I’ve been thinking about what the Democrats strategy should be regarding the opposition to the Miers nomination for the Supreme Court besides just sitting back with a big bag of popcorn and watching the show as the Conservatives and Republicans engage in such a public display of defiance against President Bush. Frankly, I don’t know that the Democrats really need to do much of anything beyond what they’re already doing. Andrew Sullivan agrees and even goes further by suggesting the Dems should support her nomination; “They get to look bi-partisan, dignified: and their fairness will only drive the right further up the wall”. True, but I wouldn’t go that far.
The gasps of horror from the right today are the result of exclusive reporting by Drudge that reveals a transcript in which Miers said she would not join The Federalist Society because it is “politically charged”. In an effort to be fair and balanced, Drudge also reports on a speech that Miers gave in 2005 praising the Federalist Society. But wait – there’s more…
The first Drudge story also has Miers saying that she didn’t include the NAACP and the Black Chamber of Commerce in the realm of organizations she considered to be “politically charged”. Ouch. Not only that, Miers was once a member of the Democratic Progressive Voters League. Those facts should rapidly increase the number of conservative and Republican signators of the National Review’s online petition to have the nomination of Miers withdrawn. (There are 1,558 signatures at the time of this writing).
Conservatives are now examining how Miers ended up with the nomination in the first place by reviewing the White House vetting process which, as we all know by now, has been seriously flawed in the past. John Fund of the Wall Street Journal reminds readers of Bush’s training at Harvard Business School, where he ought to have learned proper vetting practices, pointing to the fact that Cheney’s House voting record and connection to Halliburton failed to be addressed by Bush during his vetting process. Maybe Bush was on National Guard duty the day of that vetting class.
The circular firing squad doesn’t end there…
Ironically, Harriet Miers was given stellar praise for her choice of John Roberts when she consulted on his nomination. But, the ball was dropped right after that. Fingers are now being pointed at Andrew Card and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel, who had only been appointed one month prior, as the real scapegoats.
Even though several highly regarded female lawyers were on Mr. Bush’s short list, President Bush and Mr. Card discussed the idea of adding Ms. Miers. Mr. Card was enthusiastic about the idea. The New York Times reported that he “then directed Ms. Miers’ deputy . . . to vet her behind her back.”
For about two weeks, Mr. Kelley conducted a vetting he has described to friends as thorough. It wasn’t. A former Justice Department official calls it “barely adequate for a nominee to a federal appeals court.” One Texas lawyer called by the White House was struck by the fact “that the people who were calling about someone from Texas and serving a Texas president knew so little about Texas.” (Mr. Kelley didn’t return my telephone calls.)
…
Regardless of whether or not the vetting process was complete, it presented impossible conflicts of interest. Consider the position that Mr. Bush and Mr. Card put Mr. Kelley in. He would be a leading candidate to become White House counsel if Ms. Miers was promoted.…
A last minute effort was made to block the choice of Ms. Miers, including the offices of Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It fell on deaf ears.
Fund also chastises Miers for accepting the nomination, considering how intimately involved she had been in the vetting process.
Conservatives and Republicans are scrambling to put this fire out, but the White House steadfastly refuses to withdraw her nomination. During today’s press briefing, Scott McClellan – who has become increasingly defensive when answering questions about Miers (read/watch yesterday’s press briefing for a look at the pummeling reporters gave Scotty over Bush’s comments about Miers religion)- refused to answer a very simple question: would Miers be able to withstand the nomination/confirmation process considering that it has been reported that some other nominees have withdrawn due to the scrutiny involved?
While a simple “yes” would have sufficed, McClellan chose instead to berate reporters for shifting the focus from her qualifications to “side issues”. This caused a bit of a storm in the briefing room, prompting several reporters to jump in to defend their reporting and to demand that he answer the question. He just could not bring himself to veer from the Miers talking points. (You can watch today’s press briefing here, courtesy of Crooks and Liars.)
Several Democrats have been very vocal in their opposition to the Miers nomination based on facts that ought to be given the utmost scrutiny when it comes to choosing a new member of the SCOTUS but, by far, their concerns have not only been echoed – they have been drowned out by their compatriots on the right who also oppose her. In that atmosphere, and considering that Republican senators may well cave and confirm her when it’s time to vote for her confirmation, the question remains: what else can or should Democrats do? At this point, that’s difficult to discern and – who doesn’t like popcorn anyway?
but I think she’s the nominee we least don’t want. I think she’ll be incompetent enough to make her opinions readily discardable in the future, and I don’t think she’ll serve anywhere near a long as Roberts or the kind of child savant the right wants to swap her out for.
Screw the politics of it. I want to see Senate Democrats do their job, and I mean all of them.
This is an unqualified crony who appears to have been chosen based on George Bush’s religious litmus test. She has made past statements that indicate antipathy towards our balance of powers, and indicated an unnerving fealty to the Executive branch.
Democrats can do what is right and what is politically advantageous by simply doing their jobs. Ask pointed questions, don’t take “no comment” for an answer, and don’t back down in asking for background documentation. I call that “doing their jobs.” The jobs they really didn’t do–with a few exceptions–during the Roberts confirmation.
How could Democrats blow it? By continuing to be the undefined, milquetoast, rudderless gang the public perceives them to be. People in general think Meirs’ nomination was a joke, and they are waiting for someone to have the nuts to say so. It’s called leadership. It’s called doing the job we elected you for.
Do you think they’re not getting the job done so far?
Yes, I think too many of them are not doing their jobs. I think that there were only a few Senators questioning Roberts seriously, and that Democrats’ capitulation on demanding background information from the White House has shackled us for future nominations. I think Harry Reid’s advance praise for Meirs–as politically advantageous as it now seems to have been–was just wrong, and makes the job of opposing her more difficult.
I’m trying to divorce this from its political aspects, which I realize runs counter to your diary somewhat. I just think one job of a Senator is to run nominees through the wringer before allowing them to run our Supreme Court for the rest of their lives, and that too many Democrats have willingly abdicated that duty.
If Democrats take a passive role during the Meirs hearings, it may be to our best political advantage if Republicans really do savage her. But it also underscores the notion that Democrats lack leadership and are all too willing to say things the Republicans say, just a bit more softly.
I say press the advantage, and make sure everyone knows damn well that it was the Democrats who opposed an unqualified theocratic crony, and that we won’t stand for Bush taking the Supreme Court less seriously than his daily bike ride.
Yes, I think too many of them are not doing their jobs.
I’d have to take a closer look at the Dems opposition to this point to make a judgment. It’s been so overshadowed by the bellowing on the right. I’m not disputing your perspective. I just need more information.
I say press the advantage, and make sure everyone knows damn well that it was the Democrats who opposed an unqualified theocratic crony, and that we won’t stand for Bush taking the Supreme Court less seriously than his daily bike ride.
Absolutely. I think the hearings will be a sight to behold.
Rich Repugs in Texas are considering taking out TV ads destroying her and asking her to withdraw her nomination. Also heard that her nomination is snowballing into Hell and getting worse as the days go by the Repugs are getting together to try and decide how to go about getting rid of her. I think this now goes beyond her being like Scalia/Thomas. They just think she is a cronie and a nitwit who has no business even sitting in the audience of the SCOTUS. WTF is this really about? I know people have speculated that if Bush and his peeps are tried before the court they would need Miers vote to get them off the hook, but wouldn’t she have to recuse herself? Did Cheney, Rove et al abandon Bush and this was the best he could do? I am sure she would vote far right with the pigs on the SCOTUS, but still I am stumped. Any clues?
The money-oriented extremist conservatives, (like the Grover Norquist crowd), are afraid Miers isn’t able to understand and then agree with their positions well enough to vote their way on the big issues like overturning affirmative action, destroying all social programs, creating a completely regresive tax code, and undoing any and all protections enshrined within the New Deal and the anti-discrimination legislation of the ’60s and ’70s. And these ruthless looters of the treasury have no interest at all in giving the evangelical fascist wingnuts a victory against Roe vs Wade if it might adversely affect their ability to satisfy their own greed and lust for power. They care about the meaning of the commerce clause, not about abortion rights or religious piety.
The big money extremist Repubs consistently betray their promises to the religious extremists because they only care about them in terms of their ability to rally the base for votes at election time. Once the votes are in the money boys disregard these nuts until the next election when they’ll lie to them again.
Legitamizing “Religion” as a litmus test for SCOTUS appointments.
If anyone focuses on her religious beliefs too much it kindof plays into the radical right fundies’ hand of melding government and faith.
That is a line that can easily be crossed, thus dragging the USA further right AGAIN, if Dems focus on the issue.
Why do you think bush wanted to take that tack in pushing for her nomination?
To drag religion into politics… I’d prefer to keep that “Wall of Seperation”! Thank you very much President Jefferson!
I’m a bit confused. Bush has said he basically picked her because she’s part of an approved church, wink wink.
Are you saying Democrats should not point this out? I think it furthers the doubts about cronyism and being unqualified immensely. I also think even many religious people will see Bush’s “Christians only” criterion as unfair.
Questioning about her specific religious beliefs is dicey, I agree, if only because there are a lot of bible thumpers out there who have been trained to see any criticism as a jihaad. But if we can’t point out that Bush admitted he picked her because she’s a Christian, then I fear for us.
But if we can’t point out that Bush admitted he picked her because she’s a Christian, then I fear for us.
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Yes, it furthers the doubts.
Great short run strategy for this one candidate.
For the long run it legitamizes the role that fundies want religion to play in politics. Just one little step closer to the theocracy they would love, AND ONE HUGE TRAMPLING OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Let the republicans denounce her based on whatever issues they want. Everyone else has reason enough to vote against her based on cronyism, and absolutely no qualifications for the position.
Just don’t let legitamize the fundies position by debating it. Leave it as a non-issue.
but I’m just not sure we win by not addressing it head-on. The theocracy has crept upon us already, and I can’t think of anything more un-American than favoritism for a given religion. I think hammering the point that Bush chose her because she went to a specific church does not legitimize the role the theocrats what religion to have in politics–that’s what ignoring it would do.
But I don’t have all the answers, and I’m pretty fatalistic about the Miers nomination anyway. I think we quit when we gave up on getting documentation on Roberts and when Reid talked up Miers, and our challenge now is both to show Democrats are still relevant to this process, and to demonstrate what the process ought to require.
We will lose anyway, of course.
And I forgot to say that I agree with you: the lack of qualifications and cronyism are stronger themes. I just don’t think we should fear tying cronyism to Bush’s “Christian litmus test,” nor should we fear making a forceful case in any aspect.
Honestly… I think it will take a lot more than just standing up to Miers to show that Dems are relevant. They need to be a real alternative by saying “pull out of Iraq NOW!”. That would make people take this seriously.
The GOP serves up Kool-aide to the public and the Dems are only offering sugar and water. Sweet… but flavourless.
Oh, I totally agree. We have several issues that Democrats could lead on nationally, supported by enough of a polling margin to make even Holy Joe comfortable. I think if we can draw the line in the sand with Miers, we will be pleasantly surprised at the results, ideally leading to further boldness and…dare I say it?…leadership from the Party.
I think it really boils down to individuals. We have far too few Democrats in federal office with a spine. Even with an issue position being “right” in moral terms and majority support from Americans, they manage to duck and hide and enable the Republicans. I know, I know, housecleaning comes later…but it had better come.
TERRIFIC WORK, Catnip.
Just for the record, Harvard Business School does not concern itself with “vetting procedures” or any other such minutia. You’re expected to learn that on the job. And that is the problem the WSJ doesn’t want to admit to. Junior has never actually had a job where he would learn anything about leadership or management…like how to tell when the staff is pulling the wool over your eyes. George has never had a staff to manage. Not a real one anyway.
I always had the idea that the staff was there to manage George.
I bet your two boys can manage themselves a lot better than George can!
(When D. was little, I used to say that if I left her alone for a week at home, i’d return to find her just fine… people would gasp. .. of course i never meant that i’d do it, but that she was quite reliable, had common sense, and knew how to use the microwave!).
Ah, the boys’ learning of microwave skills has greatly improved my life…it should really be considered a developmental milestone along with walking and talking, don’t you think? 🙂
Yes, but it sure looks like Georgie slipped his leash on this one.
I have the feeling all his handlers are shifting their focus toward their own individual futures and increasibngly letting the imbecile in chief, well, make a fool of himself naturally.
Time for a halti collar so they can lead him around by the nose, then!
I do so love watching all the rats abandon that putz’s sinking ship, don’t you?
Poor hapless and petulant George ws put on a need to know basis by his handlers and masters right from the start of his regime. Now they’re just relaxing their grip on his psyche, but also keeping him even further out of the loop by giving him even less info than previously. They actually barely need him anymore, especially since they can’t win any more elections with him and because they can’t fix the Iraq mess with him.
I’ve wondered how long after Bush departs the White House and (presumably) returns to Texas will it take him to wonder why he doesn’t hear from his old “friends” at all. I think the Cheney crowd and the Norquist crowd and the Dobson crowd will drop poor George in a heartbeat as soon as he departs DC.
Funny, I was wondering how he would react to finding out that doesn’t have any friends if they aren’t bought and paid for anymore…maybe Harriet will stick around to comfort him in all his brilliance?
A friend of mine wrote an essay on thta very subject. I should post it here.
I’m sure we would all enjjoy it!
John Fund wrote:
I’ll add to my comment above.
I don’t think Fund has any idea what HBS courses teach.
And all of the major problems we have right now stem from the fact that the Wall Street Journal and the NYT and the WaPo have no freaking idea how to vet candidates for the Presidency of the Republic of the United states of Ameica.
I don’t think Fund has any idea what HBS courses teach.
Fair enough. Neither do I.
Well, now you do, a little, because I’ve just told you ;~)
The HBS teaches how to vet candidates for the Presidency????
Just what the heck do they do with that $25 billion they have in endowments?
a. No but the media is obliged to know, and they clearly don’t.
b. Harvard U’s endowment, overall is maybe 20+ Billion. But the constituent schools are financed separately. HBS’s endowment went over a billion a few years back and I stopped counting.
c. What do they do with it. Hell of a lot of research, hell of a lot of scholarships and student loans. Beyond that you’d have to ask them.
one prominent Democrat say something like this.
“Even if I knew for certain that Miers would vote to uphold Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land, as tempting as it might be to vote to confirm her based on that one element, the fact that she is so conspicuously unqualified in all areas across the board for the job of Supreme Court Justice would nevertheless require that I oppose her nomination.”
Now I’m thinking that I should perhaps put together a diary on what the Dems have done to this point in their opposition to Miers.
Feedback? Would that be useful?
That would be a good idea. I have a feeling though that such a diary might be prohibitively short due to a paucity of Dem actions.
oh ye of little faith 🙂
And conversely;
“If I knew Miers would vote to overturn Roe then despite whatever qualifications she might possess, I would vote to oppose her confirmation because Roe, to me, is an essential ruling that upholds the undeniable individual and equal rights for women’s control of their own bodies, rights that are implied and therefore enshrined in the constitution.”
I heard this morning that Diane Feinstein said she would never vote for a nominee who wouldn’t pledge to uphold Roe. Don’t know how true that is, but it was nice to hear….
As much as I’d to say that every Dem should be screaming from the rooftops, I don’t think that’s the best thing to do.
IMHO, the Dems are doing fine. They sound like the voice of reason and sobriety and adulthood compared to … anyone on the right. Think about it — all of these righties are basically saying, “She’s no crazy enough for us!”. Given the current political environment, is that really smart of them?
Dems are taking the high road, and for once, that’s a godo road to follow. Dems should continue to point out the problems with the nomination, but without being shrieky about it. However, if she gets to hearings, they should question the heck out of her. They should thow everything they can think of at her — every obscure precedent, case, justice, etc. Bush made an issue of her religion — they shoud too. They should question her, without bathroom breaks, until she gives proper answers. After that, if they don’t like what they hear, or if she’s the nitwit the right claims she is, they should vote NO. All of them.
Honestly, Republicans are doing everything they can to kill the nomination — and making themselves, and their President look absolutely horrible in the process. Why get in the way before it’s necessary?
based on the cronyism and lack of judicial experience, what basis will we have to oppose any judicial nominee in the future?
And if she gets in because of her “religious faith” as her one criteria, then let’s just start the Inquisition right here and now…and who will be our Edward R. Murrow to expose the hysteria of the Right? (The spouse and I are going to be busy cleaning this weekend, but I hope to take a break to catch “Good Night and Good Luck” somewhere…)
Hear a lot of anticipatory judgment and strategizing here but don’t hear a lot of support for simply giving Miers a tough and fair hearing before making a decision. Although she hasn’t been on the bench (almost 40% of justices haven’t been), a lot of material is emerging that gives a better picture of Miers. It can be found in the press and on other blogs.
Some of these revelations are contributing to the hissy-fits of the religious right. Whatever her religious leanings, she doesn’t appear to be a wing-nut and has taken stands that were moderate – even when not particularly popular in her neck of the woods. It should also be remembered that, given her age and geographic origins with its implicit sexism, she had to be smart, hard-working and persistent to get off square one.
We’re not going to get a Ginsberg out of the Bush administration but if we can get an O’Conner as a replacement for O’Conner, that may not be so bad. (And the criticisms of O’Conner when she was nominated are similar to those we’re hearing now about Miers.) Seems to me the best thing the Democrats can do right now is to act like adults. Let the Republikids have their food fights and let the country see them in action.