Spinning By Supporters
An apology to our regular readers for Marcie and I not being here over the last couple of days. The good news is, we're enjoying the time off. The bad news is that time off will last a bit longer. But don't get down on Sabrina. She's doing a fine job of holding up the site, and her immediate reaction to the news this morning concerning the rumor of Alito being a possible nominee with Luttig, Owen, or Williams brings giddiness to the sub-cockles of my heart. The president is paying attention to his base.
But, I felt a need today to respond to one of the people on the side supporting Miers, and his op-ed for the New York Time this morning. (Because this is available through subscription, I have pasted it up here.) We're all familiar with the man. Some of us like him, some of don't, and to others he's not even on the radar screen. He's on ours as I like listening to him (it beats the crappy local shows in the afternoon) and I really like the guest he has on his show. I am, of course, speaking of Hugh Hewitt.
Why the Right Was Wrong
By HUGH HEWITT
Published: October 28, 2005
Anaheim, Calif.
OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.
I must question this. How did we damage the advice and consent process. We're not lawmakers. We're just everyday, average Americans who had a deep dispute with the nomination of Miers. We didn't damage anything. When the Democrats demand that they give the president his short-list, or demand meetings to discuss the nominees, or even demand that the president consult with them should he deviate from their former demands, that leads to the damage of the powers of the president to nominate. It should never fall to anyone, other than the president, to deem who can and can't be a nominee. If they really and truly disagree with a nominee, they have place to voice it. It's called the committee and it's called the Senate. Where does our reciprocity come in? It is evident in our right to free speech, Mr. Hewitt. We can call and wail to our constituents; that is granted. But your assertion that we hurt the process by raising our voices publicly is pure pap.
The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.
Exaggeration? We did no such thing when we pointed out she lacked primary qualifications to sit on the court, namely her lack of Constitutional Law experience. Invective? OK, I'll grant that a couple of pundits may have taken some inappropriate swipes at Ms. Miers. But I contend that for the most part (and yes, we lump ourselves with those at NRO, Krauthammer, and ConfirmThem) we remained civil, and stuck to the basic facts that were giving us pause. That being a lack of proof to her alledged judicial philosophy, and her lack of experience in dealing with matters of constitutionality. Anonymous sources? We can't control those that speak on condition of anonymity. I have contacts (not many, but a few) that will only speak on condition of anonymity. They know my rules though: You burn me, and I'll burn you. New Charges? What if these new charges were brought up in committee? Would you have spun it as the Left trying to score points? Things were being brought up about her past affiliations and political dealings. These are factors in a nominee's confirmation process. TV ads by secret sources? BetterJustice.com was the first group I had heard of running such ads, and you know full well who was behind that site. The names are right there on the left side of the screen. And as for her speeches, though old, they let us have a glimpse into her mind. There was no doubt on Roberts. We were one of the sites that helped vet his documents, and his mind was quite clear in those documents. To pardon Miers for her clear ideas that we called into question seems a bit hypocritical.
Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.
But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.
Hardly. By holding the president and the GOP to the standards that they set in the 2004 election, namely nominating candidates in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, then we have reinforced the idea of what is right for a nominee. We don't want stealth candidates, and if there are such nominated, then the president needs to come out and prove them to be of the right judicial philosophy. When the president said "Trust me" we replied with "Prove it." This is an acceptable and typical reaction from a party base promised qualified, originalist jurists, and being let down over the last fifty years eight different times. The party will only tolerate ineffective nominees so long before it bites back.
The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault. After all, it "worked" with Ms. Miers. A claim of "special circumstances" justifying a filibuster will also be forthcoming. And will other nominees simply pass on the opportunity to walk out in the middle of a crossfire? A White House counsel with distinguished credentials was compared to Caligula's horse and Barney the dog on National Review's Web site. George Will denounced as "crude" those evangelicals who thought Ms. Miers's faith was a good indication of character in a nominee and a hopeful sign on issues involving the unborn. She was labeled a crony before lunch on the day of her nomination by scores of commentators. Attacks on her competence within the White House followed immediately. She never had a chance, really.
Now, why would Luttig, McConnell, or even Alito (the rumored front-runner) face an assault from the base when it was the base throwing these names out before the Miers nomination? I see no assault coming from the Right, but I do see it from the Left. To think otherwise is absurd. But this is a good thing. The new nominee (provided they are one of those on everyone's short-lists) will have the backing of the party, and the base will fight just as hard FOR their confirmation as they did AGAINST Miers, and we'll be more justified in doing it. It's hard to argue on behalf of a candidate that has nothing solid, and supporters are grasping at straws while the opposition pummels them to death. And the reason this woman never had a chance was because those watching this event unfold started digging, and made some discoveries. NO ONE, not even Hewitt, can deny that the initial reaction to the nomination wasn't justified. A long-time friend and confidante? Been with the president since he was governor in Texas? Worked on the Lottery Commission? It's not our fault that the nomination originally smelled of nepotism. I don't excuse the scurrilous, personal attacks. That's just flat wrong. It is the only part of this op-ed I agree with, but again, it was minor at best. We never impugned her credentials here; we questioned her qualifications.
The Miers precedent cements an extraconstitutional new standard for nominees. Had the framers intended only judges for the court, they would have said so. No doubt some Miers critics will protest a willingness to support nominees who have never sat on the bench, but no president is going to send one forward after this debacle. The center of the Miers opposition was National Review's blog, The Corner, and the blog ConfirmThem.com, both with sharp-tongued, witty and relentless writers. They unleashed every argument they could find, and the pack that followed them could not be stopped. Even if a senator had a mind to urge hearings and a vote, he had to feel that it would call down on him the verbal wrath of the anti-Miers zealots.
now, I'm offended by that. I don't consider myself a "zealot," and I know neither Marcie or Sabrina share that sentiment. We had a reasoned, logical argument against this woman, and the White House, the Miers supporters, and even a few in neutral terroritory couldn't answer the questions. The moment "judicial philosophy" or "Constitutional experience" came up, we were drowned in a sea of talking points. There was no engagement in a serious debate. Hewitt's own interview with Stanley Kurtz showed this as every time Kurtz brought up a point, Hewitt dismissed it because of some sort of preconceived notion that this aspect or that aspect was improper. When this is the extent of the debate, then there is no debate. There is one person telling another person that he's "stupid." And he calls our opposition Democrat-like.
It will be the lasting glory or the lasting shame of The Corner and others involved in driving Ms. Miers from the field, depending on what happens, and not just with the next nominee and his or her votes on the court, but all the nominees that follow, and all the Senate campaigns that will be affected, as well as the presidential race in 2008.
I must disagree with this "political fallout" strategy that he's been peddling for three weeks. I think it was a wise move for Miers to step down. Between the relentless opposition from the base, and the apparent unwillingness of the GOP in the Senate to truly address her, she knew that this nomination was doomed. When the call went out for documents, she knew that there was no way she'd make it because the committee and the Senate would look unfavorably at the refusal to release certain documents. Which brings me back to a point that Hugh just made about the next president never wanting to take a chance on someone not a judge. I don't find that to be true. A lawyer would be qualified, if they were one like roberts who has had his time before the high court, and knows the inner workings of it. That's a lawyer we can get behind, especially if her were representing the conservative values and ideology in the cases he undertook.
This triumph of the conservative punditocracy will have lasting consequences, and I hope my fears are misplaced. The first returns will come in the decision on parental notification statutes that will be argued before the Supreme Court in late November. Absent a miracle of Senate efficiency, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will cast one of her last votes on the most important abortion-rights case in a few years. And then the accounting will begin in earnest.
We don't consider ourselves to be a part of any high-fallutin' 'punditocracy.' We're just part of the base with a computer and a keyboard (and a straight-jacket). I doubt the consequences will show up in the next two elections. George Will is right: in a matter of months, Miers will be off everyone's radar screen completely. Just like the voters in Arizona that "forgot" about John Mccain's hand in the McCain/Feingold bill when his last reelection came around, the base will embrace the new nominee (provided the president doesn't shoot himself in the foot again) and Miers will be a footnote in history books.The parental notification case will be an important one to be sure, but the simplest way for the court to rule would be on the fact that this law applies to minors. Under US law, a minor may not enter into a contract/agreement without mommy and daddy's approval. To gain an abortion, one must sign a number of forms. If you're a minor, those contracts are null and void. Simply put, if you're under 18, and you want an abortion, you need your parent's approval, which means they must be notified. This court is adjourned.
Don't get me wrong. I like Hugh. I like his show, and I like his guests. But when it comes to Miers he was dead wrong. And in the next three years, we'll see that there is no backlash from the Miers debacle. Even John Kyl on his show yesterday stated that the only way Miers would be a subject for his reelection bid--2006--was if his opponent brought it up. He doubted that his opponent would. But this op-ed sounded more like sour persimmons than anything else. Hopefully this will be one of the final words on Miers as we gear up for the next nominee; a nominee I hope the president will not screw up on, and that the base can rally around very quickly.
Publius II
An apology to our regular readers for Marcie and I not being here over the last couple of days. The good news is, we're enjoying the time off. The bad news is that time off will last a bit longer. But don't get down on Sabrina. She's doing a fine job of holding up the site, and her immediate reaction to the news this morning concerning the rumor of Alito being a possible nominee with Luttig, Owen, or Williams brings giddiness to the sub-cockles of my heart. The president is paying attention to his base.
But, I felt a need today to respond to one of the people on the side supporting Miers, and his op-ed for the New York Time this morning. (Because this is available through subscription, I have pasted it up here.) We're all familiar with the man. Some of us like him, some of don't, and to others he's not even on the radar screen. He's on ours as I like listening to him (it beats the crappy local shows in the afternoon) and I really like the guest he has on his show. I am, of course, speaking of Hugh Hewitt.
Why the Right Was Wrong
By HUGH HEWITT
Published: October 28, 2005
Anaheim, Calif.
OVER the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.
I must question this. How did we damage the advice and consent process. We're not lawmakers. We're just everyday, average Americans who had a deep dispute with the nomination of Miers. We didn't damage anything. When the Democrats demand that they give the president his short-list, or demand meetings to discuss the nominees, or even demand that the president consult with them should he deviate from their former demands, that leads to the damage of the powers of the president to nominate. It should never fall to anyone, other than the president, to deem who can and can't be a nominee. If they really and truly disagree with a nominee, they have place to voice it. It's called the committee and it's called the Senate. Where does our reciprocity come in? It is evident in our right to free speech, Mr. Hewitt. We can call and wail to our constituents; that is granted. But your assertion that we hurt the process by raising our voices publicly is pure pap.
The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.
Exaggeration? We did no such thing when we pointed out she lacked primary qualifications to sit on the court, namely her lack of Constitutional Law experience. Invective? OK, I'll grant that a couple of pundits may have taken some inappropriate swipes at Ms. Miers. But I contend that for the most part (and yes, we lump ourselves with those at NRO, Krauthammer, and ConfirmThem) we remained civil, and stuck to the basic facts that were giving us pause. That being a lack of proof to her alledged judicial philosophy, and her lack of experience in dealing with matters of constitutionality. Anonymous sources? We can't control those that speak on condition of anonymity. I have contacts (not many, but a few) that will only speak on condition of anonymity. They know my rules though: You burn me, and I'll burn you. New Charges? What if these new charges were brought up in committee? Would you have spun it as the Left trying to score points? Things were being brought up about her past affiliations and political dealings. These are factors in a nominee's confirmation process. TV ads by secret sources? BetterJustice.com was the first group I had heard of running such ads, and you know full well who was behind that site. The names are right there on the left side of the screen. And as for her speeches, though old, they let us have a glimpse into her mind. There was no doubt on Roberts. We were one of the sites that helped vet his documents, and his mind was quite clear in those documents. To pardon Miers for her clear ideas that we called into question seems a bit hypocritical.
Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.
But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.
Hardly. By holding the president and the GOP to the standards that they set in the 2004 election, namely nominating candidates in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, then we have reinforced the idea of what is right for a nominee. We don't want stealth candidates, and if there are such nominated, then the president needs to come out and prove them to be of the right judicial philosophy. When the president said "Trust me" we replied with "Prove it." This is an acceptable and typical reaction from a party base promised qualified, originalist jurists, and being let down over the last fifty years eight different times. The party will only tolerate ineffective nominees so long before it bites back.
The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault. After all, it "worked" with Ms. Miers. A claim of "special circumstances" justifying a filibuster will also be forthcoming. And will other nominees simply pass on the opportunity to walk out in the middle of a crossfire? A White House counsel with distinguished credentials was compared to Caligula's horse and Barney the dog on National Review's Web site. George Will denounced as "crude" those evangelicals who thought Ms. Miers's faith was a good indication of character in a nominee and a hopeful sign on issues involving the unborn. She was labeled a crony before lunch on the day of her nomination by scores of commentators. Attacks on her competence within the White House followed immediately. She never had a chance, really.
Now, why would Luttig, McConnell, or even Alito (the rumored front-runner) face an assault from the base when it was the base throwing these names out before the Miers nomination? I see no assault coming from the Right, but I do see it from the Left. To think otherwise is absurd. But this is a good thing. The new nominee (provided they are one of those on everyone's short-lists) will have the backing of the party, and the base will fight just as hard FOR their confirmation as they did AGAINST Miers, and we'll be more justified in doing it. It's hard to argue on behalf of a candidate that has nothing solid, and supporters are grasping at straws while the opposition pummels them to death. And the reason this woman never had a chance was because those watching this event unfold started digging, and made some discoveries. NO ONE, not even Hewitt, can deny that the initial reaction to the nomination wasn't justified. A long-time friend and confidante? Been with the president since he was governor in Texas? Worked on the Lottery Commission? It's not our fault that the nomination originally smelled of nepotism. I don't excuse the scurrilous, personal attacks. That's just flat wrong. It is the only part of this op-ed I agree with, but again, it was minor at best. We never impugned her credentials here; we questioned her qualifications.
The Miers precedent cements an extraconstitutional new standard for nominees. Had the framers intended only judges for the court, they would have said so. No doubt some Miers critics will protest a willingness to support nominees who have never sat on the bench, but no president is going to send one forward after this debacle. The center of the Miers opposition was National Review's blog, The Corner, and the blog ConfirmThem.com, both with sharp-tongued, witty and relentless writers. They unleashed every argument they could find, and the pack that followed them could not be stopped. Even if a senator had a mind to urge hearings and a vote, he had to feel that it would call down on him the verbal wrath of the anti-Miers zealots.
now, I'm offended by that. I don't consider myself a "zealot," and I know neither Marcie or Sabrina share that sentiment. We had a reasoned, logical argument against this woman, and the White House, the Miers supporters, and even a few in neutral terroritory couldn't answer the questions. The moment "judicial philosophy" or "Constitutional experience" came up, we were drowned in a sea of talking points. There was no engagement in a serious debate. Hewitt's own interview with Stanley Kurtz showed this as every time Kurtz brought up a point, Hewitt dismissed it because of some sort of preconceived notion that this aspect or that aspect was improper. When this is the extent of the debate, then there is no debate. There is one person telling another person that he's "stupid." And he calls our opposition Democrat-like.
It will be the lasting glory or the lasting shame of The Corner and others involved in driving Ms. Miers from the field, depending on what happens, and not just with the next nominee and his or her votes on the court, but all the nominees that follow, and all the Senate campaigns that will be affected, as well as the presidential race in 2008.
I must disagree with this "political fallout" strategy that he's been peddling for three weeks. I think it was a wise move for Miers to step down. Between the relentless opposition from the base, and the apparent unwillingness of the GOP in the Senate to truly address her, she knew that this nomination was doomed. When the call went out for documents, she knew that there was no way she'd make it because the committee and the Senate would look unfavorably at the refusal to release certain documents. Which brings me back to a point that Hugh just made about the next president never wanting to take a chance on someone not a judge. I don't find that to be true. A lawyer would be qualified, if they were one like roberts who has had his time before the high court, and knows the inner workings of it. That's a lawyer we can get behind, especially if her were representing the conservative values and ideology in the cases he undertook.
This triumph of the conservative punditocracy will have lasting consequences, and I hope my fears are misplaced. The first returns will come in the decision on parental notification statutes that will be argued before the Supreme Court in late November. Absent a miracle of Senate efficiency, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will cast one of her last votes on the most important abortion-rights case in a few years. And then the accounting will begin in earnest.
We don't consider ourselves to be a part of any high-fallutin' 'punditocracy.' We're just part of the base with a computer and a keyboard (and a straight-jacket). I doubt the consequences will show up in the next two elections. George Will is right: in a matter of months, Miers will be off everyone's radar screen completely. Just like the voters in Arizona that "forgot" about John Mccain's hand in the McCain/Feingold bill when his last reelection came around, the base will embrace the new nominee (provided the president doesn't shoot himself in the foot again) and Miers will be a footnote in history books.The parental notification case will be an important one to be sure, but the simplest way for the court to rule would be on the fact that this law applies to minors. Under US law, a minor may not enter into a contract/agreement without mommy and daddy's approval. To gain an abortion, one must sign a number of forms. If you're a minor, those contracts are null and void. Simply put, if you're under 18, and you want an abortion, you need your parent's approval, which means they must be notified. This court is adjourned.
Don't get me wrong. I like Hugh. I like his show, and I like his guests. But when it comes to Miers he was dead wrong. And in the next three years, we'll see that there is no backlash from the Miers debacle. Even John Kyl on his show yesterday stated that the only way Miers would be a subject for his reelection bid--2006--was if his opponent brought it up. He doubted that his opponent would. But this op-ed sounded more like sour persimmons than anything else. Hopefully this will be one of the final words on Miers as we gear up for the next nominee; a nominee I hope the president will not screw up on, and that the base can rally around very quickly.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:48 PM
2 Comments:
Thomas,
An excellent post in reponse to an op-ed that lacks any semblance of common-sense. I agree with you that while I do like Mr. Hewitt, on this particular issue he was wrong.
He believed that Miers was qualified. She was not.
He believed she'd be tougher than what we saw. She was not.
He believed that there was no way she could be opposed honestly. She was.
The problem that the supporters had with defending her is that you can't defend someone through simple talking points. It should have been a clear signal to her supporters when the WH had to reinvent her two weeks AFTER her intial unveiling. I know there were many pundits--like Michelle Malkin--comparing the move to how Coke unveiled "New Coke."
Hugh can spin his piece however he wants to, but I believe that the last word comes on the heels of those who win the debate. We won it, and I'll accept your post as the final word.
Mistress Pundit
Hugh is wrong on many points. He should know better. I said that Bush exercised his right to name anyone he desired and I have a right to disagree. Neither Hugh or anyone else will take that right away from me. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home