Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination

 

Updated throughout the day. Don't miss the Comments section where you enter at your own peril....

Today is a sad day for America. Today America threw away an incredible opportunity to place a  judge of enormous legal ability and ferocious integrity, and in the bargain a gracious Christian woman only more qualified for her new role because she would never have sought it for herself. And in a few years, the same critics we hear now, who are rejoicing in the Miers withdrawal, will be bitterly complaining why they are having to put up with Hillary Clinton. They can then remember today with very little glee, watching the damage caused by their treachery and dismally poor loyalty to the President, and feel ashamed.

The President a few moments ago:

"Today, I have reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers' decision to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy. Throughout her career, she has gained the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has earned a reputation for fairness and total integrity. She has been a leader and a pioneer in the American legal profession. She has worked in important positions in state and local government and in the bar. And for the last five years, she has served with distinction and honor in critical positions in the Executive Branch.

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House - disclosures that would undermine a President's ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers - and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

I am grateful for Harriet Miers' friendship and devotion to our country. And I am honored that she will continue to serve our Nation as White House Counsel.

My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains. I will do so in a timely manner."

Hugh Hewitt, my friend and ally in the quest for achieving a fair hearing for Harriet Miers, which in the end, sadly was just not meant to be. :

"I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.
She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies"

Hear, hear!

Susan Olasky @ the not to be missed Worldmagblog: "All Things Beautiful and Hugh Hewitt best reflect my feelings about what happened to Harriet Miers. Marvin's uncle used to say, "politics is the crookedest bone in the human body," and after watching the tactics used against Miers I'd have to agree. It has not been pretty to see the conservative side rely on unnamed sources, leaks, and innuendo to do in a candidate who deserved a hearing and an up or down vote."

As D.J.Drummond said today @ Polipundit 'This WILL Come Back and Bite the Conservatives':

"The Democrats/Liberals have always been very good at manipulating appearances, and there should be no doubt that the Miers withdrawal will be cast by the MSM and the Democrats in only such light as allows them to gain. And it is avowed Conservatives, who have renewed that power in the Left, and shown a dismally poor loyalty to the President and his judgment.

And yes, it will convince more than a couple Senators that the McCain method of two-faced promise and treachery, is the most effective mode of operation. The bastards did indeed win, and on more than one level."

From Media Lies, another ally devastated today:

"If there was ever any chance that good people would serve in government, that opportunity is now gone. Only someone with an ego larger than Mount Olympus could withstand the savaging that Miers endured from the right.

War is what they wanted. They now have it. I think they have also forfeited the 2006 elections and the 2008 Presidency. We'll see if they can live with that."

And Media Lies in the Comments section below, with an excerpt from a Miers' speech: "Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

My God! How I have longed for someone in government to say that! How much I've prayed for one judge to express such an opinion!

Yet she was thrown on the trash heap of history by short-sighted, blinded "advocates for principle".

Now do you see why I say it's a sad day for America?"

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the minority leader of the Senate, issued this response on his Web site, via Hugh Hewitt today:

“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans"

Don Surber: "Happy?"

George Berryman @ Alamo: "And something tells me now that our elite conservative punditocracy has taken on our President they'll begin to get the same taste for blood that the national media got after Vietnam and Nixon"

The Political Teen, who I understood had voted for Miers is now sitting on the fence?

The ever gracious Anchoress: "... thank you for your service to this country and your president, and thank you for maintaining your dignity while all around you people were stomping and huffing and braying, and otherwise losing theirs."

My favorite American Princess Emily Zanotti: "I can't share in the glee this morning over the Miers pullout."

Sigmund Carl & Alfred: "Congratulations, American right wing you have successfully torpedoed the President's choice of nominee for the Supreme court. In the process, you have given the next election away to the opponents of this Administration.

The right wing has tasted blood, and they like it. They have seen how easily they can influence policy- and they will do it again."

Wise words from The Hedgehog: "Has the anti-Miers attack legitimized "borking?" Make no mistake, the right borked Miers, big-time. Has the NRO Corner crowd and their followers now made ideology a legitimate basis for opposing a nominee?"

UPDATE OCT.28: Hugh Hewitt in an article for the New York Times 'Why the Right Was Wrong':

"But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault."

MSNBC 'Miers Withdraws Supreme Court Nomination':  "Confronted with criticism from both liberals and conservatives, Harriet Miers on Thursday withdrew her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court."
CNN  'Miers withdraws Supreme Court Nomination': "President Bush on Thursday accepted the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, according to a statement from the White House."
Washington Post 'Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination': "Harriet Miers withdrew this morning as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the Miers nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was in deep trouble, with little support in the Senate, open criticism from many Senators of both parties, and an outpouring of opposition from conservative activists and intellectuals."
Washinton Post 'Statement by The President'

Michelle Makin et al are relieved. Well that feeling will not be long lived.
Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters: "The face-saving withdrawal option presented by Sam Brownback and Linsday Graham took only a matter of days to get recognized by the White House. Good for them. It won't save them from some criticism, but it will make this into the nine-day wonder it should always have been."
Ann Althouse: "But what now? Can he find another Roberts or will he satisfy the conservatives who've been insisting on someone who really is openly another Scalia or Thomas"
Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom: "And the Miers critics have, for the most part, done themselves proud, I believe, by taking a principled stand—one that is available for review by those who now wish to demonize them"
John Hinderaker @ Powerline: "A lot of conservative pundits are feeling triumphant today, but there are millions of rank and file Republicans who supported the Miers nomination, many of whom--including many dyed in the wool conservatives--believed, rightly or wrongly, that the criticism of Miers from the right was arrogant and elitist. Miers was a poor choice for a number of reasons, not least because her nomination needlessly divided the party."
Orin Kerr @ Volokh, come on now enough with the bashing already: "So Harriet Miers has withdrawn her candidacy under what seems to be the Krauthammer cover"
Matt Margolis @ Blogs For Bush: "You have a second chance, Mr. President. Take advantage of the opportunity. Democrats are scared, and conservatives have new hope... Take advantage of the opportunity."
California Conservative: "What about the Democrats? Wasting no time. They’re polishing the soundbites and preparing for a fight."
Patterico has finally come off the ledge!
Betsy' s Page:  "Apparently, Bill Frist went to the White House last night and told them that the votes weren't there for her confirmation".
Publius Rendezvous:  "Miers may inevitably turn into a conservative icon some day, but conservatives deserve better than to cross their fingers and pray, hoping that this will come to fruition."

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters: "No conservative or Republican should feel like gloating over the withdrawal of Harriet Miers today, although perhaps a feeling of relief would be understandable. Bush made a mistake in nominating Miers, but it wasn't Miers' mistake -- and she acted honorably in withdrawing her name once it became clear that her nomination enjoyed little support among Republicans in the Senate and elsewhere."

I don't think we will have much time for gloating, before Hillary comes breathing down our necks, and as Media Lies suggested in the Comments Section below "Go wander over to the left side of the aisle and see what they're saying now. "The extreme right wing has taken over the party." "George Bush caved in to right-wing extremists.", etc.etc."

As Hugh Hewitt said, it will be much tougher the next time round, and the likelihood of a savage full frontal assault is high. But you got what you wanted, now get over it, and try to patch up the gaping hole you left behind.  I for my part still feel the devastation and sadness at what has come to pass, and it doesn't seem to get better with the onslaught of the scurrilous comments still floating around.

Some wise words from John Hinderaker @ Powerline: "A lot of conservative pundits are feeling triumphant today, but there are millions of rank and file Republicans who supported the Miers nomination, many of whom--including many dyed in the wool conservatives--believed, rightly or wrongly, that the criticism of Miers from the right was arrogant and elitist. Miers was a poor choice for a number of reasons, not least because her nomination needlessly divided the party."

Open Tracbacks: The Political Teen, Stop the ACLU

Comments

[fd10801]

Next up to be nominated:

Samuel Alito, Jr.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm

[Kenny Pierce]

Antimedia,

I think I've got it now, thanks -- assuming that (a) I grasped George's point correctly and (b) your take is similar to his.

You claim that pro-Miers people are now crying apocalypse just as the anti-Miers crowd did, and therefore there's no difference.

I wouldn't say there's no difference, just that there are lots of similarities. Of course my standards may be somewhat different...I spend lots of time dealing with the government of Kazakhstan and I've drunk more vodka than I should have over dinner with friends who got ten-ruble notes from Stalin (i.e., ten years in the gulag for cracking a joke about Papa); so I have a certain amount of trouble getting too worked up about Teddy Kennedy, moronic and dishonest sad joke that he is. But then again, Alexandra grew up in exile from Yugoslavia and it seems to have made her care more about American politics; so maybe we just chalk it up to my disconnected, generally cynical outlook on human nature.

[antimedia]

Kenny, you wrote, "Do you see what I mean? Antimedia, I ask how he was stabbed in the back, and you reply by quoting snarkiness from Michelle. Uncharitable, yes; intemperate, yes; hasty, yes, yes, I see all that; one would have to be blind not to see that; I saw that as soon as I read her post. But you seem to see it not just as not-particularly-creative snarkiness, but also as a betrayal of some kind, and that's what I don't follow."

When you attack someone without having any of the facts before you, I call that back-stabbing. You can call it something else if you like, but look at the results"

DR writes, "Miers supported Affirmative Action, was a flipper at best on abortion, and was influenced by 2nd and 3rd feminism. Furthermore, she was a proponent of international law and the ICC. Today she did a good thing by fixing a bad mistake by Pres. Bush."

Every one of those statements is clearly and unequivocally false, except the last statement. But that's what will be said about Miers, and that's what will be remembered about Miers, because that's what the anti-Miers crowd insisted was the truth, and the media and Democrats were all too happy to go along with it.

This is my last post. I'm tired of arguing about it. You claim that pro-Miers people are now crying apocalypse just as the anti-Miers crowd did, and therefore there's no difference.

Time will prove you right or wrong. I'm afraid the first test will be coming shortly, and the conservatives aren't going to like the results.

I've lived through almost a lifetime of Democrat control of the government, with profligate spending, stripping away of rights and the rest. I can live through more. I don't have that much longer to live anyway. It's my children and grandchildren that I worry about.

[George Berryman]

I am glad everyone has enjoyed me being Frank. Tomorrow I will work on being Dave or Burt. ;)

In regards to that harpy Michelle Malkin:

Malkin is a Pat Buchanan-type pundit in that she's all too willing to canninablize her own side for personal gain. It has little to do with principle for her. She dishes out the brand of venom at her 'allies' as she does the Left and to a lot of us that's disgusting.

[north by Northwest]

Kenny, in the spirit of frankness, you had me just now reading Matthew 5:46 and then in stitches. Would have missed it withouth the heads-up... ;-)

[Kenny Pierce]

And NxN, I have to honor George's frankness by some frankness of my own: if you don't think that parody of Matthew 5:46 was freakin' hilarious, I'll be devastated. 'Cause I cracked myself up on that one, let me tell you.

[Kenny Pierce]

George,

Okay, that makes sense, then. It's an Our Team thing. And I join NxN in a lusty cheer for your frankness in stating your principle of partisanship in snarkification.

I don't agree with your principle, by the way, because I think insofar as there's an obligation to treat with respect other people in a discussion, that obligation is stronger vis-a-vis those with whom you disagree than vis-a-vis those on your side. Sort of an echo of Christ talking about loving your enemies, you know -- "If you talk respectfully of those who agree with you, what reward will you get? Do not even animal-rights activists do that?" -- that sort of thing. The first time I expressed disappointment in Michelle Malkin it was along precisely those lines, when she praised a sincere apology from Bob Novak shortly after using an even better apology from Molly Ivins as an excuse to throw some bitchiness Molly's way. I said at the time that "apparently [Michelle and I] were raised with very different expectations on whether we were expected to offer as much respect, and as much due praise when merited, to those with whom we might disagree as we offer to those who take our side."

But I'm thinkin' perhaps that's because on politics (where my own agenda has just about as much chance of ever being implemented as it would if I were trying to reinstate the divine right of kings) I'm mostly into discussion (figuring out the truth) whereas you Republicans may be more into debate (which involves actually getting your own way, something to which I needn't bother to aspire). I suspect I'm thinking of the whole brouhaha as a disagreement among lots of well-meaning people who each had sincere (if not equally well-founded) opinions to contribute to the discussion and many of whom stated those opinions with a vivid and bracing freedom of expression, while you are seeing it as a situation where your quarterback dropped back to throw a deep crossing pattern in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and before the receiver could come open he was most unexpectedly sacked by his own offensive linemen. Would the latter analogy ring true to you?

[Kenny Pierce]

So, George, I take it you would be interested in the T-shirt I would like to market:

Chappaquiddick 1
Guantanamo 0

[north by Northwest]

Kenny - well what would life be without humor... you had me in stitches reading your comment. Thanks for that, I needed that!

George - you've got a refreshing point in your cheerful admission of one-sidedness (LOL)

But, alas, back to the sombre tone:

DR - The Grand Old Party has always been home to 'Neocon-Theocon-Libertarian' voters, as you choose to now call them rather derogatorily; I hazzard a guess, that without their support, you would never have had a President, let alone meaningful political party.

The forces of conservatism have today averted a tragedy of Souter-like proportions

Thank you for providing a pristine specimen of the kind of 'soundbite' I was referring to earlier. Because that is all it is. I'm sure you mean no harm by repeating it, but upon reflection, might find that there really is no foundation to that particular charge.

Now I really don't mean to spurn your valued opinion by dismissing each and every point you make as yet another 'soundbite', but I really would very much like to hear your understanding of: "..[Harriet Miers] was influenced by 2nd and 3rd feminism", as well as the background to your complaint that she "..was a proponent of international law and the ICC".

In light of the tremendous loss of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, it might be a good idea to re-read Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer on September 16, when he was still dealing with the Roberts nomination. Referring to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion in the United States (I'm just being thorough, wouldn't want to be accused of 'sound-biting' gnrrr), he wrote:

In our lifetime has there been a more politically poisonous Supreme Court decision than Roe v. Wade? Set aside for a moment your thoughts on the substance of the ruling. (I happen to be a supporter of legalized abortion.) I'm talking about the continuing damage to the republic: disenfranchising, instantly and without recourse, an enormous part of the American population; preventing, as even [Supreme Court Justice] Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, proper political settlement of the issue by the people and their representatives; making us the only nation in the West to have legalized abortion by judicial fiat rather than by the popular will expressed democratically.

Hmm, this isn't over yet, is it???

[George Berryman]

Is that the implied rule: you're allowed to be snarky to the bad guys, but not to the good guys?

Exactly, yes. At least it is for me. The Miers Haters were hitting our President and his nominee with a level of venom that should've been directed at the left and not at our party's Commander in Chief.

I admire honest debate and discussion and there are actually liberals (it's a very, very short list) I can respect for the same. But Teddy Chappaquiddick, the world's foremost expert on water torture? We know we're not about to get honest debate and discussion from him anytime soon. Most of today's big leftists (Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, Rangle) have worked hard to deserve every ounce of scorn we can show them. Much harder, for example, than the President we worked hard for to get re-elected.

[Kenny Pierce]

Hmm, I wasn't specific enough in my question about "back-stabbing."

NxN, your complaints about the importance of getting your facts straight before you stake out a position, are complaints that I think are absolutely justified in this case, and I concur one hundred percent. I would absolutely agree that Michelle Malkin, for example, leaped precipitately to judgment and then dug in. (I am sad to say that my respect for her slowly drains away day by day. If somebody nails her in a factual error she'll correct it, but otherwise it seems you have just about as much chance of hearing Michelle say, "You know, I was wrong," as you have of hearing Jacques Chirac say, "You know, we French could learn something from the Americans.") You are perfectly correct; a whole bunch of Republican bloggers sure seemed ready to say, on the day Miers was nominated, two things about her: (a) we don't know anything about her and (b) she's a terrible pick.

I also agree, as I have said, that bloggers are a highly self-selected subset of the voting public and not at all representative thereof, and therefore the complaint that the noisemakers were out of synch with the opinions of the voters as a whole is valid -- though not worth nearly as much as you guys think it is because the "silent majority" is silent mostly 'cuz it doesn't care nearly as much as do the people making the noise. If you were to go poll all those Republicans who show up in the polls mrp listed and you were to ask them, "Who is Scooter Libby?" I'd buy every cop in your town a year's supply of doughnuts if even 40% of them knew the answer. In order for this failed nomination to be the catastrophe you guys seem to think it will be for your party, that 54% would have to not only answer, "Sure, confirm her," but they would also have to care enough to be angry that it fell through. "How do you think a woman who is a middle of the road conservative is going to feel about the borking of Miers by her own people?" Um...actually, most women who are middle of the road conservatives won't be able to tell you the difference between Harriet Miers, Julie Myers, and Mike Myers by the time the next election rolls around. I imagine that a year from now the kind of Republican who votes for Republicans because that's how they always vote, but who doesn't know who Scooter Libby is -- which is, you guys, a majority of the people in your party -- won't be able to tell you who Harriet Miers was if you ask them.

I don't know whether y'all will find that reassuring or depressing. I hope the former.

I do also think that the intemperate language, and the moral condemnation, that was hurled around reflected poorly on the people who hurled it -- though you must realize that people who toss around terms like "back-stabbing" and "treachery" and "hypocricy," are hardly in an optimal position to condemn other people for intemperate and intolerant language. I thought the "Harriet Miers has been nominated and now the Apocalypse is on us" crowd needed to get a grip, but...listen, I really like you guys, but I think the "Harriet Miers has withdrawn herself from the nomination and now the Apocalypse is on us crowd" sounds one hell of a lot like the other guys were sounding two weeks ago. If it's okay for Harriet Miers's supporters to use such language and indulge in such vituperation -- and as far as I'm concerned I don't have a problem with it; if you feel that strongly then let 'er rip -- then why wasn't it okay for her detractors to use such language and indulge in such vituperation?

Now, as I say, I personally don't have any problem with frank criticism or even with pretty brutal invective, so I don't have any problem at all with you guys' venting your frustration...but then Malkin's language didn't bother me either (though her haste in rushing to judgment did). I enjoy both Ann Coulter and Molly Ivins even though my most frequent experience in reading their columns is to get two or three good belly-laughs out of a few particularly effective turns of phrase, and then reach the end of the column and say with a grin, "Well, the woman's an ass, and completely uncharitable and vicious, and thank God I don't have to live with her, but still and all she's pretty hilarious." I'm sure this is not the effect those ladies are gunning for, but it could be worse -- they could be Maureen Dowd, who is an ass with no redeeming literary qualities whatsoever.

But when people do get angry, I generally like to find out why it is that they are really upset, and what I keep coming back to in you guys who are so furious with the anti-Miers conservatives, is this constant theme that comes up and over and over again, of betrayal. Not just on this site. It's the main burden of the Anchoress, as well, for example, or so it seems to me. The language you guys are using implies that the President and the conservative pundits had some sort of agreement, or at least that the conservative pundits were under a moral obligation to the President, and that he has kept up his side of the bargain but they reneged.

Do you see what I mean? Antimedia, I ask how he was stabbed in the back, and you reply by quoting snarkiness from Michelle. Uncharitable, yes; intemperate, yes; hasty, yes, yes, I see all that; one would have to be blind not to see that; I saw that as soon as I read her post. But you seem to see it not just as not-particularly-creative snarkiness, but also as a betrayal of some kind, and that's what I don't follow. It's much easier for me to see how Malkin (who feels very strongly about immigration and profligate government spending) feels betrayed by Bush, because she thinks rightly or wrongly that when you campaign as a Republican you implicitly promise to do certain things that Bush clearly has no interest in doing. Do you in your turn feel that conservatives like Michelle have made some sort of implied promise to Bush?

George, it's the same thing: when I ask about betrayal, you reply that the dastardly minions of treachery...[gasp] made fun of the President, just like those same people have made careers out of making fun of Teddy Kennedy. Is that the implied rule: you're allowed to be snarky to the bad guys, but not to the good guys? Or do you get just as angry when Coulter (as she does about once a month) finds an excuse to work into her column a snide booze joke about Teddy Kennedy? (I do, by the way, respect people who maintain a high standard of mutual respect in the midst of debate, which is why Hugh Hewitt has risen enormously in my estimation through all of this; but again, you're not complaining of snarkiness, but of some sort of betrayal.)

I'm NOT at all trying to make you guys admit that you're wrong to call it a "betrayal." I'm genuinely trying to get inside your emotional place to figure out what you think The Rules are. I understand why conservative rebels feel betrayed by Mr. Free Spender. I also understand that -- but not why -- you feel that the Rebel Alliance betrayed President Bush. In fact it's obvious from your anger that you feel like they betrayed you as well, that somehow they owed it to you not to screw this up. (Vicarious anger never is really vicarious anger; even in apparently vicarious anger there's always ultimately a felt claim that the other person owed it to me not to treat my mother that way, or whatever.) And I don't object to your feeling betrayed and furious, you understand, I'm just not yet at a place where I get it.

But I would like to. And if I'm just being obtuse, please forgive me...I'm not a Republican, after all; so you'll have to remember to think of me as something of a remedial student who needs extra attention from the teacher.

[DR]

This is not a defeat. The forces of conservatism have today averted a tragedy of Souter-like proportions. Like it or not, the Miers nomination furthered the splits in the already-fractitious republican party. The superior Luttig, Jones, McConnell, Brown, Owens, or Pryor will energize our party bse and somewhat restore the nebulous Neocon-Theocon-Libertarian alliance the republican party has become.

Miers supported Affirmative Action, was a flipper at best on abortion, and was influenced by 2nd and 3rd feminism. Furthermore, she was a proponent of international law and the ICC. Today she did a good thing by fixing a bad mistake by Pres. Bush.

[Mike's America]

It is a sad day, and the defeat may have ramifications for the future of the Bush presidency and our position in the 2006 elections.

Some thoughts from my post on the subject:

*In the Miers debacle Republicans have turned the old rallying cry: "Give them an up or down vote"upside down.

*Republicans in the Senate have overturned the principle of protecting Executive Branch documents.

*After witnessing this latest episode can we know expect our GOP Senators to grow a spine and defend an even more controversial nominee?

*Chris Matthews summed it up this way: "Bush is lame duck with broken

[north by Northwest]

GT,

What was most upsetting was the hypocracy as supporters were dismissed as shills by people who EXACTLY wanted a crony, one whose votes and positions were guaranteed in advance.

Hear Hear! And to think who they had in Harriet Miers. I'll be musing over antimedia's quote and exclamation:

"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

My God! How I have longed for someone in government to say that! How much I've prayed for one judge to express such an opinion!

Does that not translate to: "Hands off! Abortion is a matter of personal choice, of self-determination. Do not impose through legislation; neither condoning nor restraining..."

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Thanks for the link.

Onwards.

Some blogs rock. This blog waltzes. Well done.

[George Turner]

This was a very ugly episode, and the repercussions will continue for some time. The "up or down vote" soundbite is effectively dead, as the new standard is political assassination prior to any hearings. I think I'll start denouncing Zell Miller based on his 1992 DNC nominating speech, for that's exactly what conservative pundits have done.

Miers is at the top of her profession where a lawyer can only be 5 or 10% better than their peers, if that. By dismissing her as completely, astoundingly, breathtakingly unqualified crony, the bar has been raised far above the usual standard by which half our Supreme Court justices lacked a law degree, and only 20% had a three-year law degree, and most were cronys, a word from the 1600's that didn't pick up a negative connotation till the 1950's.

What was most upsetting was the hypocracy as supporters were dismissed as shills by people who EXACTLY wanted a crony, one whose votes and positions were guaranteed in advance.

[George Berryman]

Kenny - how was Bush stabbed in the back? Oh I don't know... Coulter making booze jokes about him after the nomination was announced? No no surely that's just her making a stand on principle. George Will twice calling our President's intelligence into question and referring to Miers supporters as 'crude?' No no, that's just him respectfully disagreeing. Laura Ingraham mocking President Bush soundbytes and mocking Miers credentials just about every morning on her talk show? Ahh, not backstabbing - my bad. Clearly that is just her respectfully standing on principle as well. I respect anyone who disagreed with this nomination in a respectful manner - both Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett did that. Just about everyone else was sorely, sorely lacking.

[north by Northwest]

Kenny - my gripe is not so much with how certain pundits conducted themselves, much less the notion of 'backstabbing', but rather with the palpable shortsightedness and narrow-mindedness which IMHO the vast majority of dissenting voices displayed in spite of the potential at hand. As I said earlier, I put it to you, that there were only a small number of dissidents, who actually set out and formed an opinion. And only those matter. The rest just clanged and banged their pans and pots, much like the frenzied villigers, in what I had hoped, had been dark times long gone.

And, I do not believe, that they had mattered, were it not for the unique character of Harriet Miers, who in her very essence would not, in fact could not place her own ambition before her consideration for the very person, whom she so faithfully had served and protected throughout all these years. And she, Harriet Miers felt she was hurting the President if she'd pursued the nomination.

Obligations towards the President: First, it's not so much the President, but rather: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Second, the utopian view would be, that each and everybody owes it first and foremost to themselves to assertain the facts before forming an opinion. The fact, that the President gave his seal of approval should then be no more than an additional incentive to adopt an open-minded attitude towards the issue.

The ferocity of the entirely immediate rejection is thus the most damming testimony of the dissident's failure to adhere to such fundamental principals. Sad indeed, but, hey, what's new....

[antimedia]

Kenny, you asked what stabbed in the back means - "What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. (Video of the announcement here via NYT).) It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder."

That's what Michelle had to say on the day Miers' nomination was announced. No, who? No, I'll have to do some research. No, why Miers? Just - crony, not qualified, unimpressive, a waste.

That is stabbed in the back.

Michelle had every right to do it. This is, after all, a free country. Just don't complain when the chickens come home to roost. I'd say there's at least a better than 50% chance that O'Conners how stays until 2006, the Dems narrow the margin in the Senate (or gain the majority) and the opportunity to seat a conservative justice is lost for another 10 years.

Will it feel good, in 2015, to say, "I stood on principle"?

[Kenny Pierce]

Okay, George, so you don't mean "ideology" in the same sense I do.

I would imagine you read more about this than I did, but the anti-Miers bloggers I read didn't want to know how she would vote on particular cases -- they wanted to know she would reason, which is a different thing. But if by "ideology" you mean "what sort of approach to the Constitution she would take, i.e., originalist, constructionist, 'living' constitutionalist, etc.," then, yes, I agree with you, it was about ideology. But if that's what you mean then I don't think caring about ideology is a bad thing; Bush pretty much promised to nominate judges with a particular "ideology" in that sense, and I think it's quite reasonable for people who voted for him and campaigned for him on those grounds to demand that he make good. I'll guarantee you, I don't want ANYBODY on the Supreme Court at this point that hasn't made very, very clear to me the principles by which they will subordinate their own desires and agenda to the actual Constitution. If that's ideology, why then absolutely this was about ideology, and that's exactly what it should have been about -- insofar as anybody in the world voted for Bush with the Supreme Court in the back of their mind, they did so because they thought he had made them an ideological promise. If they had doubts as to whether he was going to renege on that promise, well, doesn't that say something about the degree to which Bush has or has not convinced people that he can be trusted?

Why do you guys keep talking about Bush has gotten "stabbed in the back"? I'm very curious about that. What, specifically, do you think was Michelle Malkin's or Glenn Reynolds's moral obligation to the President in this case? George, you've probably answered on your blog, which I will go inspect; but I'd like to hear NxN and/or other commentors who think Malkin & Co. have behaved badly, set out explicitly what they think conservatives' obligations to the President are. I'm guessing, George, that you would say that the obligation is not to wield deliberate untruths against the President; but I don't know whether you think the anti-Miers people were consciously lying or if instead you think they were honestly, albeit egregiously, mistaken.

[north by Northwest]

MRP - now that's crushing data! What a loss! In time, I wonder what kind of fallout we, the Miers supportes, will have to witness; not much satisfaction in the remorse the doubting Thomases may yet come to feel. I know, fat chance of that happenig...

[antimedia]

Well, that should have been, not one pundit saw any lack of internal consistency to their position.

I write much gooder on my own blog. :-)

[antimedia]

north, your take on it is exactly correct. Read, for instance the 1993 speech by Miers that so many complained so loudly about. There were two arguments made; first, that it revealed she was pro-abortion, and second, that it was yet more evidence that she could not write.

The latter seems all the more ludicrous when you realize that this woman was an officer of the National Honor Society chapter of her high school, and honors mathematics undergraduate chosen for the Mortar Board and an honors law school student chosen as editor of the Southwestern Law Review.

She can't write? Come on! There is no evidence, in fact, that she did write the speech. It reads, to me, like the contemporaneous notes of someone in the audience.

As to the former accusation, it is laughable on its face. Miers spoke of the sad fact that legislatures have, in general ceded difficult decisions to the judiciary, which is all too happy to make them, and that is wrong! Now what does that tell you about her judicial philosophy?

But, she listed a litany of issues that have been ceded, and among them was abortion, which she characterized in the terms commonly used, without expressing a personal preference. She then said that, for her, she had come to realize that "self-determination" was the answer to the problem.

What did she mean? In the context of her speech, she meant, self-determination as opposed to the courts determining it for you. It couldn't be any plainer yet almost everyone jumped on the speech as "proof" that she was pro-abortion - this only four years after she signed a document support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution! Yet not one pundit saw any internal consistency to their position!

Miers closed the speech with this statement, which should take your breath away, if you, as I, long for a Court (and indeed a government) that will stop meddling in our affairs.

"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

My God! How I have longed for someone in government to say that! How much I've prayed for one judge to express such an opinion!

Yet she was thrown on the trash heap of history by short-sighted, blinded "advocates for principle".

Now do you see why I say it's a sad day for America?

[mrp]

The Radical Conservatives were NOT speaking for the majority of Republicans. From a www.GovExec.com October 25, 2005 article written by National Journal reporter James A. Barnes (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1005/102505op.htm)

And recent public-opinion polls tend to back up Gross's assessment. The Gallup poll conducted for CNN and USA Today on October 13-16 found that 73 percent of Republicans want the Senate to confirm Miers, while only 16 percent want the Senate to reject her. Those figures are almost identical to the 73 percent to 12 percent GOP split in favor of the nomination of John Roberts in a CNN/USA Today poll conducted August 5-7, as he was being introduced to the country.

Likewise, the two polls show that those on the ideological right are giving Miers about the same level of support they gave Roberts. In the latest CNN/USA Today poll, 61 percent of self-described conservatives backed the former White House counsel's nomination. In the August survey, Roberts got 67 percent support from that group.

A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press on October 7-10 found that 54 percent of conservative Republicans backed Miers's confirmation, 37 percent were undecided, and just 9 percent were opposed. Two Pew polls conducted in early September found similarly low levels of opposition to Roberts -- 14 percent and 6 percent -- while 62 percent and 77 percent of conservative Republicans supported his confirmation.

[north by Northwest]

Kenny,

And that part of the base is, I think, relatively well represented by the conservative blogosphere -- and it's that base (as opposed to the larger base that votes but doesn't volunteer) that Bush managed to get on the wrong side of.

Granted!

However, I am not sure whether I am convinced that the majority of the anti-Miers faction amongst this active base ever allowed an open mind. The reasons for which, you of all have so perceptively described during our exchanges over at Theology Matters as well as on your own blog! I hazzard a guess, that the vast majority simply regurgitated the no doubt earnestly promulgated arguments of a considered few and thus turned, or more appropriately, degraded them into at times substantially truncated sound-bites. Why, because I suppose it fitted into their general world view and world order of things and had most probably never much to do with rational thought and reason. At least that was my impression when reading most posts and commentaries of the dissenting majority.

[George Berryman]

Kenny - I used to be a comic reviewer for a comics news & review website. Many of us in the comics news 'media' (yes, there is such a thing) used to believe that we were representative of the larger comics reading audience. In fact, we were not. We were a microcosm of a microcosm. Blogs aren't any different.

[North by Northwest]

Antimedia,

The perfect conservative candidate for the Court.

Thank you for the clarification on the internal polling. Just my hunch. A small bunch with loud voices got their way at the expense of million of disillusioned core voters. A sad day indeed.

And as to the perfect conservative candidate; the best candidate for the Supreme Court... I agree wholeheartedly! And I must admit, I for one did not see it coming. Bush & Co. clearly knew that she was THE RIGHT CHOICE. And I expected them to stick it out. Especially as they surely must have been equally aware of the polling data. And who is to say, that they weren't utterly commited to see it through. I don't believe that Bush & Co were actually that impressed by the small, but vocal punditries.

I do however sense, that in the end, Harriet Miers succumbed to the savagery. These kind of outbursts couldn't have gone more against everything she's been living and breathing for so many years past, namely to preserve and protect the very best of interests of one George W. Bush! I say, ignorant are those pundits who are now gleefully proclaiming that Bush & Co caved in. I think the President was up for the fight, but Miers was NOT willing to take that chance, and was not willing to risk damaging the President and the administration.

If my take is correct, it would appear, that she may inadvertently have caused maximum damage by her withdrawal... Who knows?

[Kenny Pierce]

George,

But then, most Red Staters weren't for Miers as a nominee, either. Most Red Staters didn't have that strong an opinion either way. Also most Red Staters don't give much money to political parties. Also most Red Staters don't volunteer much time helping with campaigning or getting out the vote. Most Red Staters, like most Americans, leave it to other people to decide what the government's going to do.

The blogosphere is probably a pretty good proxy for the opinions of those who are passionate about politics -- that is, the kind of people the Republican Party will have to appeal to when it comes time to stuff envelopes, and go around town putting up campaign signs and posters, and drive the vans that help get out the vote, etc. A non-representatively small percentage of conservative Red Staters give the money and volunteer the time and basically do the nuts-and-bolts work that makes it possible for the Republicans to win elections. And that part of the base is, I think, relatively well represented by the conservative blogosphere -- and it's that base (as opposed to the larger base that votes but doesn't volunteer) that Bush managed to get on the wrong side of.

That, NxN, is pretty much my answer to your question about, "Do they matter in terms of voting power?" Without foot soldiers, you don't win elections; and the foot soldiers of a political party are not, as a general rule, particularly representative of the overall voting base of that party. On the contrary, they are, clearly, much more passionate about politics than is the average person, pretty much by definition -- or, rather, by self-selection. (They care so much about politics that they choose to volunteer, or to blog, which makes them ipso facto not representative of the majority of Republicans, who do not volunteer for the Republican Party and who, if they blog, are apt to blog about their cats or their recent adoption or something equally trivial). That generally means they know much more about current political issues and political figures -- they know their own minds much more clearly than does the average voter, if I may put it that way, and they are just in general far more knowledgeable about politics, just as I am (as I recently discovered) far more knowledgeable about sports betting than is Alexandra. In the end they affect the vote because they shape grassroots opinion -- they're the people who sit around at the VFW or Starbucks and pester their friends about politics. And when their friends decide they want to understand something about politics, they don't go ask the politicians -- they go ask their knowledgeable friends, whom they trust. So the "vote" of one of these Passionate People counts more than a single vote because they affect the votes of their friends and acquaintances who are less willing to devote time and intellectual energy to political questions.

"And if so, are they prepared to change their vote?"

Not on Harriet Miers; but if the President realigns himself on the sore-point issues I'd say most of them are absolutely prepared to go back to supporting him. But they think it's his responsibility to earn their support by governing in line with conservative principles (as they see them); they do not see themselves as having any sort of moral obligation to support the President in whatever decision he may choose to make just because he's a President and a Republican. They are winnable, I think, but they must be won, not taken for granted. He owes them, in their minds.

In fact, that's the real argument between the two groups of people who have gotten angry with each other over this Miers thing. Michelle Malkin and company think the President owes them and hasn't delivered, and it pisses them off. My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and the Anchoress and to a lesser extent Alexandra think Malkin & Co. owes the President (loyalty and respect, that is) and haven't delivered, and that pisses them off. And if you don't think this sort of thing sounds all too familiar to any decently experienced marriage counselor...I'm not a Republican myself but the majority of my friends are, and watching the last month has been painfully like watching a couple you like go through major marital problems. You don't want to marry either of them yourself but you'd still like to see them get along.

[don surber]

Thanks for the link. Linked back
PS Basil's Blog can take trackbacks

[antimedia]

Where do I begin? Kenny - I don't mean this in a trite way, but read my Harriet Miers archive if you want to understand. I never criticized the anti-Miers crowd except for provable falsehoods they promulgated.

1) They said she was unqualifed. I showed that she was highly qualified.

2) They said she was "mediocre" and "third-rate" (words that chilled me). I showed she was one of the top lawyers in the country.

3) They said she was pro-abortion. I showed that they were misrepresenting her position.

4) They said she couldn't write. I showed that they could even prove it was her writing.

It's all water under the bridge now, but the conservatives will pay a high, high price for stabbing Miers and Bush in the back. (And yes, that's precisely what they did.)

It's not about ideology? My God! That's all it was about. Time and time again they demanded to know where she stood - on Rov v. Wade, on Griswold, on Bakke, on Casey, etc., etc., etc. It was always and only about ideology.

Go wander over to the left side of the aisle and see what they're saying now. "The extreme right wing has taken over the party." "George Bush caved in to right-wing extremists.", etc., etc. etc.

This won't energize conservatives half as much as it will liberals! Mark my words. This is the end of the Republican majority.

North points (correctly) to the overwhelming majority in the blogosphere and punditry that was opposed to Miers. True enough, but internal polling showed that less than 10% of Republicans were opposed to her. They represent millions of votes. Pundits do not.

How do you think a woman who is a middle of the road conservative is going to feel about the borking of Miers by her own people?

It's a sad, sad day, and the days ahead will shock a lot of people, but I guess shock is what's needed to wake people up.

I'm mad at Bush on immigration. I'm mad at Bush on the budget. I'm mad that Bush didn't push the anti-pork movement. I despise the fact that he meets with Ted Kennedy and Abu Masen and so many others who do not deserve his recognition and spit in his face.

But I've been around long enough to know that the alternative is much, much worse. So I'll support Bush, no matter what, because he's my President. And supporting Bush means, I did my homework before I jumped on the anti-Miers bandwagon and I discovered that she was an originalist similar to Bork but without his overweaning ego. The perfect conservative candidate for the Court.

Now she's gone. Whoever takes her place (if indeed Bush is able to replace her) will be less of a justice than she would have been. (And yes, I'm including Luttig, Brown and all the rest.) Miers was THE best candidate for the Supreme Court to come along in one hundred years, and the conservatives spit on her, and crucified her and left her bleeding and battered in the ditch.

And there will be hell to pay. Mark my words. The "silent majority" is angry and payback will come at the polls. The Democrats can smell blood in the water, and they will delay the next nomination in the hopes that they gain seats in the Senate, even if they have to filibuster to do it. And they will say "Look what they did to Miers - a decent woman who never even got the change to present her case!"

Can you tell that I'm saying the exact opposite of the majority? Unless you think I'm really stupid, that should give you pause. (Maybe I am stupid. I actually thought conservatives were smart enough to do the right thing. Boy, was I wrong!)

Alexandra, I apologize for spouting off on your blog. I should post this on mine, but I'm so depressed right now, I'm not even sure I'll continue blogging. What's the point if the truth no longer matters?

[North by Northwest]

Kenny - but then Stevens holds I don't know how many chips in his sweaty old hands. As I said before, 35 years in the Senate coupled with a school-yard bully attitude... Well, Dubya isn't going to take him on in a rush and Cheney, who could, loves pork...

[North by Northwest]

George - it has to be said though, that within the blogoshpere, the Anti-Miers sentiment enjoyed an overwhelming majority: 70%, with 15% Neutral and only 15% Pro Miers. So, statistically, this ought to be a significant indicator as to what the 'base' thinks outside the blogoshpere.

[George Berryman]

NBNW - it was indeed a case of shouting the loudest. Which is normally a tactic of the left - a vocal minority. Forcing the will of a few onto a majority. Despite, for example, a blog called 'Red State' being against Miers there is no doubt in my mind that most Red Staters weren't against Miers as a nominee.

[George Berryman]

Praise be, my trackback actually got through today. ;)

[North by Northwest]

George,

I guess at this point it comes down to considering what's best for the President and the administration.

The realization how disgrundled certain factions of the right are in fact with the President and their willingness to go for broke in the case of the Miers nomination should not cause the willing to wane in their support for the President, but much rather deal with the 'dissidents' within the blogoshpere.

As my friend Kenny commented:

It's the part of his base that he's [the President] ignored for the past several years that is his problem now. And it looks to me like that neglected part of his base is going to have its revenge. The question is, will Dubya understand why "his own" suddenly turned on him (not really suddenly, of course; it's been building for a long time) and will this rebellion force him to shift his domestic policy to the right on critical domestic issues?

For me, it is actually very frustrating to realize, that I have absolutely no idea as to the 'size' of the 'dissidents', or of the 'base', as Kenny referred to them. Do they matter in terms of voting power? And if so, are they prepared to change their vote? Or have they just managed to shout the loudest during the last few weeks?

[Kenny Pierce]

Antimedia,

I don't follow your comment at all. I must not understand it, because it seems totally backwards to me. I suspect we don't use the phrases "position on the law" and "ideology" in the same way.

From my seat on the sidelines (I kept meaning to write a blog post setting out my position on Miers but never got around to it and probably won't bother now), the whole objection to Miers was precisely that she has shown an all but pathological aversion to taking any public position whatsoever on the law, and thus the President's plea was essentially a plea for conservatives to trust him vis-a-vis her ideology. The President seemed to think that as long as Roe v. Wade got overturned, nothing else would matter; and he seemed mystified that people wouldn't take his word for it that Harriet could be trusted to overthrow Roe v. Wade (though of course she wouldn't say so publicly because then Democrats would have an excuse to vote against her). The more vocal of her conservative critics were complaining precisely that the President expected his nomination to be rubber-stamped even though the nominee's positions on the law were obscure in the extreme. The President's response was essentially, "Look, I know you don't know anything about her, but trust me on this one." Conservatives in general declined. But they did not decline on grounds of ideology, particularly. They declined, most of them, because they don't trust Bush, and because Bush set up and managed this nomination so that it was about him rather than about the nominee. It's not a battle over ideology; it's a battle over executive privilege, and over whether or not it is true that this particular President has over the past five years of domestic and foreign policy really does, in Hewitt's words, "deserve[] much better from his allies." A whole bunch of his allies, after all, feel that over the past five years they've deserved much better from him. Words like "disloyalty" and "treachery" get used in both directions, you know.

This was not about ideology. It was about a President who failed to understand a significant part of his base, who failed to realize the degree to which he had alienated them by various actions inconsistent with their view of conservativism, and who in the end simply tried to push them too far. If he walks away from it saying, "Conservatives want an ideological nominee rather than a qualified one," he will have very seriously failed to learn the lessons that he needs to extract from this debacle.

Let me just reiterate my point: because the President chose a nominee about whom nothing was really known other than that she was loyal to the President and he wanted her on the Supreme Court, he ensured that this nomination would be about him, not about the nominee. The nominee was an enigma; conservatives were supposed to just trust the President. Well, you can't go there unless you know your base actually trusts you.

If you listen to the words being used by the two conservative sides, you hear lots of morally-loaded words. The Illin' Chillin' -- people who are mad at the people who are mad at Bush -- keep complaining bitterly that conservatives were doing Bush wrong. Every so often they'd complain about how this process wasn't fair to Miers, but far more often, and with far more passion, they complained about how badly conservatives were treating Bush. They could sense that the rejection of Miers was really a rejection of Bush, and they were on Bush's side. Meanwhile the conservatives who have spent five years considering that Bush was treating them badly, said, "That's it, we're not taking this anymore." They could sense that Bush expected them to vote for Miers for not much better reason that that he had nominated her, and they decided it was time he was reminded that he is answerable to those whose votes and support gave him the power he now enjoys. It was all about Bush. It was never about Miers. It was always about Bush and his very mixed-bag performance as President and the fault-lines that have opened up in the conservative ranks over the question of priorities.

The nomination was a conservative referendum on Bush's performance as President, and he was given a failing grade. It was not about Miers's qualifications. It was about Bush's performance. If he doesn't get the wake-up call then the Republican Party is in deep trouble for the next election.

Kenny

P.S. I share Stephen's mystification: how the hell does it come to pass that the blogosphere is taking on an obscenely porkish Senate and doing so with absolutely no interest, much less assistance, from the White House? Um, Dubya, conservatives are disaffected and you need to start shoring up the good will. What better target than the Bridge to Nowhere? How in the world does a Republican President pass up a fat opportunity like that, especially when he's in dire need of rebuilding the ranks' confidence in his leadership? As Green says, this ain't rocket science.

[George Berryman]

Alexandra what's unnerving for me to have to bear today is the repeated calls venues like National Review (which from time to time stops dry humping one another in an effort to remind us how we're all unified now and that we all need to come together) or talk radio shows telling me now how we're all unified and energized and ready to back our President. After the last month how can anyone honestly think conservatives are ready to 'back' our President? Unless by 'back' they mean 'backstab.' Rush is on the air this morning stating that liberals are now terrified of a 'unified and energized' conservative movement. That's laughable. Maybe I need some "trust but verify" here with other conservatives on whether or not they're ready to support our President from here on out.

[antimedia]

It's a very sad day in America. The era of nominating justices for their position on the law is over. In the future, ideology, and ideology alone, will determine whether someone is confirmed for the Court, and it will require a supermajority to do so. It's an awful day, and I fear for the future of our country.

[North by Northwest]

Historic stuff. I guess they couldn't have had an indictment (or indictments...) today on top of ongoing Harriet Miers Nomination outrage.

I do however believe, that this is Miers' very own choice. She after all has been his gatekeeper for years and to have been the cause for such controversy must have torn her apart inside. But there is a bill; there will be a price to pay. Foolish are those who are now celebrating, because this kind of pressure and grass-root activism with all its viciousness will turn on their own agenda too, sooner than think. It's yet again another big pointer that we are witnessing the dawn of a truly new era!

Will Miers continue to serve in her role at the White House?

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

Sincere condolances; I know this is not how you wanted this all to end up.