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."
LOL, I have never met a conservative or republican who wasn't in various stages of grief, fear, and demoralization.
It comes from not knowing your true enemy, (and it isn't the Dem Party).
So, which one do you think would have nominated someone more to your liking, Kerry or Gore?
I was never on it and think GWB truly wasted an opportunity of a lifetime with this nomination. His statements in support of her have been utter rubbish and malarchy.
I think you meant "malarkey" but "malarchy" is an intriguing neologism in its own right. Mal=bad, archy=rule.
Could you clarify something for me?
What is the citation for the lawsuit she's talking about. The one where she briefly testified. How was it resolved?
Thanks.
In her head, just like everybody else.
You'd prefer Ginsberg, an elite school product who graduated at the top of her class?
Is Ginsberg out there convincing everybody else of the correctness of her position, or is she regarded as just another vote?
In my mind, in my head, I see Ms. #1 Ginsberg as just another vote. I don't see her out there leading the court, I see her out there on her own more often than anybody else.
Miers has her heart in the same places I do, I think. She looks to be someone who would support "Under God", rights granted by our Creator, the right to life - each of these issues distinguishes our country from communist countries.
And yet that smarty pants Ginsberg doesn't quite seem to get it. I could care less whether Miers is gonna inspire Tribe to write glowingly about her in his next Con Law treatise, I care about how she's gonna vote. That's determined more by her heart and instincts than her intellect.
"You butchered this one Bush. End the madness and give us a solid pick."
Well stated.
Lets assume she answers every question like Ginsburg did. Knowing what you know, can you really honestly say she is qualified for the SC. Just her answer alone about the Voting Rights Act shows she has no clue about the constitution.
And for what its worth, not every plumber can be a SC justice so long as the person applies "common sense."
Not every plumber, but some could.
Let's wait to see what the "plumber" says.
Ginsberg isn't a leading light in the mind of America.
I think, therefore I am. That's why if Miers really is a stealth conservative I'll be happy. So sue me I'd like to see her testify before the committee.
And all those "bright, skilled" Republicans like Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor have wrought more havoc on conservatives and the movement with their VOTES than you are willing to understand.
The law is what the Supreme Court DECIDES it is. You have a distorted view of the importance of holdings vs. opinions that my intimate knowledge of the workings of an appellate court simply cannot agree with, particularly in this day and age of constant results-oriented decision making at all levels of the judicial branch.
but part of me wants to watch the hears just for the fun of it. It will be so excellent to read the comments of the pro-miers people here.
" If I were the most brilliant jurist in the history of the USA I wouldn't want to go through what she is going through to get on the SCOTUS.
God,things used to be a bit less hate-filled."
Demanding jurists be qualified isn't hate!
She can't stand questioning in private meetings. You think publicly she will do better????
Bush gave them an easy out on this one. They can oppose her without seeming the least bit partisan, or unfair as they can easily cite concerns shared by most conservative commentators and senators in voting against her. They can easily vote against her experience and qualifications and pretend ideology has nothing to do with it (which it does). There might even be some spillover where some of their prior unfair opposition to nominees begins to look more legitimate thank to the Miers nomination. I'd have liked a much stronger nominee like Roberts so the dems would be forced to either vote yes, or to vote no with the whole world knowing that they were voting no not because of the nominees qualifications but because of the nominees political beliefs.
Well we'll see.
I recall the rule of 2s (testing out a catch phrase). Republican Senators have only voted against a Republican President's nomination on two occasions (Harlan and Thomas), and on each occasion only two such Senators voted nay.
It is a very, very rare occurrence, historically speaking.
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.