Ken Mehlman held a conference call Wednesday with right-wing bloggers with two goals in mind:
- to engage the blogosphere more (like the Dems)
- to push the Miers nomination for the SCOTUS
According to some right-wing bloggers who participated, the call was far from impressive. Professor Stephen Bainbridge, a corporate law professor at UCLA (according to his online bio), liveblogged the call and posted his transcript and thoughts online. Even after assurances from Mehlman, Bainbridge is still not convinced that Miers is the person for the job.
See excerpts from his transcript below…
Bainbridge’s thoughts are in parentheses.
11:41 Miers will not be swayed by the “Georgetown cocktail set.” Mehlman acknowledges that conservatives have been burned by past GOP nominations, but emphasizes that Bush knows Miers better than past GOP Presidents knew their nominees. (But what happens if we don’t trust Bush’s judgment anymore?) Miers was involved in getting people like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens renominated and confirmed. (A point in her favor)
11:43 Judicial activism is interfering with the GWOT by “micromanaging” decisions. Miers will be solid on executive prerogative. Acknowledges that she’ll have to recuse herself in some early cases. (Did she support use of torture?)
The “Georgetown cocktail set”? Oh how they hate intellectuals.
Good to see that we aren’t the only ones concerned about whether Miers supported Bushco’s torture policies.
“Trust me”.
Good point, Professor.
11:57 The GOP wants to make sure that young lawyers feel comfortable doing things like joining the Federalist Society, but it’s more important to get conservatives on the court. (But if you’re putting forward stealth candidates, doesn’t that defeat the former purpose?)
Good question.
Call ends. My mind is unchanged. It was a lot of assurances but not a lot of facts. And facts are what we need.
Mehlman failed. He’s sticking to the administration line and cannot even come up with one thing that would reassure the base. Obviously, that call was a waste of everyone’s time. Others involved in the call were unimpressed as well.
In other news, Pew Research released some poll numbers on the Miers nomination (see more specific details on their site) and those numbers confirm what we already know:
40% with no opinion. That’s very telling.
Democrats can win this one with such a slim majority of Republicans supporting Miers. And yes, that begs the question of who Bush might pull out of his cronyism hat next if her confirmation fails. Will he pander to his base and cave by nominating someone more to their taste? The administration has said repeatedly that it will not withdraw her nomination. The hearings are scheduled for December. That’s a long time to do damage control with absolutely nothing to back up the reasons for trusting Bush’s choice. In the meantime, the Dems need a coherent strategy. I’m putting together a diary about that and will post it soon.
Courtesy of Susan, Bloomberg News has a good article about the latest developments in the Miers nomination including:
WaPO has some interesting buzz (scroll down) about how Andy Card may be the fall guy if Harriet Miers’s nomination tanks. Seems there’s quite a bit of tension between Card and Rove these days in the WH.
That was certainly eye-opening. Thanks catnip.
So, for all the credit we give the Right for running a top-down organization, and for all the ridicule we lump on them for being unthinking dittoheads — the truth is they are both more vulnerable and more dangerous than we’d like to believe.
This should also concern the centrist compromisers. While they’re probably cheering the cracks in the Republican machine, they would be wise to remember that their own stated goal is to build an identical machine for the Democrats.
And all the assurances they give us that once the centrists have power, they can secretly support those of us more to the Left? What lessons can we draw from the Right? Well, for starters, it looks like they’ll be asking us to trust them, with no facts, and no evidence — just blind trust they’ll take care of us, if they can, if it isn’t too politically inconvenient, if …
Why do I get the impression we’ll never get our agenda through until we get a solid 60% support for it? You don’t get 60% by nibbling at the margins in the center. Its gonna take something bold.
The National Review has an online petition for conservatives and Republicans to sign to oppose the Miers nomination. Ouch.
WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn.
The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy.
The next justice should be a person of unquestioned personal and political independence.
The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues.
The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.
For all Harriet Miers. many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself.
Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. There is a wide range of truly outstanding legal talents who share the president’s judicial philosophy. We believe that on second thought President Bush can do better — for conservatism, for the Supreme Court, for America.