I simply find this hard to believe:
The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.
Most Republican chairmen interviewed expressed confidence in Mr. Bush’s choice and said they were picking up little, if any, criticism from their rank and file, though some said they wanted to know more about Miss Miers and expected to learn more once the Senate confirmation process gets under way.
Eileen Melvin, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said she had just come from a meeting with state committee members in conservative Lancaster County, where she asked them what they thought of the Miers nomination. “They said we trust the president,” she said.
“The president has defined what he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee from Day One, so the folks I’ve spoken with understand that he knows Harriet Miers and they trust that he has nominated someone who meets his standards,” Mrs. Melvin said.
Everyone I have talked to about this nomination, with the exception of my father, has been opposed to it. And the interesting thing is, they all have different reasons for their opposition. “Not conservative enough. Tooconservative. Not enough experience. Don’t know her views. She is another Souter. She is just going to vote the GOP line. Too close to Bush.”
But no one, and I mean no one, is thrilled about her nomination.
Ancient Purple
Right.
Because the Republican party chair here in Arizona has been busy canvassing the state for input on Miers.
Right.
(Oddly, the Arizona GOP site has a link to the WT story you mentioned above, John, but I can’t find a single word from Chairman Matt Salmon that the AZGOP has done anything to confirm such is the case. You are justified in your suspicion.)
Anderson
You don’t understand, John. Down in Mississippi, for instance, Bush is quasi-divine. The base supports him because he’s Bush. Enough said.
If Bush vouches for Miers, then He Must Know She’ll Vote the Right Way. It’s not like he’s ever led us wrong before, right?
Remember: the base doesn’t think Bush makes mistakes.
In the matter of Miers, Dobson’s wink-wink carries more weight than all the pundits in the world.
docG
I agree with those who see a sudden illness/family crisis/some other crisis leading to Miers withdrawal from consideration. This will be as soon as the depth of conservative abandonment of President Bush by those inside the Beltway is acknowledged within the White House. The Congressional air reeks of flop sweat. If Bush still insists on pushing the nomination, the duck will not just be lame, it will be a double amputee.
Don Surber
What’s so hard to believe? We elected George Bush president, not a bunch of bloggers.
Right Blogosphere just jumped the shark
Steve
I have seen several posters at RS who could be described as thrilled about this nomination.
docG
Ah, nothing like the sweet smell of attitude certitude over observable facts. May we assume you have installed a kill switch on your SUV to keep it from being totaled when you are raptured out of the driver’s seat?
Hugh Frank
But no one, and I mean no one, is thrilled about her nomination.
Miers herself probably is, or was, until the shit hit the fan.
I’m a Democrat, and by no means a fan of Bush. However, I ended up respecting his choice of Roberts, even though I worry about some of the decisions Roberts may shepard through the court. Bush is the President after all, and to the winner go the spoils.
So I am going to reserve judgment on Miers until the hearings. I did have the initial reaction that she wasn’t wildly qualified, but corporate lawyers who have worked at the level she has worked at are generally very smart, very capable, and very steely. These should all be good qualities.
I do have this creeping worry about Dobson’s remarks that he has some inside information and that the religious right should go ahead and support her, wink-wink, nudge-nudge. This raises the truly scary proposition that Miers is headed to the court knowing–and committing–in advance to how she will rule on certain things. What’s worse is that the white house seems to be willing to share this information with certain cronies and special interests groups–and not with the Sentate or with the American people.
Duncan
I agree with the sentiments of ‘Don Surber’ above. Generally, I self-identify as a lefty; I and all my bleeding-heart, intellectually minded friends were shocked to watch Howard Dean go down in flames in 2004. We were shocked because the vocal wing of the party in blogosphere united in near-universal support for Dean, only to learn that the rest of the country didn’t care what we thought.
Welcome to reality, conservatives. With Harriet Miers, the conservative intellectual crowd will all have to learn the same hard lesson that we Dean supporters grappled with last year: the vast majority of this country has thrown Jefferson’s idea that ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’ out the window.
jobiuspublius
This could work in her favor. If “nobody” likes her and “everybody” votes for her then “everybody” gets spanked and “nobody” gains an advantage. Eventually, the event will go down the momory hole and “everybody” can go fight over some other scrap.
Anderson
We should consider lowered expectations as well.
If Miers shows up in the Senate and sounds like she knows the Lemon test from “The Lemon Song,” be prepared for everyone to be like “whoa! she IS qualified.”
(Non-lawyers: that’s “if she knows as much con law as a 2d-year law student who’s just crammed for the exam.”)
Vlad
“Everyone I have talked to about this nomination, with the exception of my father, has been opposed to it.”
This reminds me of the joke about the college student who didn’t understand how Bush the First could’ve won, because everybody he knew voted for Dukakis.
Kurt
For some reason the Harriet Miers nomination has resulted in lots of Pauline Kael inadvertent self-parodies (she said, “How could Nixon be elected? No one I know voted for him…”).
First, James Taranto on Best of the Web and now John Cole too:
Shorter version of Taranto: I went to a National Review party and was shocked that everyone opposes Harriet Miers…
Now John Cole:
“Everyone I have talked to about this nomination, with the exception of my father, has been opposed to it.”
What’s going on here?
Karl Spence
Conservatives have every right to be disappointed in the nomination of Harriet Miers, not least because it (again) ducks an open fight with Senate Democrats over judicial activism. But there’s another way — a better way — to engage liberals in that debate. It’s described at http://www.fairamendment.us.
Pug
Conservatives have every right to be disappointed in the nomination of Harriet Miers, not least because it (again) ducks an open fight with Senate Democrats over judicial activism.
It seems to me most of the members of the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republicans for a long time. Since 1968, quite a long time ago, Republicans have appointed all justices except the two appointed by Bill Clinton, Ginsburg and (can’t remember right now).
I guess I don’t quite understand the beef about judicial activism and Democrats. Hell, if you don’t like the people your Republican presidents have appointed it isn’t the Democrats problem. The only one I remember being blocked was Robert Bork, and Scalia was put in the open seat. Republicans have also named all Federal judges over that period. So what is it you want an “open fight with Democrats” about? You want them to block more of your Republican nominees for you? What?
Rome Again
Anderson said:
The right way? Since when did the judicial branch of the government become a non-independent arm of the executive branch? Have you even read the Constitution?
Rome Again
Pug stated:
While I find the idea that a Supreme Court Justice should carry the stamp of approval that he/she will vote the way “the President wants” reprehensible, I agree with what you stated above. It makes no sense that Republicans would be pissed at Democrats for decisions made by Republican appointees.
the friendly grizzly
Being a member of at least two of the “them!” groups Dobson despises, his remarks about Miers has me firmly opposed to her.
Anderson
Settle down, Rome Again. I was characterizing the President’s base, not endorsing their belief that there are “right” and “wrong” ways to vote.
For that matter, I don’t suppose you would deny there are indeed “right” and “wrong” ways to vote? Though I trust that you and the Dobsonites would define those very differently.
Rome Again
I owe you a deep apology Anderson (please forgive me), I realized later that you were characterizing the President’s base. Sorry about that. Do I think there are right ways and wrong ways to vote? It depends.
I think that if one interprets the Constitution (rather than trying to change it or garner new ideology from the words that were set down over 200 years ago) that is the only way to vote (despite what that vote is). Anything other than that is creating new law, and is ideologically driven. That is the only wrong way to vote, IMHO.
Of course, differentiating the two can be difficult, without extensive explanation of how one came to the conclusions that they did. Somehow I do see ideologically driven SC judges making an argument for creating new law and trying to make that decision appear to be nothing more than interpretation, despite the fact that many of us may find it difficult to connect the same dots as the judge did.
It would help if a judge were truly independent (as he/she should be) and not a number one fan of the man in the Oval Office.
h0mi
The key is that nobody has a line on her- you can’t accuse her of being Souter part 2- we have
absolutely no cluelittle idea she’ll be like Souter or Breyer or Scalia. And that, coupled with other recognizable names of people who are worthy of being on the court is why people are angry with this pick. I’m indifferent- I’ll be happy or angry when she votes for/against the way I want on a key case next year.