Unwise Counsel - Why was the White House so unprepared for the Miers flak?

OpinionJournal.com (WSJ) ^ | October 23, 2005 | Glenn Harlan Reynolds

[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.

[PositiveCogins]

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?

[PositiveCogins]

über Bush? You really don't want me to twist that one. I could start a whole thread on it.

[Siena Dreaming]

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.

[PositiveCogins]

Ok mom, going to bed now.

[PositiveCogins]

Ok mom, going to bed now.

[garylmoore]

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.

[WildTurkey]

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.

[PositiveCogins]

"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.

[trubluolyguy]

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.

[trubluolyguy]

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?

[msnimje]

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).

[LibertarianInExile]

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

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

[monkapotamus]

It's possible.

Chance The Gardener

[goldstategop]

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.")

[trubluolyguy]

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?

[Jaysun]

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.

[Hank Rearden]

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."

[liliesgrandpa]

"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?

[BIRDS]

Yeah, it certainly did damage.

[BIRDS]

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.