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."
Tone what down? Your position is that her comment suppports proportional outcome. If it is not correct me.
And yet you have not given one example to support your stupid assertion.
The woman reasons at, perhaps a high school level and writes even lower.
Having read her questionaire, her brief in Bush v Gore and her work as lead attorney in the Microsoft cases I can only say that this assertion is bullcrap.
I guess, in addition to fulfilling the proportional representation for women now expected on the court and codified by our illustrious President, she will also represent the marginally qualified as well - a modern day Carswell.
Well, at least you'll be represented.
Even her "guide" through the process, ex-Senator Coats, has admitted she isn't qualified or even very smart.
A lie.
After all in defense of the spectacular Ms. Miers, who by the way has now cancelled meetings with Senators so she can actually read the Constitution, Sen. Coats said: "If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole."
Senator Coats makes an excellent point. The best and the brightest, like you, have done nothing but viloence to the constitution these past 70 years.
I may be mistaken about this.
What I have seen from her have been pretty far-out. Coming at things from a strange place...
After reading her papers, it's pretty obvious that she is not up to the job.
This is awfully embarrassing.
I can't believe the Pro-Miers crowd would openly advocate appointing "bozos" to the the SCOTUS.
Scratch that. After seeing alleged conservatives on FR running down Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, Geo. Will, Michelle Malkin, the entire staff of National Review, Robert Bork and Ronald Reagan to just to pump up "The Great Cipher" Harriet Miers, I CAN believe it.
It appears that no argument is too fatuous for the Kool-Aid Krew.
So? Miers' vote isn't overturning the holding. The concurrence becomes better viewed under the scrutiny of subsequent review, but the holding doesn't change. Nothing's overturned.
The vote stays the same over time.
BTW, do you know how opinions are created and how many different judges and clerks are involved?
You aren't a player either, but you seem to hang on the word of the hysterical pundits rather than making up your own mind.
The Gang shot down the nuclear option. The Gang gave credibility to the notion of filibusters for *extraordinary circumstances*. Lindsey Graham praised Miers for being a nominee who would not draw a filibuster.
If you go back and look, my rule of 2s was brought up in response to the suggestion that Republican Senators would come out in droves and vote against Miers. I don't think that will happen. Maybe it wouldn't happen with Luttig either, but it's clear to me that the RINOs have increased the risk that nominating a known conservative will draw a filibuster, leaving the nominee twisting in the wind without a vote.
I can't believe that you'd rather have an intellectual Souter than a bozo that votes conservative.
And enough with the mindless koolaid references.
Now, even conservatives are playing the game. Basically acknowledging that the Supreme Court can and even should act as some sort of "super legislature" and that the only thing that counts to them is that any nominee is pledged to vote "their way" on the "issues". Any bozo can do that, don't you see?
Thus, they place a premium on stealth and other political considerations to the utter and complete detriment, as we see with Miers, to considerations of merit and scholarship. Political considerations have their place in terms of getting nominees through the Senate, but this is ridiculous.
Conservatives once understood that the courts had to be restored to their proper place in the constitutional order and that once that was accomplished, the policy and political issues would sort themselves out in a way that would please us far more than what we've seen with liberal activist courts. Some among us want to steal intellectual bases and put the cart before the horse. "Just give us the vote on Roe, dammit!" they're screaming. But she'll be there long after that happens.
That is why this demoralizes me. It's the apparent victory of this truly pernicious theory of the role of the Supreme Court. Even on the right.
Ugh.
bump
The simple failure to understand that Senator Coats supposed statement in support of Ms. Miers actually admits that she is unqualified demonstrates that wasting time trying to discuss actual concepts with you would be pointless.
ROTHFLMFAO
No surprise.
We're trying.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
What do you put forward as qualifications to this lifetime appointment (other than third hand testimony and her bowling skills or love for M&M's)?
I'm not the one saying she is unqualified. You are.
And your childish M&M comment speaks volumes.
Well, it seems to be the best the White House can offer. I notice, though, that you couldn't actually put forward any actual qualifications, so thanks for conceding the point.
Didn't have to.
Just cause you demand it, doesn't mean it's required. Nice try though.
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.