Redstate

What could have been.

has been one betrayal of conservative principles after another (other than the tax cuts), I don't know why everyone's all surprised now.

I gotta say, I would rather have the most qualified person on the SCOTUS.   Being a woman is so secondary at this point.  I doubt all these potential candidates  took themselves out of the running.  It doesn't past the smell test.

I say this as a woman and a democrat.

Let's assume for a second that the rumors are true and that the WH was beset by a last minute refusal or refusals.  You ask:

"What does it say about the White House failing to inspire confidence in these nominees that they backed out?"

I think this lack of faith is better placed at the feet of the Senate.  After all, it is the Senate that will conduct the public examination and debate on the nominee.  The WH cannot be reasonably blamed for a lack of backbone amongst Republican senators.

The fact that the president was set to nominate Owen, Williams, Batchelder, or Corrigan, judges whose names received favorable ratings here on RedState during the speculation phase, should renew your faith in the president's thinking when it comes to judicial appointments.  You can quibble with the fact that he seemed to be stuck on selecting a woman for the sake of it, but he was considering judically conservative women with paper trails.  That was universally demanded of him here and elsewhere.  The president cannot be reasonably blamed for the fact that the nominee or nominees he may have selected turned him down.

You ask:

"...how is it to inspire confidence in the Miers nomination if she was only nominated because the people they originally wanted one after the other turned down a life time appointment to the most powerful court in the United States of America?"

I refer you to bubbagump29's post here:

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/10/11/17441/620/59#59

Miers was involved in the selection process, by all accounts.  She  may have placed the phone calls to the selected nominee or nominees and was on the receiving end of the rejection.  The fact that she heard the other(s)' reasons for not accepting and had the fortitude to answer the call when the president asked her says a lot about her character.  It also says a lot about her confidence in herself and her ability to come through the process.  Unless you believe that she is so blindingly ambitious as to accept an appointment to a position that she believes herself to be unqualified for.

Lastly if the rumors are true, then President Bush is insulated against the cronyism charge.  That charge only works if you believe that President Bush doesn't care about the consequences of naming an unqualified person to the SC in the first place.  But, if he tried one or more other nominees first, and then when rejected reached for one on whom he needed a minimum of assurances, he cannot be reasonably blamed.  You can quibble with the fact that he had an artificial timetable for selecting a nominee and cornered himself.  But, here at RedState, the conventional wisdom was that he should select a nominee right after or before the Senate vote on Roberts.

There are two ways to view this information that is now coming out.  With all due respect, I think you are taking a decidely "glass half empty approach."  

If the base becomes divided then it was never really a base. If the base can be divided over a nomination which is not what you wanted than it was never solid.

My feeling is the base is fine and now their is another report showing the rank and file republicans are not troubled by the nomination. They are willing to listen to the hearings and make their own decisions.

I will give Meirs a chance to prove herself that is the least I can do for my President.    

   

Would anybody RALLY around Miers, if she seems to be a Scalia at the hearings?  Honestly, if she proves to be gold, would anyone reconsider their support for this President, or has he dug himself a whole that is too deep to climb out of?

I ask this, because my personal feelings are negative.  I think that Miers will be a thorn in the flesh many conservatives, even if she is a rare gem.  She is the visible representation Bush's tendency to compromise and cave to the Democrats.  For me, I am forever scarred.  I don't know that I can ever support Bush like I once did.  I don't think I will ever feel warm fuzzies about Miers, like I would have with Jones or Luttig.

Am I wrong about this?

It's a shame it wasn't Maura Corrigan from SCOMI.  She's a rock star.

That took a lot of courage.  That's one of the reasons I opposed the nomination to begin with.  I just don't think Harriet is the most qualified person for the job, and I've said that I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but the more I read and hear about her nomination, the less I believe...the less I believe.

Let's imagine it from the opposite point of view:  Let's say Al Gore was the President and nominated someone to the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor that nobody in the Democratic Party had ever heard of, and that few people in the Republican Party knew very much about.  You'd see, I suspect, the same kind of handwringing and outrage in some quarters.  It's not about sexism, and it most certainly isn't about Miers support for the lecture series featuring Gloria Steinem at SMU:  the most fundamental concern is that when a President chooses a justice the people who voted that President into office want to see a clear choice, and Miers isn't one.  

There are a lot of reasons for that.  Conservatives are at a big disadvantage in legal academia, and really I think that's why we're seeing this "stealth" choice, plus her loyalty to the President.  

Liberals have to understand (or at least try to understand) that this Presidency and group of nominations were main reason so many people pulled so hard and worked so much to get Bush reelected.  If the shoe was on the other foot, Liberals would be equally disappointed, angry, discombobulated, and decidedly not in a mood to "chill."

I hope you're basically a fair person who tries to see the other side's point of view here.  Welcome, because I haven't seen your username before.

I would rally around her, but then the Dems would try to kill her.  But, I'd fight for her.

At this point, what got us "here" is completely immaterial.

The issue now?

"Solve the problem."

The fact is, no matter what the WH says, those opposed to Miers are never going to be convinced that "she's the one". We'll go into hearings and either, 1) she'll play "Ginsberg" and say nothing (which will convince no one), 2) she'll play "Ginsberg" and be bad at it to boot (which will only further entrench the "she's not qualified" view), or 3) she'll come out as an unabashed "judicial activist" (and that would pretty much kill her nomination on both the Right & Left). No amount of even Miers repeatedly saying "I'm an Originalist!!" will sway anyone, because all we'd be doing is taking her (unverified) word on the subject.

Clearly, Miers must go.

Once that happens, we move on to Step #2 - kicking both the WH and the Senate GOP (Hello wobbily Lindsay Graham, et al.!!) in the seat of the pants, repeatedly, until we get the kind of nominee we've all been promised, that we all expect, and that we all deserve. (IOW, a judicial "star".)

But this insanity must stop NOW.

"Solve the problem."

 

4) She will preform admirably in the hearings and prove herself to be capeable of handling the position despite the reservation of the base.

I readily admit that your numbers 1-3 are possible.  Will you stipulate to my 4?

And as to your other points, I won't say that I'm scarred, but this nomination smells of compromise where clarity was demanded.

  If she came out in the hearings and articulated a judicial philopsophy that would make Clarence Thomas or Scalia proud, then sure, I would support her.  But even Scalia and Thomas didn't do that, and if she did she'd be torpedoed by the Dems.  Which is why Bush has been reduced to these lame "she's a Christian" or "stop being so sexist" arguements.  By nominating someone who we have no idea whether we can trust or not, he's put Meirs in an impossible situation.  We can't support her unless she goes above and beyond what anyone has ever done in a confirmation hearing, but if she does that she loses the support of all the Dems and the RINOs.  This wasn't just a bad seleciton on the merits.  This was one of the stupidist political blunders of all time.  Bush's only hope is that the nomination implodes and he gets a Mulligan.  Otherwise his Presidency will essentially be over.  If Meirs makes it on the Court I won't lift a finger to help him ever again, and will instead focus on the fight for a real conservative in 2008.  And I think that sentiment runs deep in this party.  

It's just impossible to believe that Bush's exhaustive search for a SCOTUS nomination turned up his personal lawyer.  I understand what he means when he says he knows her character and all, but still, this position is important enough that a person's qualifications should speak for themselves -- instead we have Bush speaking for the person (so to speak) by essentially saying "trust me".  Give me a break.

I'm so disappointed.  And don't get me started about the prospect of reducing mortgage interest deductions to help with the national debt.  Bush has a funny definition of fiscal conservatism.

Did they call the White House first, to say "just to let you know, if I'm on the short list, take me off the list ... PLEASE. I'm not interested." OR did they get called, and then say, "thanks for honor of being asked, but I don't want the job."

I think it makes a difference. Some people just don't have the necessary temperament to put up with the 24-hour-a-day televised rectal exam they're going to get over the next month. I don't blame them one bit, if that's what happened.

The fact that she heard the other(s)' reasons for not accepting and had the fortitude to answer the call when the president asked her says a lot about her character.  It also says a lot about her confidence in herself and her ability to come through the process.  Unless you believe that she is so blindingly ambitious as to accept an appointment to a position that she believes herself to be unqualified for.

I think it says it alot about how much she worships the President.  She cannot deny him his wish.  She is stunned and honored that the man she worships would bestow such a prestigious position on her that she was mentally incapable of saying no.  And it is this devotion to him that will keep her from withdrawing her name from the confirmation process unless Bush asks her to or something truly awful comes out.  She must get on the Supreme Court because that's what "the best governor ever" wants.  It is her duty.

Lastly if the rumors are true, then President Bush is insulated against the cronyism charge.  That charge only works if you believe that President Bush doesn't care about the consequences of naming an unqualified person to the SC in the first place.  But, if he tried one or more other nominees first, and then when rejected reached for one on whom he needed a minimum of assurances, he cannot be reasonably blamed.  

Oh come one.  "One or more" and cronyism goes out the window?  This is a crony pick through and through, whether she was his first choice or his tenth, she shouldn't be on the list at all.  The only reason she's on the list is because she's a crony.

....to say nothing new?  Just a reinforced version of "trust me?"  That was so reassuring, let me tell you.

The answer to Bainbrigde's quesiton at the end seems to be "no comment."  Can we reasonably take that as confirmation that Miers supports Affirmative Action, and sought to mold the Supreme Court (via argument) as such as White House lawyer?

Not a good sign.

So she supports Affirmative Action and wanted the Supreme Court to support it.  She's an unknown on Roe v. God (in fact, her primary voucher from the Texas court thinks she wouldn't overturn it - not a good sign); and we know nothing about her overall philosophy other than scripted buzz words given by the White House to her intended to be deliberately vague.

I have just moved from the "we should have done much better" column to the "this is a very dangerous pick" column.  

Every day, this pick looks more and more like a deliberate attempt to reappoint O'Connor while absolving the GOP of culpability to its base for doing so.

"You see, this time we really, really , REALLY, thought we had it right with the stealth thing; who would've thought she'd......blah blah blah....even James Dobson thought....blah blah blah...."

The White House is trying to get the easy three on fourth-and-inches at the Goal Line.  We need to try and make them go for the Touchdown here.

This pick looks worse every day.

to assume that she is simply the President's lap dog?  She's obviously a very strong woman and to insult her by saying she's "unable to deny her President his wish" is highly unreasonable.  For all you know, she is EXACTLY what Bush was looking for and she knows it so she took him up on the offer.

She's a very strong, independent woman as evidenced by her work history in Texas.  You don't need to insult her in such a way...

Miers was a successful lawyer by anyone's standards before she met Gov. Bush.  It is a bit of a stretch to think that she now makes every decision through the prism of her admiration for the president.  I believe that she took the job when offered because she is loyal to the president, but to discount the fact the she may have the self confidence to do it were she asked by someone other than President Bush is unfair.

As to your second point, we don't know if there was one, two, or three rejections.  And we don't know if she was on the list at all until the president was turned down.  Why isn't this a possibility?  Why must we automatically assume that the president was twisting his moustache waiting for the chance to pull the rug out from under conservatives with this nomination.  The president was rejected by his first, and maybe second choice.  He then turned to a trusted, known adviser, suggested by the Democrats.  That is not cronyism.  That's calling in your most trusted reliever when the starter fails.

the "you're the best governor ever" comment from her doesn't count for something?  Or any of the other statements that you would think came out of the mouth of a seven year-old rather than "a very strong, independent woman"?  Or comments from conservatives who worked in the white house while she was there that even they were taken aback by her devotion to him?  

And is there anything incompatible with her having a great work history and yet thinking Bush is God on Earth and being willing to do whatever he wants?

It was a birthday card.

Get over it and try posting something of substance.

Miers was a successful lawyer by anyone's standards before she met Gov. Bush.  It is a bit of a stretch to think that she now makes every decision through the prism of her admiration for the president.  I believe that she took the job when offered because she is loyal to the president, but to discount the fact the she may have the self confidence to do it were she asked by someone other than President Bush is unfair.  

There's nothing incompatible with having a successful career with turning into a lap dog making every decision through the prism of admiration for someone (or something, see: Cheney, Dick) later.  

That is not cronyism.  That's calling in your most trusted reliever when the starter fails.

Generally "your most trusted reliever" has a proven track record of performing the job he/she's brought in for very well when the starter falters; that's how that person becomes the trusted reliever, performance, not devotion.  Not so much here.

And how is "calling in your most trusted reliever" not cronyism in the Miers context?  It's the very definition of it.

You'd think that Miers is not a sixty year old accomplished professional and lawyer, but rather the person that President Bush pays to shine his shoes and fetch his dinner.

"Did I do it right George?  Did I?"

The character assassination being done by some is absolutely disgraceful.  And I think this post is a good example of the sexism argument.  I have a hard time forseeing anyone talking about a sixty year old male lawyer in this manner.

This newest strategy is perhaps the most troubling act of a spin machine that, after a stunning November victory, has somehow managed to mangle its message horribly and divide its base better than a Democrat could ever have done.

Where is your proof that the base is divided? Is there a poll out that says so? Or is it more correct to say the pundits are divided.

even for a birthday card.  Especially one to an adult.

Granted you didn't ask me, but I think it's entirely possible that someone who has practiced law for 30 years, had personal clients like Microsoft and Disney, and was a managing partner in the fifth largest law firm in Texas might know how to handle herself in a Senate hearing.

But the bar IMO is and ought to be set higher than it was for Judge Roberts.  She's going to have not only avoid tipping her hand as to how she might vote on future issues (as Roberts did) but she's going to have to demonstrate that in addition to her 30 years of practice in corporate law, her understanding of constitutional law issues as well.

Until then, I'm chillin' until the hearings.

If she came out in the hearings and articulated a judicial philopsophy that would make Clarence Thomas or Scalia proud, then sure, I would support her.

And how we would know to believe her?!

I could go into one of those hearings and say "I will uphold Roe v. Wade, and Griswold, et al. with my dying breath!" but I'd be lying through my teeth. And no one could probably prove otherwise.

So it is with Miers. She could say "My judicial philosophy is indistinguishable from Justice Scalia's," and I wouldn't believe her. There'd be no way to prove it. It'd just be words.

That's why Mark's response to my post is baffling - there is no way she can "prove herself to be capeable of handling the position". She might be able to prove a minimal amount of knowledge on the issues. But she either can't or won't answer the important questions, and even if she did there would be no way to verify the veracity of her positions.

This nominee is a total "Black box" (and an underqualified one, at that).

That's why I'll never support this nomination - there is nothing Miers could say in Committee that can convince me otherwise.

There's just no way to "verify" her views before the fact. So, on my end, there's no "trust".

And I'm not just saying that because you quoted me (which makes me feel very special btw). I think you said much more eloquently what I've tried to say since last night.

I especially like your argument that she was probably on the recieving end of people's reasons for backing out and still went to bat for Bush.

I think we should also add a political calculation on hers and Bush's part. From what I hear, and I don't know how static SCOTUS schedules are, but I hear there is a parental notification case coming before the Court Nov. 30. As it is, Bush was pushing it asking for the nominee to be confirmed by Thanksgiving, even with someone recommended by Harry Reid. What is the likelyhood of O'Connor ruling that case unfavorably and then a rock solid Bush appointee that Dems label as activist (Luttig et. al.) taking her place to rule favorably in the spring on the PBA ban? Nobody wants to risk that, as it would be devastating to the pro-life cause, which is essencial for the cause of original intent judicial philosophy. Bush especially can't afford that risk, because he may have two more vacancies to fill, and he will want originalists and doesn't want to have to fill them with SDOC's, Kennedies, or Souters.

So with that to consider, Bush knows Miers inside out. He knows where she stood in the Michigan affirmative action case, which, if rumor is correct, she argued for affirmative action. This is consistent with evidence of previous support for affirmative action cases. If she's maintained consistency throughout her life, though we may not like it, and I remind you Scalia himself is consistently for a lot of things we don't like, then she is less likely to change over time. This speaks to her judicial philosophy.

As for the political calculation, her consistency also means she is pro-life (I don't think I've heard anything contrary to that yet). She is also very confirmable. Like, Thanksgiving confirmable. I can not stress how absolutely essencial it is that Nov. 30 be ruled positively, because if it's negative, it will be virtually impossible to pursuade Kennedy and Souter back to our side. They were part of the group that factored in the 'Court's image' and stare Decisis in PP v Casey. Last last thing we need in the fight for originalist judges is the media and Dems up in arms for us violating Super Duper Spectacular Stare Decisis, taking the spotlight off of activist judges.

Miers successfully can dodge any activist judge complaint from the left, keeping the ball in our court, and she's probably the only one who can do that right now and still add an anti-Roe vote to the Court.

She may not be the judge everyone here at RedState wants, but she is our best hope for the originalist cause.

How about only 54% of conservatives favor Miers nomination?  I call that divided.

Glad to know I'm a pundit now.

I am also a woman and a registered Democrat, and can't stand the Miers nomination. This is the most qualified WOMAN he could find? Really?

Putting aside for a moment that I would sleep alot better if he would focus on putting the best person he could find, I can't swallow that this is the most qualified woman. Or even a qualified woman.

I may not agree with John Roberts, but he was qualified...

I'm a newbie, by the way, dipping my toes into the blogging world because of the Miers nomination. I guess I would qualify myself as a moderate Democrat, but I have to say that I enjoy reading the right/moderate blogs more, if only because I don't come away with the feeling that if I disagree with someone, they will hunt me down and boil my pets.

Where is your proof that the base is divided? Is there a poll out that says so? Or is it more correct to say the pundits are divided.

Talk about having your head in the sand!

Have you read the Comments not just here, but at every conservative blog with a Comments section?!

It's not just the bloggers and the pundits - the readership is hugely divided, and you can be sure for every one of them there's 5-10 more who don't post who feel the same way, and those 5-10 probably influence another 100+, and so on.

Of course the Base is divided!

Try to track down some of the people she went to high school with to make sure she didn't write anything that might be construed as "over the top" when she signed their year book.

It is bad enough that we now grill judicial nominees over what they may have written in a law review article.  

I refuse to take seriously anyone who tries to find meaning in what someone in a freaking birthday card.

But the base is deeply divided.  And the Democrats are taking advantage of that division, and they're working it hard.  Listen to NPR:  When you have someone like Steve Dillard categorically stating that he's "DONE" and he's not giving anything to the Republicans again, like EVER, you know the base is divided.  That's Georgia.  

Brilliant, guys: listen -- you're a bunch of doofuses, OK?  Regardless of the Miers nomination we have people on NPR talking about how they're going to disappear and stop "knocking on doors."  What a brilliant strategy this was.  Karl Rove must have been behind it, or maybe the Bilderbergers.  It took a group of Republicans to wreck their own party and their own chances at building a lasting majority.  How appropriate:  they don't call us the Stupid Party™ for nothing, you know.

She may not be the judge everyone here at RedState wants, but she is our best hope for the originalist cause.

Wow. If you actually believe this...

He's just posted a poll, and say what you will about the bias of the sampling, it has thousands of replies already.

Go Vote and review the results and comments.

http://instapundit.com/

I'm not sure that I'm familiar with that particular case.

  We aren't pundits.  And the comments in this thread and the rest of the Miers related posts on this site at the least suggest a pretty even spilt between outrage and support.  The CNN poll had 44% of the country refering to her as a "good" pick as opposed to the 77% that Roberts got.  Why the 33% drop?  My suspision is that it wasn't the hard core lefties.  They were the 23% that didn't like Roberts.  So either Meirs outrages the moderates or there is something about this pick that troubles conservatives.  Arguing that this selection hasn't divided the base is pretty difficult at this point.  And evidence of unrest in the base aside, when National Review, The Weekly Standard, Human Events, and Reason are all dumping on your pick, it is a pretty good indication that the rank and file aren't going to be happy.      

I realize there isn't any that she is, but Bush was apparently headed down the originalist path. I'm pretty sure he didn't turn a 180. Granted all we have is the Bush knows her better than anyone and that she's a Bush fanatic, but that's more than you have.

Boil your pets.  ;) Promise.  I have two cats myself, and my family has a bunch of dogs, and I love animals.  We're not as evil as you have been lead to believe.  Stick around, the conservatism grows on you after a while, and that's a good thing for everyone.

[Editor's Note:  No, we won't boil them.  We'll shave all their fur off and deep-fry them. ;) ]

KIDDING!  Ok, we love animals, even Democrats.  It's TRUE!

"And how is "calling in your most trusted reliever" not cronyism in the Miers context?  It's the very definition of it."

Cronyism requires that the nominator care not for institution he is placing the crony in.  By definition, a cronyism appointment is made when the appointer only seeks to place his friends in powerful positions.  In this case, not in the FEMA example, I think a reaonable case can be made that the president actually cares about the impact of his appointees on the SC.

And now Cheney's a lap dog?  I thought it was Bush who was the puppet and Cheney the puppeteer.

What was it for Roberts at the same point in the his nomination? Something like 63%? That is very little proof that the base is divided.

I think it shows more that the base wants more information. I think in general the base is much more fair than the Pundits who have gone off as they have. They don't know beans about Miers, yet they say she is not the person for the job.

I for one, just simply want to see what Ms. Miers has to say for herself before I say she is a terrible pick. I guess I do not favor her at this time, but I also am not against her.

I will say this. She is no Judge and IMO that is a plus. They are the ones who have screwed it up in the first place. I read somewhere that it would be good for someone on the court to ask "Where does it say that in the constitution" when these super judicial intellectuals say the things they have said in cases like KELO and Roe.

trying to say is that I DON'T get that feeling here... :) Where as on some other left leaning blogs, I did....

Look at KOS. They have a monthly poll on the leading Democrat presidential candiate for 2008. Wesley Clark wins everytime. Compare this to the national polls. Hillary polls around 40% yet Clark polls around 1%. http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

is not much less in value than a lot of the "reasons I don't think she is qualified" stuff that has been posted here.

We get mad at Leftists and Liberals is when they refuse to debate us an instead decide to talk as though they Know Everything™.  And we really don't like it when trolls show up with a variety of techniques that they use to disrupt discussions or plug themselves in through the diaries.  Otherwise, we're open to liberal viewpoints, I think, as long as they're cogent and well-reasoned.

We're also not absolute sticklers for detail:  if you have a good point that you think you can make without necessarily having all of the data to back it up, try to make it, but do it honestly.  In other words, don't pee in the pool.  It's too much trouble to read the thoughtful and responsive and cogent commentary without being distracted by people who are just here to waste people's time.  

If there is anything about RedState that encapsulates the editorial philosophy beyond Republican/Conservaitve viewpoints it's exactly that:  don't waste our time.  If you have something meaningful to say, and can say it well, we'll listen.

newbies. "Where as on some other left leaning blogs" See what all the lamentations about Miers has wrought. This is the best funny I've seen here in a while. BTW, welcome katcdw. You can express yourself here without be cussed.

That's why I said, "say what you will about the bias", but it doesn't seem lopsided one way or another. Also, it's a surprise snapshot, otherwise unannounced, not particularly seeking a result (a la Kospolls), and the questions seem bland enough, with only a hint of push-polling.

The sample audience is, if anything, more rightish than usual, but he has a huge audience, so many variations are likely at play.

Is it scientific, no. Anecdotal, barely, Useful, probably not. Is the mere fact that people are responding meaningful in any way - yeah, probably.

Shouldn't the discussion have progressed into a more substantive direction by now? One can hope.

Any proof she isn't originalist? I realize there isn't any that she is...

Yeah, uh, the way this works is that she has to convince us that she is, not that we have to prove that "she's not".

This is the whole point - this is the best the pro-Miers side can come up with.

That is proof enough that she needs to go - she doesn't even give her supporters anything to work with!

Prof. Bainbridge is also having a poll.

male equivalent of Harriet Miers, I will gladly do so.  In fact I nominate Andrew Card.

Uh, are we talking about the same gal who dumped Catholicism?

Much smaller sample, much worse results. Ugh.

I suppose it's to be expected since Prof. Bainbridge is more vocally anti-this-nomination than Prof. Reynolds.

Still, neither is good in any way for the pro factions.

I am fine with a woman, but if the most qualified women said no, and you are heading to second string women, then doggone it go for the most qualified man.

Shoot Garza would have tickled me pink, and he would still get a point in the minority catagory.

I think that is what bothers me, Miers seems like a second/third string pick, while the more qualified people got passed over.

you're right, she's "mentally incapable" of doing things that President Bush asks of her.  And I have no doubt that you've gleaned these insights from your vast personal experience working with Miers as well as having made her acquaintaince on numerous occasions.  That's why I respect your opinion.

What's that?  That's not the case at all?  You're just engaging in a bit of character assassination?  Color me shocked.

This whole nomination has real brought out the worst in our side of the aisle.

Interesting comments so far. What does matter in the end is somethng that no one has touched on in this thread (though perhaps so in othe RedState posts) --

-- J. R. Brown, Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig, et al, couldn't get 51 votes.

That's what the Miers nominations says to me.

Some of the people upset by the Miers nomination wanted the big confrontation with liberals in the Senate. Rush Limbaugh expressed that pretty well, in calling for an 'educational process' to demonstrate to the country just how out of touch Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer et al are. That's a good strategy, but only if you have 51 votes so as to use the 'death-penalty' option to break a filibuster.

But what if you don't? I ask because I'm not convinced that Susan Collins, for example, would vote to confirm Janice Brown or Michael Luttig. Lose 5 Republicans and you face a political disaster -- an articulate, superb conservative nominee who loses on the floor of the Senate.

Now I firmly believe that smart politicans of both parties have one characteristic in common: they know how to count. They're very, very good at figuring out how votes are going to break and planning accordingly. President Bush strikes me as being superb in this regard.

So what I suspect is, in all his conversations with various Senators in the Roberts confirmation and now in preparation to replace O'Connor, he came to the realization that he simply didn't have the votes to get Brown, Own, or Luttig confirmed. Either he didn't have 51 votes in the first place, or he wasn't confident that he could hold 51 votes in the face of a certain filibuster.

And that's why he went with Miers. Her philosophy is close enough to what he wants, she's an excellent lawyer in her own right, and -- most importantly -- he's certain he can get 51 votes. And I suspect George Bush values a win here, in filling the vacancy and getting moving forward on other issues, more than he values a knock-down fight with Senate democrats that he could well lose.

Winning matters. Losing matters. George Bush isn't the kind of politican who likes to lose. I think that's the bottom line on the Miers nomination.

"And is there anything incompatible with her having a great work history and yet thinking Bush is God on Earth and being willing to do whatever he wants?"

Reddstaty, you've given yourself away. This comment is more telling than a Hillary '08 bumper sticker on a hybrid at a baby-killing rally. You're a Moby.

I addressed it here:

http://mark-i.redstate.org/story/2005/10/11/134241/79

and that's with little information on the nominee.  I predict that support for here will rise, if we don't bail out on the president.

to believe that there are more qualified moderate candidates out there.

I am totally mystified by this pick, from a political standpoint. (While freely admitting I am no political genius). President Bush is dealing with charges of cronyism in the appointment of Mike Brown to FEMA, so for the Supreme Court, he picks....his lawyer.

The latest joke I heard was that he will pick his accountant to take over for Alan Greenspan.

Ok, back to my question. Karl Rove is supposed to be a political mastermind.  Was he so concerned about the evangelical base (at least the Dobson/Robertson part of it), that he was blind to the other factions of his base?

written by someone who had spent the last five years, say, sitting as a federal circuit judge, or as prominent lawyer at a prestigious firm, or some other position that didn't involve personally serving POTUS I would agree (which is why I wanted to strangle anyone who mentioned what Roberts wrote in his HS yearbook).  

However that's not what she's been doing.

Furthermore, how about this written on official Texas Lottery letterhead in 1997:

Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to meet Larry Litwin last wekk.  I appreciated Joe's participation also.  I hope the meeting was helpful to Mr. Littwin and the Texas Lottery Commission.

Thank you for the privilege of serving the State of Texas and thank you againg for your time.  You are the best!"

And then finishes with the obligatory "Sincerely."  If she wrote everything but that last sentence, I wouldn't bat an eye.  But, "You are the best!"  

Or how about this handwritten on what was otherwise an ordinary thank you note for Bush sending a congratulatory note to one of her partner's mother's 95th birthday:

You and Laura are the greatest! (emphasis in original).  

This is a 52 year old writing these things (and this latest one on firm letterhead).  

And this:

Thank you for taking the time to visit in the office and on the plane back.  Cool!

"Cool?"  Huh?  She also wrote "cool" in another context, stating that "Hopefully Jena and Barbara recognize that their parents are 'cool' - as do the rest of us."  Which does not bother me in the least.  

Or something less childish, but still on the disturbing side:

I truly believe if the Governor told [a child Bush gave an autograph to] she should be an Astronaut, she would do her best to become one.  

Also on firm letterhead.  "Truly believe?"  Not just "believe," or "think" or some other such less, er, devoted language (OK I'm stretching just a little on this one).

David Frum, noted leftist, stated that she once said that Bush is the most brilliant man she ever met.  While that could be a simple commentary on other men she's met in her life, it's completely consistent with her worshipping the President.  All signs point to her Bush devotion, is there evidence contradicting it?

where does that put me?

With all due respect, the percentage of those that flog the blogs is pretty darn small. Just because we can see our words appear on the screen, should not make us think we are speaking for the majority. However, I have noticed that a few tend to have pretty puffed up self images. It's one thing to contemplate your navel, it's another to blow into it.

and other have said about her loyalty to Bush points to what?

It's not what you may or may not claim to think, Moby. That last little tirade, that talking point, tells the tale.

NO self respecting intelligent adult, in other words no conservative, would possibly conceive that the available information translates to Meiers thinking Bush is "a God on earh" or that she would do "whatever he wants". No intelligent adult would think that ridiculous statement sounded good or reasonable. That's nothing but bleating from the moonbats.

That talking point isn't even worthy of the ridiculous DKos moonbats. It sinks the despicable americablog level. And it speaks for itself.

I'm a newbie.

Ditto here. Been reading redstate for some time but am rather new to the political blog discussion arena.

As a registered Republican (who lifes in rural flyover country, attends Congregational services weekly and prays with the kids before every meal!), I've also frustrated with the entire Meirs process. I thought I should speak up for many of us "right-wing Christian Conservatives" that are being portrayed as supporting this inferior candidate. One's faith should never be a substitute for experience, education and credentials.

I'm afraid it may be that our President, not the nominee, may be "going Souter" on us. This nomination increasingly looks like a Bush administration circling the wagons and nominating the head of the dwindling fan club to SCOTUS (take a look at The Smoking Gun's collection of correspondance between the President and his attorney over the years if you can stomach relentless fawning and praise). Many managers can tell you that when a senior executive begins to surround himself/herself with cronies and sycophants, his/her value to the organization is effectively over.

What's perplexed me the most is the process (or the lack of one) evident in the nomination. Ineffective vetting (since when is Dr. Dobson on the list of necessary parties for SCOTUS vetting? It doesn't patronize persons of faith and it certainly polarizes everyone else), indications today of more qualified candidates rejecting the nomination opportunity, and a terrible press conference last week called to explain the nomination. Top that with poorly thought out responses to concerns that should have been anticipated following an appointment that has the appearances of cronyism (e.g. sexism and elitism charges) and add to that the President's tax increases proposed this week and I'd have to bet we have an administration that has given up the fight.

Better get some fresh blood in the advisors circle and can those responsible for this miscalculation.

*scoove*

Talks this way all the time. Are you calling her crazy?

Moby.

It's one thing to contemplate your navel, it's another to blow into it.

That is some funny stuff.

I think what we have going on here is a case of Bush Rope a Dope. Instead of it being the democrats and the media this time, it is the conservative pundits that are fixing to be knocked out.

a born again Christian who thinks the White House's "Ms. Miers is a Christian" talking point as a defense of her nomination is ridiculous.

I also don't believe that the overturn/upholding (is that a word) of Roe v Wade is the Pillar On Which All Of Western Civilization Rests, so can we get an idea of what she might decide on other topics, please?

but this nomination smells of compromise where clarity was demanded.

Or something else. I'm still having a hard time believing the administration has made this level of mistake. Bush loves rope-a-dope and I can't believe he's suddenly lost all sense of strategy on the momentum of the Roberts nomination. Looking at Meirs' role in vetting candidates (and furthermore at her extreme loyalty to the President), I'm suspicious that she may still be playing a role in getting the President's preferred candidate nominated and confirmed. Who else but the President's "number one fan" could be asked to go through this hell for a political play?

[Tin foil hat on]

Consider if the President wanted a Gonzales nomination but was certain of right-wing bible thumper (of which I am one) backlash. By putting up Miers and consulting with Dobson, he's shown significant consideration and nominated a "candidate to their liking." Even in conservative Christian circles, Dobson is a polarizing figure. Feeding him with secrets he's not supposed to divulge, he certainly won't keep his lips sealed. In most cases, having Dobson running around talking about secret knowledge on Roe is certain to trigger a response from the left. After all, how many of your Democrat friends can't stand the guy either?

Then when the left reacts to the obvious "She's an extreme right-wing Church-going anti-abortion candidate" message, the administration pull Meirs back and put up Gonzales (notice we're being told there was a preferred candidate? what if /he/ happens to volunteer to bail us out of this mess and save the party?). The far-right had its chance and didn't support its candidate, the option to nominate a woman was unappreciated and rejected, and the left gets a moderate it can support. Anyone know if the attorney general has been seen dining with Senator Reid lately?

Except the wrong party attacked first, and the left continues to stand back debating whether it's acceptable to let an anti-Roe vote get on SCOTOS if it tears apart the Republican party (return to power at the expense of Roe v. Wade? Not a problem... they'll fix it later).

[Tin foil hat off]

Of the scenarios (Harry Reid deal, Incompetent/Defeated White House, or Meirs/Gonzales bait & switch), none leave me very confident in the administration. As acknowledged today, Meirs wasn't the first choice, but perhaps for a different reason...

*scoove*

to recall instances of daftness and ineptitude on the part of this adminstration; they are rather thick on the ground.  

She'll go into the hearings and say nothing, because she doesn't have to say anything. The confirmation won't be close, and very few Republican Senators will vote against her, and it looks like she'll get more than the 22 Democrats that Roberts won over. There may be a Republican or 3 that cast a protest 'NO' vote, and a couple more that abstain. But with the polls showing her polling well with the people that have made up their mind, it will be surprising if a Republican is willing to buck the president and public opinion. Especially with a good chunk of the evangelical wing of the party behind her. Not going to happen.

Don't confuse the opinion of conservative internet writers with the opinions of the masses. Republican Senators won't.

But not 60. That's what would have been required. And McCain and a few of he other moderate mafia members would enjoy sticking it to Bush on this issue.

There have been howls of protest on the right on Miers, but they are mere whispers compared to shrieks that would have come from the left had he picked Luttig or another of the "movement" conservative choices.

The first string jurists in position to be elevated to SCOTUS didn't get cold feet... nope.  They've come too far with too much ambition (and paid off their school loans!) to reject the chance for such a prestigious job.

Leon makes the point about the thought of fighting through liberal law school.  The thought didn't stop him, and it turned out to be less of a hurdle than he presupposed.  John Roberts steeled himself for a fight and cleared the hurdle.  Other first stringers could too.

Count me chillin'... til then out.

1. You have no proof that none of those listed had 51.
   
2. Even if you think it's true, the WH should tested the proposition.
   
3. If it is true, the Republican Party is finished.

Which is why I've noticed that it tends to be our Liberal friends who have been floating this canard. (Hoping that it is true, and Point #3 comes into effect...)

What is clear is that if Roberts could get almost 80 votes, Luttig et al. would have cleared 50 easy, and would have withstood any Filibuster attempts. (Nice try at armchair quarterbacking though! 3 points!!)

Don't confuse the opinion of conservative internet writers with the opinions of the masses. Republican Senators won't.

Contrary to popular opinion, most GOP Senators don't have deathwishes.

Confirming Miers after the outcry that has developed will condemn more than a few Senate Republicans to early retirement. You may not realize that (and you probably hope that they don't realize it), but I can assure you that nearly all of them do...

Barnes has a good read...

How should Bush's followers have responded? I don't think they have an obligation to give the president the benefit of the doubt. But, given his impressive record of naming judicial conservatives to the appeals courts and John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, they owe Bush and Miers a reasonable chance to make a case for her as a judicial conservative, or a constitutionalist. The opportunity for that will come when she testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee in a few weeks. However, many Bush supporters and allies, particularly a large number of prominent conservatives, have not waited for her testimony.

I take this as proof she is conservative. Cuase really, would a liberal ever use such childish words? Not in my experience.

Mehlman:  You can learn about her from what she has done in the White House.

Bainbridge:  What has she done in the White House?

Mehlman:  We can't discuss private WH discussions of court cases.

I guess we can learn about her from what she has done in the WH, as long as we limit what we want to find out to things like the MMs.

I don't know for a fact that GWB couldn't get 51 votes for a nominee like Brown or Luttig. My point is, like 99% of what's been written about this nomination, speculation -- I wonder whether Bush did a nose-count on one of the more preferred nominees and came up short. Or thought he'd come up short.

As to testing that, such an idea gets to the final point I made: I don't think GWB likes losing, and I think he made a decision that he'd rather move forward and take what he can get rather than lose on a controversial, very conservative nominee.

Mark I: thanks for the tip, yes, you did discuss this, and far better than I could ever do.

It is amazing to me how unprepared they were. They should've never made this nomination until they had some better cards to play than "trust me", "she is a Christian" and "you must be sexist." If I never hear anyone in the administration mention the phrase "glass ceiling" again it will be too soon.

I still haven't seen any of the pro-Miers crowd respond to this. One of the few times she advocated her own positions on record and these are the results?

From John Fund:

On other issues, Ms. Miers's record is one of initially supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it. She started out backing a plan to redistrict the City Council that had received the endorsement of two-thirds of Dallas voters in a 1989 referendum. When it appeared that plan would lose a court case on account of its alleged effect on minority representation, she backed a plan for single-member districts supported by liberals. "I formally debated her on the issue," recalls Tom Pauken, a former chairman of the Texas Republican Party. "She was a liberal then. I don't know about today, but in the last week all the liberals who've been on the council have been singing her praises."

Similarly, Ms. Miers was originally part of a council majority that urged Congress to repeal the Wright Amendment, a law that restricts flights from Dallas Love Field. Southwest Airlines and free-market advocates had long attacked the restriction as favoritism toward American Airlines, which has a hub at Dallas-Fort Worth International. Ms. Miers reversed her position after 10 months and sponsored a resolution in favor of the Wright Amendment. She called her move "a triumph of reason over rhetoric" and cited two studies that claimed flying more planes out of Love would lead to traffic congestion. Most aviation experts dispute that conclusion.

Finally, a 1990 budget crunch forced the Dallas City Council to consider a property tax increase--its third in four years. Ms. Miers initially resisted the tax increase, then came around to the view that a property tax hike would be the fairest. The key vote came when the council voted 6-5 to add $900,000 to the budget proposed by the city manager as part of a 7% increase in the tax rate. Ms. Miers cast the deciding vote. Mr. Bartos, who had proposed an alternate plan for 5% across-the-board spending cuts on all departments except the police, was bitter that almost all of the proposed $900,000 budget increase was slated for library and arts funding rather than public safety.

I personally don't see her being a Souter but I think the most likely outcome, based on the evidence that is available, is that she will be an O'Conner clone, at least in the long term.

With your limited posting history, you may get the benefit of the doubt with comments like that.

She's been nominated by George W. Bush, who claims to like originalists but wouldn't know originalism if it swam up and bit him on the keister.

Go for the second most experienced woman, or the third most ... Miers can't be in the top 10 can she?

"If I could be the condom queen and get every young person in the United States who is engaging in sex to use a condom, I would wear a crown on my head with a condom on it."

                     Jocelyn Elders

It's one thing if the White House says, you're one of the finalists, and you say, no thanks, I don't want to go through the confirmation process (or whatever).

It's quite another thing if you are first told you are a finalist, and THEN told that the president has decided to go in another direction but won't make a public announcement for a couple of days, and THEN you withdraw your name and say, I'm not interested, thanks for the honor of considering me.

The latter situation is one where someone has been bypassed, but takes the opportunity to bow out gracefully before the "winner" is announced.

I strongly suspect that all of the "withdrawals" the White House is rumoring about fall into this category. Whether it's Owen, Williams, Corrigan, or whomever, they were told or signaled that someone else was going to be chosen, and then they issued their statements of non-interest or withdrawal or whatever.

to go thru the crucifiction that an on the record originalist would be put thru, especially if they have children? I do. And I think that JRB would be put thru such an attack that "Rogers-Browning" would replace "Borking" as the operative adjective.

Though until I see some evidence that a candidate really expressed those concerns to the WH here, I'm inclined to believe that the WH is just spinning this one, and that no one but Miers was ever the top choice for this vacancy.

and the inartful "religion" comment yesterday are pitiful. Its an insult to their own nominee, but of course, she would know if others refused!. And I see her faith as a plus, but the way Bush offered it yesterday was poor form.

Rove is preoccupied or burnt out.

Do you think that Bush could avoided a lit of this by having GOP senators in beforehand lined up to support her on originalist grounds?

The White House is paranoid about leaks. No White House wants leaks, but this crew has gone so far, they won't even line up respected conservative senators in advance to support their nominee, for fear the nominee's name will leak out before the announcement.

That is short sighted, and maybe unnecessary to boot.  You'd think they could find a few senators who are discreet enough to not leak, and ask them, so, we're considering Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, what do you think about that?  They'd be much happier now if they'd done that reality check beforehand.

how sorry Bush's lobbying relationship has been with his GOP sens and reps has been.

Reagan is gone........forever.