FRUM: WHAT THE INSIDERS ARE SAYING [Andy Card wanted Miers fired?]

More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers.

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

Few of the people I talk to can talk on the public record, although Judge Robert Bork has courageously done so and as time passes others may decide that they have to accept the risks of stepping forward and telling what they know. In the meantime, ask yourself this: Think of all the conservative jurists you know and respect. Have any of them had anything positive to say about this nomination? I can think of only one, Ken Starr, when he was interviewed last week on Fox's Hannity and Colmes.

And even Starr confined himself to vague generalities about Miers' "track record." I've reprinted the transcript below. Notice what Starr does not say. He never says Miers possesses a deep knowledge of the law, he can muster no praise for her intellect or abilities as a lawyer, he does not say she'll be a credit the court. He doesn't even say that this is a good nomination beyond a jovial: "She's terrific." In fact, the only specific praise he offers is praise for Miers' formal statement to the press accepting her nomination - a statement that, as Starr would know, was written for her by others on the White House staff.

Starr in other words sounds to me like somebody who has been deputized to go on television and find something good to say - and who is searching for a way to be kind without saying anything affirmatively untrue. So, as Ann Coulter mockingly puts it, he emphasizes "how nice, tidy, helpful, and prompt" Miers is.

As tepid as Starr's endorsement was, it is just about the only endorsement Miers has received from any conservative with an established reputation in the law. James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Richard Lane of the Southern Baptist Convention have all endorsed Miers heartily. Good men all. But suppose you needed a lawyer to go to City Hall to fight a parking ticket. Would you look to Dobson, Colson, or Lamb for advice on who to hire? I very much doubt it. You'd ask somebody with knowledge of and experience of the law - right? Choosing a Supreme Court justice is a lot more important than fighting a parking ticket. And yet in this matter, almost all the people whose advice you'd want - the people who told you that John Roberts was an outstanding choice - have gone rather curiously quiet, haven't they?

COLMES: Welcome back to a special edition of "Hannity & Colmes." ... Joining us now, the dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, Ken Starr. Judge Starr, good to see you. Thanks for being here.

JUDGE KENNETH STARR, DEAN, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Good to see you, Alan. My pleasure.

COLMES: Do you believe the president when he says she is the most qualified person he could find for the job?

STARR: Oh, I think she's terrific. First of all, Alan, I've known Harriet Miers for over 15 years. And so forth. And she was the head of 400 person law firm committee on which I was privileged to serve many years ago.

She is enormously talented, and I must say I'm a little bit surprised at some of what I read because those who have dealt with Harriet Miers, at the local level, at the state level, she was elected to local office.

And I think they're also not taking account that, for example, William Hubbs Rehnquist, now, of course renowned, and he was, of course, of course, an outstanding chief justice of the United States, went directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from an assistant attorney general position at the Justice Department.

Do you have any doubts whatsoever that she's an originalist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? You know her. I don't know her.

STARR: Yes. I don't, and I'll tell you, Sean, I was very comforted by what she said yesterday when one of the first things that she said. Obviously, she's honored, as any lawyer would be.

But one of the things that she invoked was a founding vision of the role of the judiciary. And one of the great and burning issues is who decides these tremendous issues such as the Supreme Court had before today, an end of life kind of issue.

I think she means what she says when she says, "I respect the founding vision of a limited judiciary.

HANNITY: The president believes that -- because remember, the president ran two elections saying that he would appoint people in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. And I believe the president believes she fits that bill or he wouldn't have done it. I believe he's a man of honor and integrity. I don't question that in any way, shape, manner or form.

I guess what I'm hearing from a lot of conservatives, Judge Starr, is that they feel they've been burned, that there are important questions here. Too much is at stake right now. Seven of the nine justices prior to John Roberts were appointed by Republicans, and many of them were disappointments. And you know, there's no track record here and they are very, very concerned.

STARR: But there is a track record of, I think, extraordinary service in the practice of law and in doing things in a way that did...

STARR: I think we know that by virtue of the fact that she has been very clear, certainly in her opening statement, or I should say, when she was first asked what does this mean to you?

And when she invokes 1787 and 1789, I think that shows us the right kind of instinct.

Now has she been a judge? No. But there are many justices of the Supreme Court who have not been judges. And I think we've gotten a little bit overly accustomed, frankly, to say that unless you bring your robe to the confirmation hearing, somehow there's a question about it.

But I think we also need to bear in mind she has been the counsel to the president of the United States and served in other very high White House positions.

For the President to nominate a known conservative with a paper trail a mile long, would be to solicit a fight. It would not be a win - just a fight.

So, instead of picking a fight with someone who already hates his guts --likely including the spineless 14 crap weasels you mentioned, he picks a fight with the people that put him into office? Huh?

And, to some degree, I do want a fight. We haven't yet had a fight with the liberals. The Bush team is like a punching bag of the left, absorbing every shocking and outrageous thing they say all in the name of a "new tone". And, yeah, they are never going to get a break from the panty-wastes in the media, but "traditional" is on thw wane. The Bush team needs to realize that the so-called "opinion makers" are still there, but they have less and less influence over messages than before.

The Bush team should have been pouring on the pressure from the day they took office. And, if you think "Well, 2000 was a tough election, blah, blah, blah". Fine. But, after the sweeping wins in 2002 and again in 2004, Bush should have his heels squarely on the liberal's throats AND it should be public. In fact, after all of the crap that was said and done in the first team to try to "play nice", 2004 was the perfect opportunity to have told the libs "enough is enough" and to have taken his messages directly to the American people and given the libs political uppercuts and armbars until these pukes tap out.

Maybe this wouldn't be such an issue for me if the President and his team would have vetoed some of the outrageous spending.
Maybe this wouldn't be such an issue for me if the President was actually interested in doing something about our out of control illegal immigration issue. Instead, he has encouraged the illegals with potential promise of (some form or another) amnesty.
Maybe this wouldn't be such an issue for if the President would actually have fought his pol

I'll admit that there is a lot of issue that seem to have popped when this announcement was made. But, what does that tell you?

I'm not making up the illegal immigration problem. I'm not making up the out of control spending. I'm not making up that the President's team seems inept (or unwilling) to rebut the insane comments from leftist Senators and Representatives. I don't really care that the President doesn't mix it up with the ACLU; that's fine. I understand why he doesn't comment on that. However, when a United States Senator agrees with the sentiment that the President is a terrorist, then those mother effers should be publicly called to task.

W should be opening up the proverbial can of political whoop a$$ on them, even if for no other reason that to let them know that policy issues are 1 thing, but that kind of cheap personal crap won't cut. And, he doesn't have be emotional about it, he just needs to call them out.

So, you're damn right I want a fight. I'm sick and tired of watching my country being p*ssed away by leftists ideologues and the team that I spent my time, my money, and, most critically, my vote on not doing anything about it.

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.