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of conservative and Republican signators of the National Review’s online petition to have the nomination of Miers withdrawn.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?