastating critique of the lies, falsifications, and distortions contained in the famous Brief of 281 historians submitted in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services in a successful effort in 1989 to persuade the Supreme Court not to reverse Roe v. Wade. The Roe opinion itself, written by Harry Blackmun, relied heavily on an account of the legal history of abortion which turned out to be profoundly flawed. The "pro-choice" historians--including some of the most distinguished people in the field--stepped in to shore it up when Roe when it appeared to be about to fall. To do this, as Ramesh showed with devastating detail and precision, they brought disgrace upon themselves. Also appearing on the evening's program was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, who gave a chilling account of the lies he and his colleagues told in their effort to legalize abortion in the late 1960s and early 70s. He told the audience about disseminating false polling data, falsifying statistics about illegal abortions and maternal death rates, and engaging in many other appalling acts of dishonesty. "We believed our lies were justified in what we regarded as a good cause," he confessed. The forum was sponsored by Princeton Pro-Life, one of the nation's most savvy and energetic campus pro-life organizations. Posted at 06:05 PM"
The President has put the Senate in a VERY awkward situation. That isn't going to make a lot of them very eager to curry his favor by voting for his little pet nominee. If she goes in there and not only won't talk about cases she might have to rule on, but flat won't talk... she's toast, and frankly the President's toast. Hope he's got the keys to Nixon's bunker.
If this is Andy Card's work to boot Harrie upstairs, he needs to be made Ambassador to Ooompapamaumau and shipped off in a hurry. They need to get Karen Hughes back in there as CoS before this ship sinks.
I have speculated that she is for one reason or another in a position where she does not have a choice. Either personal reason (sick relative in need of medical attention) or career reason (President not giving her the option to quit).
These are entirely speculative, so please don't bash the messenger ;-)
Stick a fork in Bush: Lame Foie Gras Fricasse
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.