Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unwise Counsel - Why was the White House so unprepared for the Miers flak?
OpinionJournal.com (WSJ) ^ | October 23, 2005 | Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Posted on 10/22/2005 10:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa

BY GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Bush administration has made two kinds of mistakes with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. One kind is substantive, the other procedural.

The substantive mistakes have to do with Ms. Miers's qualifications, including her current position. It's entirely possible, of course, that if confirmed, Ms. Miers will become a stellar Supreme Court justice; history has produced surprises before. Earl Warren, after all, was a politician, and expected to be easily manipulated by the court's brighter intellects. William J. Brennan Jr. was a state judge of no special reputation when Eisenhower nominated him, yet he so came to dominate the court that some observers referred to the early Rehnquist court as the "Brennan court." Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove a similar surprise, though conservatives may not find the examples of Warren and Brennan entirely comforting.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: counsel; instapundit; miers; reynolds; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

1 posted on 10/22/2005 10:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gpapa

Why were they unprepared? Because they expected the base to shut up and take it. Pucker up and kiss that GOP behind yet again. Too many of us rank and file had enough.


2 posted on 10/22/2005 10:12:12 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
"Why was the White House so unprepared for the Miers flak?"

Because Gober Bush was too occupied covering Clinton's but (Able Danger whitewash) and selling the American people out.
3 posted on 10/22/2005 10:23:14 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Goober says "heah"


4 posted on 10/22/2005 10:27:06 PM PDT by calrighty (Taglines for sale or let......1 liners 50 cents! C'mon troops, finish em off!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Gober Bush?


5 posted on 10/22/2005 10:27:21 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

The willing illegal worker/willing employer crap the other day finished it for me


6 posted on 10/22/2005 10:28:00 PM PDT by calrighty (Taglines for sale or let......1 liners 50 cents! C'mon troops, finish em off!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Guber?


7 posted on 10/22/2005 10:29:08 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

Bush, Rove, and Card have apparently been WAY over-rated with regard to their allegedly sharp political instincts and savvy. This whole Miers mess has been like a cold glass of water in the face. For the first time, I am actually scared that Rove and Company are susceptible to getting outsmarted by the scumbag Democrats somewhere along the line. I never felt this way before.


8 posted on 10/22/2005 10:31:04 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calrighty

> The willing illegal worker/willing employer crap the other day finished it for me

Oh but he SAYS he's gonna GET TOUGH on illegals. Grr. Ruff. Ooo, git back.

Aaaaany day now.

**sigh**


9 posted on 10/22/2005 10:33:39 PM PDT by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: Lancey Howard

> For the first time, I am actually scared that Rove and Company are susceptible to getting outsmarted by the scumbag Democrats somewhere along the line.

Not outsmarted. Rove etc. are dropping the ball, and the Dimocrats are sometimes barely finding the sense to pick it up. We're just lucky as heck they're dumber than a bag of hammers.

Anyow, isn't this Andy Card's mess, not Rove's?


11 posted on 10/22/2005 10:37:31 PM PDT by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Gober , Guber, Goober, Gouber,.. Whetever.
He looks like a Gober. As in " get out of the way you old gober, you're taking up two lanes and your driving ten miles an hour under the speed limit", or "Ol gober is wearing his wife's dentures again".
12 posted on 10/22/2005 10:42:25 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Look in the mirror and you'll see the real Gober Goober.


13 posted on 10/22/2005 10:46:29 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins
Because Gober Bush was too occupied covering Clinton's but (Able Danger whitewash) and selling the American people out.

I'm starting to feel the same way! Somebody in the WH better do something fast!

14 posted on 10/22/2005 10:47:20 PM PDT by Randy Larsen (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

Guber?



Gubertor of Texas?


15 posted on 10/22/2005 10:48:19 PM PDT by msnimje (The "Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations" makes its way to Supreme Court nominations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Bush, Rove, and Card have apparently been WAY over-rated with regard to their allegedly sharp political instincts and savvy

Well you've got to give them credit for winning in 2000. On the other hand Bush should of crushed the charisma challenged uber liberal Kerry. If it wasn't for the Swifties I'm not sure Bush would have won.

16 posted on 10/22/2005 10:54:37 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Gubernator


17 posted on 10/22/2005 10:54:42 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
"Look in the mirror and you'll see the real Gober Goober."

Ooooo, low blow, shame, put me down. Got any more?
Sounds like third grade to me. Do you remember any thing from the 6th, 7th, or the 8th grade, if you got that far.
18 posted on 10/22/2005 10:57:16 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins

Funny...I was thinking you were the one in third grade for calling Bush Gober or whatever variant you were actually trying to use.


19 posted on 10/22/2005 10:59:30 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins
über (-bûr) Really; very; above everything else. Origins: from German über alles above everything else:)
20 posted on 10/22/2005 11:05:37 PM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
See, I knew I could drive your intellect frothing to the top. Your attempts to insult me are getting better but you still need a little more work so go ahead I can take it. Who knows, some day you may be able to really piss someone off.

My use of Gober Bush is no different than Rush's use of Squirt Clinton. Now honestly, what do you think Rush would see if he looked in the mirror?
21 posted on 10/22/2005 11:17:08 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
über Bush? You really don't want me to twist that one. I could start a whole thread on it.
22 posted on 10/22/2005 11:21:54 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins
Now honestly, what do you think Rush would see if he looked in the mirror?

What in the world are you talking about? I think you better git to bed.

23 posted on 10/22/2005 11:25:13 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

Ok mom, going to bed now.


24 posted on 10/22/2005 11:27:52 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

Ok mom, going to bed now.


25 posted on 10/22/2005 11:28:21 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

I wonder why everybody is so quick to jump ship? I think that she will go on to be our next Supreme Court Justice and only history will tell if she was a good one, which I think that if she is appointed, she will be a good one. Does everybody remember who's in charge here? It will ultimately be HIS choice.


26 posted on 10/22/2005 11:34:34 PM PDT by garylmoore (Homosexuality: Obviously unnatural, so obviously wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
I wonder why everybody is so quick to jump ship?

They are whiners because G didn't consult with them and let them pick the nominee.

I remember when Bush appointed Ashcroft, the rats were jumping ship here then talking about how Ashcroft was a wimp with no spine and didn't deserve anything more that dogcatcher.

27 posted on 10/22/2005 11:41:03 PM PDT by WildTurkey (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
"and only history will tell if she was a good one,"

Thats just the point. No one knows. And Gober is asking us to trust him on it. Even after selling us out on several issues. Even when he has the clout to nominate an "in your face" conservative to the court. A real and well known Conservative, not a may be. I'm tired of his wimping around
with these liberal ankle biters. He needs to grow some nads and do what needs to be done in this country NOW.
28 posted on 10/22/2005 11:52:17 PM PDT by PositiveCogins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

Does everybody remember who's in charge here? It will ultimately be HIS choice.



He did make the choice. Given how the meetings last week went with individual Senators, I am looking forward to the hearings. The entertainment value alone shuold be well worth it.


29 posted on 10/23/2005 12:44:34 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

They are whiners because G didn't consult with them and let them pick the nominee.



We're confused at the lack of qualitative experience of the nominee. We're peeved at the cronyism. We;re down right pissed off that we cannot question these things without being trashed by those that ought to know better.

What's next, the White House gardiner for Secy. of Agriculture?


30 posted on 10/23/2005 12:47:26 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore
I wonder why everybody is so quick to jump ship?

Conservative Republicans want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court and we thought we heard President Bush promise us that during his campaigns.

Being a strict Constructionist requires an enormous amount of experience in Constitutional Law and a very nimble mental acuity.

Miss Miers does not have the proper toolbox to be a strict Constructionist. You do not need hearings to learn that (in fact, it will not be learned in the hearings).
31 posted on 10/23/2005 12:59:57 AM PDT by msnimje (The "Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations" makes its way to Supreme Court nominations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

"What's next, the White House gardiner for Secy. of Agriculture?"

Nope, his proctologist will be up for Secretary of the Interior. 8)


32 posted on 10/23/2005 1:06:24 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (The GOP's failure in the Senate is no excuse for betraying the conservative base that gave it to `em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
It's possible.


Chance The Gardener

33 posted on 10/23/2005 1:17:11 AM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
The President is loyal to his friends. And that's admirable but in the case of Harriet Miers, it also placed him too close to the problem. What I mean here is that it blinded him to any shortcomings she might have had. So he wasn't really in a position to assess her qualifications objectively. And it all came out in a way that was a disservice to the President, to Miers, to the process and to her prospects of confirmation by the Senate. The right thing to do now is for Miers to withdraw gracefully, for people involved in the fiasco to resign and to start over. Its time for the President to seek advice from conservatives as well as Democratic senators. After all the first rule of politics is never leave your base unhappy. Chances are there'll be a better replacement for Miers down the road.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

34 posted on 10/23/2005 1:19:58 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

Nope, his proctologist will be up for Secretary of the Interior. 8)



How about the Chief of the Crawford Police to take over for Rummy?


35 posted on 10/23/2005 1:35:43 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (REPUBLICAN'S! "Who the hell else are you going to vote for?" (2006 Party Motto))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Conservative Republicans want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court and we thought we heard President Bush promise us that during his campaigns.

Being a strict Constructionist requires an enormous amount of experience in Constitutional Law and a very nimble mental acuity.

Miss Miers does not have the proper toolbox to be a strict Constructionist. You do not need hearings to learn that (in fact, it will not be learned in the hearings).

Well said. Learning of her nomination was akin to learning that you have a clump of tumors.
36 posted on 10/23/2005 2:18:54 AM PDT by Jaysun (Democrats: We must become more effective at fooling people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: PositiveCogins
I'm tired of his wimping around with these liberal ankle biters. He needs to grow some nads and do what needs to be done in this country NOW.

Now, you know the Republican Party and BushCo simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority they so desperately struggle to achieve.

Until that day comes, just shut up, pay up and vote Republican ("The Other Big Stupid Government Party").

And you're gonna love their '08 campaign theme: "We promise we won't piss away another eight years! Really. Trust us."

37 posted on 10/23/2005 2:29:45 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
"Now, you know the Republican Party and BushCo simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority they so desperately struggle to achieve."

Love it! That says it all.

Is it all right to use that as my tag line?
38 posted on 10/23/2005 2:55:41 AM PDT by liliesgrandpa (The Republican Party simply can't do anything without that critical 100-seat Senate majority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calrighty

Yeah, it certainly did damage.


39 posted on 10/23/2005 3:12:08 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal

I wonder today if but what Bush "getting tough on illegals" just may mean by getting tough on the context of illegality. Make them all legal, no more illegal aliens.

Not something I'd ever promote, mind you. But it might be Bush's plan, given the recent outing of the Crawford Summit "agreement" with Mexico and Canada.

THE DAMAGE done is that trust in Bush has been reduced mightily among Republicans. Unless, of course, many here are posers from DU or otherwise pretend-Republicans.


40 posted on 10/23/2005 3:15:06 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
"Conservative Republicans want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court and we thought we heard President Bush promise us that during his campaigns."

Yup--just like we heard his daddy promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", and "Souter is a conservative".

41 posted on 10/23/2005 3:17:34 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Thankfully, I missed that history in FR (outrage over Ashcroft).

And here I thought the latest here on FR was unusual, due to 2005 registration.

I HAVE found it shocking, the degree of denigration of Bush about Miers. Itend to think a lot of it is liberals in disguise, and that includes some among the so-called conservative media.


42 posted on 10/23/2005 3:19:40 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
As Mr. Bush faces calls to withdraw the Miers nomination, he should think seriously about whether to accept them--along, perhaps, with the resignations of those responsible for this mess.



Things To Do

    Withdraw Miers nomination
    Nominate Janice Rogers Brown
    Fire Andy Card






43 posted on 10/23/2005 3:29:33 AM PDT by counterpunch (SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIRDS
Some of the denigrators never were Bush supporters. A few of the names I recognize as having been Buchananites or other third party types.

A certain segment of conservatives have a visceral dislike of the President. Nothing he does or doesn't do will change that. You can see it in the comments they make; it isn't that they are just critical of the nomination, but that they use it to hang every grudge they carry against him around his neck.

I'm not surprised at those here on FR who are acting in such a way. The columnists, who are supposedly smarter politically, are the ones I don't get. I am led to the conclusion that some people care more about winning this "fight" than in the long-term damage their public rants do.

However, only another 10 days or so until the hearings. I'm hoping Ms. Miers will either prove to be way better than the critics, or makes an early error and withdraws.

Of course, then we will have the problem of a different nominee. I wonder if ANYONE would be foolish enough to leave a confirmed judgeship for life and put themselves in front of this bunch. All the detractors now might be surprised at who a different nominee would be.

44 posted on 10/23/2005 3:32:06 AM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Nah.................... everything will be great. And on the Miller/Plame front, Fitzgerald is going to indict Wilson, Cooper, Grunwald, and Hillary. Light at the end of the tunnel.

;-)

45 posted on 10/23/2005 3:36:07 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd; Lancey Howard
If it wasn't for the Swifties I'm not sure Bush would have won.

That is a fact. And if it weren't for FR I don't think the Swifties would have had half of their exposure and effect! In other words, I think FR basically was greatly influential in putting Georgie boy into office.

46 posted on 10/23/2005 3:39:07 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
"What's next, the White House gardiner for Secy. of Agriculture?"

'Chance the Gardener' would do for me.

;-)

***

"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."

47 posted on 10/23/2005 3:43:34 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus
Just saw this. LOL!
48 posted on 10/23/2005 3:44:38 AM PDT by beyond the sea (Gloria Borger is Andrea Mitchell on Peyote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

LOL. Cue the Deodato tune!


49 posted on 10/23/2005 3:46:45 AM PDT by Prince Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Earl Warren, after all, was a politician, and expected to be easily manipulated by the court's brighter intellects. William J. Brennan Jr. was a state judge of no special reputation when Eisenhower nominated him, yet he so came to dominate the court that some observers referred to the early Rehnquist court as the "Brennan court."

Neither justice was any surprise to Ike. Leaving office, he was asked if he'd made any mistakes as president. He said, "Two. They're sitting on the Supreme Court."
50 posted on 10/23/2005 5:13:43 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson