White House Fights Anti-Miers Bloggers

White House is trying to quell the revolt of the blogs

Not a good move.

Well, the White House hasn't quelled dissent here.

That is a wonderful graphic.

There's an easy way to quell the revolt. Withdraw the nomination.

I think this is a better strategy than going on the Today Show and attacking the conservative base...lol!

They are reaching out to a group they should have reached out to before the nomination. Better late than never.

Before the nomination, the administration tried to vet the candidate with the major conservative blocks:

Social Conservatives - James Dobson
Legal Activists - Jay Sekula
Constitutional Scholars - Leo Leonard (Federalist Society)

Having gotten representatives of all groups on board, and having the support of major senators on both sides of the aisle, as well as those in the administration that knew her well, they simply didn't anticipate that the group that was "outside" the direct information stream would jump all over the candidate before getting the facts.

Then they reacted horribly to the attacks.

Crack the whip! Herd those cats! Order the snakes to lay in straight lines!
Good luck!

Mr. Mehlman assured the bloggers-who were contacted by telephone-that Republicans had been disappointed by Superme Court nominees who turned liberal on the bench, that would not happen with Ms. Miers.

Sigh. They just refuse to get it.

Think of the kittens!

ROTF!

Mr Mehlman said Ms Miers might have to recuse herself from cases in which she was directly involved, but "because the WOT will continue for quite some time, there will be many opportunities in the long term for her to make an impact on those issues", according to the conservative blog, PoliPundit.

Miers is DOA.

Hope you have body guards. LOL

This whole recusal issue is at the top of my discontent with this nomination. It's very worrisome.

This is the point I've been making for days, that Miers is going to have to recuse herself from crucial decisions, which the "Bush did it---I trust him---That settles it!" crowd here has brushed off.

For the record, the bush administration is willing to fight:

1. Conservative Bloggers
2. Conservative writers and talk show hosts
3. Conservative members of the senate and house
4. The conservative base who helped get bush elected twice

However, they are unwilling to fight:

1. The democrats in the senate
2. The RINOs in the senate - hell, they campaign for them over conservative primary challengers.

Talk about strategery!

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php

Who's Cracking Up?

Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:

The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.

Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:

About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.

I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.

With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.

The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.

So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.

The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.

So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.

But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.

Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.

Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."

Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.

And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.

The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.

But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.

Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).

Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.

Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink

This whole recusal issue is at the top of my discontent with this nomination. It's very worrisome.

Yes. And, while I'd be relieved to know for sure that she will vote well for the rest of her life, she still isn't Supreme Court material. That's the nub of it, for me.

I say let's gut 'The Gang of 14' in the US Senate before we take on our own party!