White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Captain's Quarters Blog)

Captain's Quarters Blog ^ | 10-11-2005 | Captain's Quarters Blog

[Stellar Dendrite]

White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire

It's either feast or famine at the White House with the Harriet Miers nomination. Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. The latest comes from the normally classy First Lady, who again promoted Ed Gillespie's barnburner accusation of sexism among the ranks of conservatives:

Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a "role model for young women around the country" and suggested that sexism was a "possible" reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination.

"I know Harriet well," the first lady said. "I know how accomplished she is. I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling. . . . She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, certainly the Supreme Court." ...

Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, "It's possible. I think that's possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments."

Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.

Instead, we get attacked for our supposed "sexism", which does more to marginalize conservatives than anything the Democrats have done over the past twenty years -- and it's so demonstrably false that one wonders if the President has decided to torch his party out of a fit of pique. After all, it wasn't our decision to treat the O'Connor seat as a quota fulfillment; that seems to have originated with the First Lady herself, a form of sexism all its own.

Besides, conservatives stood ready to enthusiastically support a number of women for this nomination:

* Janice Rogers Brown has a long run of state Supreme Court experience, got re-elected to her position with 78% of the vote in California, and has written brilliantly and often on constitutional issues. She is tough, erudite, and more than a match for the fools on the Judiciary Committee, and would also have made minced meat out of any arguments about a "privileged upbringing", one of the snide commentaries about John Roberts in the last round.

* Edith Hollan Jones has served on the federal bench for years, compiling a record of constructionist opinions. She is younger and more experienced than Miers, and has been on conservative short lists for years.

* Priscilla Owen has a record similar to Brown's on the Texas bench and has demonstrated patience and judicial temperament that would easily impress the American people to the detriment of the opposition on the Judiciary Committee.

* Want a woman who litigates rather than one from the bench? One could do worse than Maureen Mahoney, who has argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court, clerked for Rehnquist who also later named her as Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, has been recognized as one of the top 50 female litigators by National Law Journal, and even worked on the transition team in 2000-1 for George Bush.

How does endorsing that slate of candidates equate to sexism in opposition to the unremarkable Miers? It doesn't, but as with those practiced in the victimization smear, the facts really don't matter at all. This kind of argument we expect from the Barbara Boxers and the Ted Kennedys, not from a Republican White House.

It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notices this, too.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[dead]

What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!

[Black Tooth]

Bookmark

[trubluolyguy]

Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.

---

BINGO! Don't ask me why I don't support her. Tell me why I should.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[Stellar Dendrite]

p
i
n
g

[EagleUSA]

It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.
-----
A-M-E-N.

[jwalsh07]

More of the same garbage. She answers a question posed to her that is is possible that soem do oppose her because of she is a woman. Of course it is possible, it is even likely and it has nothing to do with anything.

But don't let me stop you from feeling aggrieved.

[Stellar Dendrite]

From bench.nationalreview.com:

Criticisms
[Mark R. Levin 10/11 12:52 PM]

Let's be clear about something re the Miers appointment and the arguments of some of her advocates: it's not sexist to oppose quotas in the judicial selection process, it's not elitist to demand excellence from nominees to the Supreme Court, it's not a virtue to promise voters justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and then fail to deliver, and it's not disloyal to the president to raise legitimate questions about a nominee's untraceable judicial philosophy.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[gridlock]

What a jerk I turned out to be for not loving the Miers nomination!

Oh, you Male Chauvanist Pig, you!

[A CA Guy]

Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent.

In my opinion, this should come with an idiot alert. Will the press and Democrats take what the President says FOR this nominee or against her?

He made the statements regarding her judicial philosophy and about how he knows her and for conservatives, that should be enough.

Bush in his brilliance IMO also put someone out there that wouldn't get a 100 million dollars in donations to use against Republicans in two election cycles coming up.
IMO Bush out thought most even here and nominated a person we need, not the one we wanted, but the choice gave Democrats far less ability to raise fund raising dollars against Republicans as I see it.

Seems IMO that Bush was brilliant.

PS, this would NOT be breaking news, but should be under bloggers, right?

[skip_intro]

Sexism, huh?

Isn't that the same thing Cokie Roberts and Barbara Mikulski said?

Remind me again. Which party controls the White House?

[TheForceOfOne]

However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them
Oh horsesh%^t, I can't wait for the hearings to get this over with.

[Southack]

"Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. ... If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House."

While that's a fair point to make, we hardly live in a world that demands to be served by news from one source (e.g. the White House).

CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings.

If you are happy with her selections for the federal bench, then perhaps you should show some minute respect for the person who wanted them there.

[alnick]

Levin knows better than that. That's not what SOME -- I wonder if you people understand the word "some" -- people are doing.

Referring to Ms. Miers as a cleaning lady, for example. It's possible that could be sexist.

Attacking her because she's a "dried up old maid." Perhaps that's sexist.

Saying she's not qualified to be on the Supreme Court because she has a long-term friendship with a member of the opposite sex and is therefore sexually promiscuous (this one wins the prize for the stupidest objection) could also qualify as sexist.

Those things HAVE happened.

[Stellar Dendrite]

" Oh horsesh%^t, I can't wait for the hearings to get this over with."

how many times has it been pointed out that the hearings wont tell us anything? that doesnt stop you people from say "wait till the hearings"...give me a break. she will likely invoke the ginsburg rule on matters that will come before the court--even if she DID answer the questions-- this does NOT mean that she would NOT drift leftward within 5-10 years.

from her previous support for affirmative action, creating a "women's studies" (read: feminist) lecture series-- one cannot hold much hope in "trust me"

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The Bush family keeps slipping in their own BS.

First, George Bush pulls the most outrageous stunt in decades of Republican't politics by naming an unqualified crony to--of all places--the Supreme Court! (even after he promised a Scalia or Thomas).

Then, Laura Bush tries to pull a Jesse Jackass by screaming "sexism".

Outrage after blunder after playing the "sexism card". Where will it stop? Why have the Bush's shifted the gear into reverse and floored the accelerator?

[mc6809e]

Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm.

These are the qualities of a good chief executive,

but not a judge.