The Baseball Crank has a great piece up on Harriet Miers.
In other nomination news, the ‘Gang of 14’ claims Harriet is safe from the filibuster. (h/t Instapundit)
The Bull Moose notes the new tactic to get Miers confirmed:
First they tried a rather pathetic line of attack – that their foes were Ivy League elitists. Then, Mr. Eddie Gillespie trotted out the politically correct accusation that the opponents were “sexist.” Excuse me, Mr. Ed, this crowd is not exactly sensitive to that charge.
So now the Rovians are going negative on the nominees who were not selected.
Also, check out this chart of quotes both pro and con Miers.
Jack Roy
Terrific. The sensible centrists in Go14 think she’s acceptable.
Next up, Sens. Bayh and Collins on Bush’s nomination of his horse to be US Trade Rep: “Ambassador Patches assured us he is very concerned with protecting our domestic textile industries, and this nomination didn’t set off any alarm bells.”
How one can be concerned with ideological extremism but not give a whit about lack of qualifications in the extreme, I doubt I’ll ever know.
Lines
I’m curious as to how the Democrats will handle this. As far as I can tell, most rank and file liberals don’t like her, but that may be only because she’s a crony appointment and all of the evidence points to that being a really bad thing. The centrists, those that want to appease the WH as well as the Hammer’s of the houses, may decide to vote for her.
So will this be some mixed up amalgum of flying feces type turnout if it comes to a vote? No discernable line to be drawn, just random pushing of the yay or nay button?
Shygetz
My guess–Dems will (largely) quitely vote no. That way, if Meirs gets confirmed, they can hold it up as cronyism that they opposed without being accused of obstructionism; if enough Repubs vote against to block the nomination, they get to hand a vulnerable President a high-profile defeat. It’s win-win. Now, the question is, can they stem their need to say something outrageous for about the next month or two.
Lines
I think you pose a good scenario, Shygetz, but I don’t think it will happen that way. I think that due to Reid coming out and giving an early thumbs up to her, and due to the fact that most of the Democrats are scared to death of the WH, they may vote to appoint her. At least enough of them that there will be a definate party split on both sides of the aisle.
Lieberman will vote for her, as will a few other of the Faux Conservative Democrats. The ones that want to kiss Bush ass while making bunny ears behind his head. They need to appease the Chimpinator.
I think if it comes to a vote it may be a pretty up in the air, no one knows where it comes down kinda thing.
Jack Roy
I think that’s right. I’m hoping the Dems conclude it’s to their political advantage to vote against her on the grounds that she’s not being forthcoming, etc. (although that probably only works if a lot of pro-life Republicans have already committed a “no” vote). I’m really hoping that they conclude that, irrespective of the politics, they should vote no just because she’s! not! qualified! to! join! the! Court!, but I’ll take what I can get from that crowd.
Jack Roy
See, Lieberman I could actually see voting no. He went to Yale, he’s vaguely in favor of the meritocracy. Could go either way, but the Gentleman from Connecticut, no matter what other failings he might have, isn’t a rightwing ideologue.
Steve S
I still don’t understand why John Cole continues to promote obstructionism. The President should be granted deference for his appointments. If he wants to appoint his pet poodle to Trade Ambassador to Chile, he ought to be allowed that. And the Senate should vote upperdown.
Oh yeah, and according to Laura Bush, John Cole is also a sexist pig! How do ya like them apples?
I’m so glad we’ve restored honor and integrity to the Whitehouse.
Lines
Havn’t we turned the corner on obstructionism?
Mr Furious
All the Dems should vote “No.” And not just for the politcal reason, but because it’s what’s right. I don’t think a filibuster is necessarily in order, but the precedent set by supporting someone like Miers is not a good one—qualifications don’t matter and you also don’t get to know anything about the candidate either.
They opened that door a crack with Roberts (qualified, but no trail) it shouldn’t be opened all the way for Miers or anybody else.
No enabling of cronyism.
Mr Furious
Oh, I should agree with John that the post by the Crank is pretty good. That is, he makes some good points and offer some insight—he is a knowledgable lawyer. The problem is, he is too much of a Bush excuser and apologist (in general, but in this column too). He refuses to shit or get off the pot with Miers because he is loathe to actually criticize Bush. Thus, his bogus “open mind stance”.
slide
I think a lot is going to depend on how Miers does at her confirmation hearing. I have heard that many GOP Senators that have already met with her privately are not all that impressed which leads me to belive that she is not going to wow them at the hearings with some populist appeal (ala Ollie North), that can overcome a lack of experience in constituional law.
John Fund over at the WSJ is suggesting that she wasnt’ vetted properly and that there may be a few surprises ahead. Any little thing can blow her out of the water which may be exactly what the administration would want at this point – a reason for her to withdraw while saving a bit of face.
If there are no bombshells and she is totally unimpressive in the hearings, I would imagine a number of Dems will vote against her on the grounds that she is unqualifed for the position with a subtext of her being a crony of Bush when there may be many executive branch issues likely to be before the court in the next few years.
In any case, its going to be damn fun.
Crank
Mr Furious – I don’t think I’ve been exactly shy about complaining about this nomination, and I ran out of time this morning so I will wait for another day to get to what a colossal political blunder the Miers nomination was. (Plus, you need to get over to RedState and Beldar’s place and see the heat I’m taking from people who think I’m an unreasonable, pointy-headed elitist for criticizing Miers). I’m keeping an open mind because, like Beldar, I genuinely would like to see a really good practicing lawyer on the Court, and the evidence of whether Miers is the kind of lawyer I have in mind is inconclusive, as is the evidence of whether she has any sort of well-thought-out approach to the constitution.
Lines
Has anyone seen a compendium, such as what was done at TPM for Social Security and other things, about each Senator? Some are probably already on board, some are wobbly, some are shaking their heads and some are totally against her.
I’d like to see it, if it exists. Public statements have been made and I just don’t have the time to track them all down.
jobiuspublius
LOL, because she is safe from confirmation?
LOL. Keep digging. I guess they’ve commited to Meirs, until they need another nominee.
Mr Furious
Crank,
My apologies. My comment above was probably too hasty and a bit harsh. It was based solely on your most recent post. I went back and refreshed myself on your earlier posts, and you have been pretty agitated over this—your Oct 6 post is particularly good.
Of course, it makes your somewhat too accommodating position today (in my worthless opinion) all the more curious…
Anyway, it was wrong of me to bash you over here. I did comment over at your place before here, but I try to temper my language a bit at your house, and it got the better of me here.