Posted on 10/13/2005 5:03:29 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Did the White House Smear Batchelder? [Jonathan Adler 10/13 03:20 PM] Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alice Batchelder was reportedly on the Administration’s short list for a Supreme Court vacancy at some point. According to FNC’s Brit Hume, she was struck from the list because of a record of “judicial activism.” In response to Bill Kristol’s suggestion that Batchelder would have been a better nominee on Fox News Sunday, Hume said
Those familiar with Batchelder’s record were surprised at the charge. Over at No Left Turns, Robert Alt wonders where Hume got the idea that Batchelder is an “activist.” If the White House was the source of this charge (and other unflattering and even more spurious notions floated about Batchelder in recent weeks), it is very troubling. As Alt observes, smearing qualified candidates for the Court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base.I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that.
When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit’s first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House (unless of course he is simply reporting second hand reports—which would mean that he was engaging in rather loose reporting practices).
Probably for the same reason Kristool is carrying the water for the 2% of Republicans that are against Meirs.
< /moonbat >
"the 2% of Republicans that are against Meirs."
HAHAHA HAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Check the poll numbers here. Quite a bit more than '2%'
2%??????
Brit made it up on his own. Case closed
OK, 17%. But 11% were against Roberts.
" Despite vocal opposition from many Republican activists, most Republicans across the county support the President's selection. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the GOP faithful say the President's nominee should be confirmed. Only 17% disagree.
Republicans supported the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts by a 64% to 11% margin."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Miers%20Confirmation.htm
Within margin of error.
Did the White House Smear Batchelder? NO!
That's not what the word means. "Incredulous" here is a description of the reaction of the viewer, not of Brit's speaking manner. Words that would work include "incredibly", "unbelievably", and quite a few others.
Among the people who worked to get Bush elected and are running the trains now in Washington, the split is about 95%-5% against Miers.
Throughout the country, other Republicans will unknowingly acquiesce, but the ones who follow things are opposed.
I agree.
Do you really feel Britt was carrying the water for the WH?
I more or less have always felt Britt is his own man. He also is an attorney and just maybe he [his staff] would know how to research the records.
I know there are very few on TV who investigate any of what they present on their program.
Just maybe he has the ability, when he wants, to discover facts on his own.
i'm with you. when was the last time Kristol said or did anyhting supportive of either Bush?
It must be nice to make up percentages at will and pretend they support your side of things.
I worked for Bush and I like Meirs. where do you get your stats?
" It must be nice to make up percentages at will and pretend they support your side of things."
I was being facetious. However, due to some complaints, I updated my sates in post #7 using real stats.
I wish I could be, but something keeps nagging at me telling me this is just a bad nomination. I not saying anything personally against Meirs - other than she doesn't have any record and her age weakens the nomination.
Are you aware she's the same age Bork was when he went thru hearings?
Here is the latest from FOX News (a more trusted source than yours as well).
10/13/05 FOX News Poll: Miers Receives Mixed Reviews
"A 37 percent plurality of Americans say they would vote to confirm Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), 32 percent say they would vote against her and 31 percent are unsure. For comparison, in polling conducted the week after Roberts' nomination, 51 percent said they would vote for him and 19 percent against (30 percent unsure)."
So, I guess the majority here on FR who either support Miers or are willing to give her a chance are dumb hicks who don't "follow things"?
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=120;results=1
I also agree. The screamimg is getting old fast.
Due to the increasing membership in the "jump at anything anybody says on FR" club, you can't joke about anything. Some can't discuss facts rationally, so they spit about stupid things. Most of the readers got your point.
"Actually, all you did to correct your error was to cherry pick a poll that you agreed with."
I really didn't cherry pick anything. I have used the phrase cherry pick and I have always wondered about the origins. Anyway, I just pulled the relevant section from the Rasmussen page I went to. If you have another poll that says I should not like her, that's ok too, I'm flexible.
"Among Republicans, 57 percent say they would vote for Miers, down 17 percentage points from the 74 percent that said they would vote for Roberts (July 26-27). Support for Miers among Democrats is 12 points less than it was for Roberts."
Hmmm. 100% - 57% = ?
2% was the figure quoted as not supporting her?
Sure.
Not to worry. Miers will probably be out of this by the end of the week, and then we can have a real nominee.
FOX is one of the few polls I accept as unbiased. Along with Rass, Mason Dixon and Battleground. Those numbers aren't good.
Just out of curiosity. For all those people, and I include the administration, that think people can be shamed, guilted, put in place by intimidation or namecalling...
What are you going to do in '06 and '08? If the people opposing these tactics are resistant now, what makes you think the same tactics will work during the election year? The elections are close in most states. Turnout is key, especially in a midterm. Think all these people attacked are going to forget and show up to vote in spite of it?
Maybe they will, because they love their country more than they are motivated by hurt feelings. But that is the gamble you are taking in these crude attacks. Is it worth it?
I'am speechless.
ELITISM!!!! Ivy League-educated Bush doesn't like Batchelder because she went to the University of Akron Law School!!!
Where did you come to that conclusion?
I'm addressing those following the W.H. lead that believe calling their supporters' names, intimidating Conservative Republicans on the Hill, and ramming a nominee down everyone's throats only the President is happy about is the key to motivate turnout in '06 and '08.
I cannot fathom what the White House is thinking. They seem to be very angry, and are very, very defensive about the whole sordid Miers affair.
There is a real danger that the attack approach they have launched against their own base will be devastating to the party. If they wise up and withdraw Miers' name quickly (and I mean within a few days, not weeks) then things will be patched up.
If they continue with the my way or the highway on Miers, it will hurt the GOP badly. How badly I cannot guess.
Kristol's 15 minutes of relevance (not fame) are long gone.
S'okay.
I've been subject to the same. Apparently I'm evil and a Traitor for objecting to this nomination--and I haven't even joined the chorus demanding her withdrawal--Yet. Not that I'd mourn that event. And forbid I have a problem with the namecalling from the W.H.
IMO, if they continue this road the only thing that MIGHT save them is enough people giving a damn about our troops not to make Reid Majority leader. But if the Reps keep sponsoring protections for terrorists, that might not even save them.
I haven't a clue what's happened to the W.H. I'm actually shocked at the immaturity. I do not think they are thinking at all clearly, and pray they wise up soon before it's too late.
At this point at very LEAST apologies are in order for calling their own people that re-elected them with sweat, tears and drains on financial budgets sexist and elitist.
The one phrase that keeps running through my mind, though, is "Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child".
We've had verbal spats with the W.H. before, immigration was a beauty, but this is the first real spanking they've ever had. They are shocked, red faced, humiliated, defensive, angry, etc...
They need to get over it.
I think it's being used to describe Brit's reaction.
I didn't see the show, but from the description ('Kristol questioned ... smear tactic'), I would assume that Kristol made some comment or accusation to that effect, and Hume was incredulous (disbelieving, expression of disbelief) that BK would infer he was involved in a smear campaign.
IMHO, of course.
In all candor, he did admit to being facetious in using that number (2%; see post 16).
IOW, we're stupid, and the Beltway elitists are smart.
Got it.
"Sordid"? Aren't you being a bit of a drama queen?
Bush is NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW MIERS. You had best start dealing with that. I wouldn't want you to slit your throat, or anything.
90% of the people on this site are smart. I don't think they're all "beltway elitists."
It's striking that someone of your intelligence can defend a nominee so bereft of qualifications. You're really drinking the kool-aid this time, Sink.
I'm defending her right to a hearing. If she tanks, I'll join you in calling for her defeat.
But this pre-emptive jihad some of you have declared on Bush and Miers ought to be embarrassing to you.
You scream when Democrats won't give our nominees an up-or-down vote, yet you want to deny Harriett Miers that very thing.
I said this here the day after Bush announced Miers and I've said it many times since.
I've now heard it many times when CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and Fox have these people on to slam the Miers nomination.
It's been said using code words but I've picked it up pretty well.
The nomination is an embarrassment to Bush and to anyone who wishes he would succeed.
From Another Thread: Freeper Burr5 reported on an article by David Brooks:
"You know I was one of Bush and Miers' staunchest defenders until this morning. Ann Coulter's column was a big blow. Peggy Noonan's was even bigger. But when I heard what David Brooks had written about this nomination, that was the last straw. I'd provide a link, but the NYTimes is registration-only, and people have to do that for themselves.
"Essentially, Brooks quoted excerpt after excerpt of Miers' own writings from her days with the Texas Bar Association.
They are the barely coherent ramblings of a singularly unimpressive mind- cliche-filled, garbled, ungrammatical, and devoid of any facts to buttress her assertions. It's like listening to your boss at a meeting prattling on about synergy, thinking outside-the-box, and win-win situations.
"I was wrong. Maybe she would vote to over-turn Roe. Maybe she would do what Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts suggest she do. I thought that would be good enough. It is not. I don't support this nomination anymore because the woman simply DOES NOT DESERVE this job. Not with legal geniuses like Janice Rogers Brown out there.
"Peggy Noonan. Ann Coulter. Glenn Beck. Laura Ingraham. Rush Limbaugh. David Frum. David Brooks. Robert Bork. Pat Buchanan. Mona Charen.
"I wanted all those people to be wrong. I thought it fair to get to know Harriet Miers before opposing her. I know enough now."
Says 17% of the GOP. 54% think she's just fine.
Me, I'll wait until the hearings.
And Burr 5, I don't know who the hell he is.
Give her a hearing. This trashing of Miers before her opportunity to answer the only people that matter, the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate, makes those who are engaged in it look like a bunch of unreasonable bastards.
All the people you quoted want the fight because it's their reason for being.
They have radio shows and books to sell and they are getting alot of air time right now and they all have their book cover (except Rush) right there on the screen when they talk.
Listen to the hearings on her and see what she says on the issues important to you then make up your own mind !
Good Grief! What is wrong with the President putting this lady up for the nomination? Is she a monster, or something? All this carrying on! It's as if she's committed a crime, the way some of you are talking about her! What's the problem? I don't know that much about her myself, but why not let the lady get her "day in court"?
Come on, lets let the senators decide whether she is qualified or not! If they don't like her answers, they won't vote to confirm her, ok? I've never seen such a firing squad aimed at any of his other nominees! What's the Pres. supposed to do? Hang his head in shame, and say: "Oh, I was only joking, I'll remove her nomination right away, don't shoot me!"? Ok, I'm being overly dramatic. However, I'm still mystified by this continued bad attitude against this woman.
What are people afraid of? She apparently helped to vet the other nominees, and the others were quite conservative, weren't they? Look what they were subjected to! Don't you all (those that are against her)see what happened to all of the others? It took them at least 4-5 years for them to get confirmed. All kinds of trash was thrown out on them! Don't you see that if it was known she is a dyed-in-the-wool, strict 'originalist', strong conservative as you wish, what would happen to her? Just consider!
Ah yes. Who is being overly dramatic now sink?
It is sordid. She was not the most qualified, and Bush nominated a friend, not a jurist. Moreover, we are being asked to allow the future of our nation's moral base into the hands of a former Democrat who has demonstrably showed ten times the loyalty to a single man (Bush) than to Conservative ideology.
You may be right with your shouting: "NOT GOING TO WITHDRAW MIERS"
That is his and our misfortune. His "my way to the highway" approach has already caused horrific damage to the party. Is that too overly dramatic for you to accept?
Moreover, I blame the White House for this entire fiasco (and it is a fiasco). It didn't have to be this way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.