Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor is Harriet Miers

I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States.

A couple of days ago:

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

The flack of flacks has just been nominated and even the other flacks can't handle it! This is going to be interesting.

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. "

1) she has worked for Bush for many years and therefore should not be disqualified for that reason alone (the hell?)

2) she has experience in fighting terrorism (uh-huh)

Of course the more telling bit is him saying: "The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him." Of course you do, dear.

Leonard Leo and Jay Sekulow are also all "Yay the President can do wrong!" -- but that sure ain't the overwhelming feeling elsewhere. Instapundit is 'underwhelmed' and is pulling together a slew of links, generally not positive. Meanwhile, there's a claim that Sen. Reid is happy with the choice, while the wingnuts at ConfirmThem are thoroughly peeved if not angered.

After the Roberts pick conservatives swooned and said Bush doesn't care about “diversity”; it's only high qualifications that matter to this bold, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may leader, etc., etc. Don't we have to take all that back now?

"Miers is a disastrous, enigma on Roe pick. bush has betrayed us and lied to us in two elections. We ought to abandon this administration, stop giving dollars, stop activism.
We fought tooth and nail on the promise of Scalias and Thomases. With incredibly able judges around Bush chose a crappy lightweight just because he liked her."

So for whom are betrayed Bushies gonna vote in '08?

!!!

Uh, hadn't they noticed that Bush does this with almost every position of importance? The FEMA fiasco is proof of that.

One of the dumbest things being said today about Harriet Miers is that she has no paper trail. She has a colossal paper trail, and a potentially dangerous one too -- as one of the two honchoes of a law firm in Texas called Locke Liddell and Sapp. This means that every case taken by Locke Liddell and Sapp during her time as chief partner is part of her "paper trail." It's true she has said nothing about abortion. But what about making money defending, say, polluters? Or tobacco companies? One really controversial case might give Democrats sufficient cover to oppose her en masse and, depending on the circumstance, might be enough for a few Northeastern Republicans to go off the reservation.

Anyway, what do you want to bet that we'll soon hear a story about how Bush and Miers were working late one night ("late" for Bush being 7:30 p.m.), poring over the lists of candidates, when Miers made some sparkling observation, and GW looked up at her, intently, appraising her anew in the Oval Office lamplight, and said, "What about you, Harriet?" ("At first I thought he was joking," she will tell us, with a self-deprecating laugh.)

Not hard at all, really. It goes both ways, and thus Podhoretz's point is an interesting one -- the focus being so much about abortion, what about something else instead?

Argh. I want to punch someone in the neck now.

He should lay claim to her hand, as the prize and reward of his valor.

You'd think the Christian right would see things more clearly, but they're probably blinded by their conviction.

x-post

It's very interesting how few fundamentalist Bush supporters DON'T think that and never will. Stepping back a couple of days, here's what increasingly disillusioned crust Derbyshire noted:

"What surprises me is how many of my conservative friends are still hot’n’heavy for W. Some of them are born-again Christians, and Bush is a born-again Christian, and that’s what does it for them. Fair enough, I suppose, if that’s the most important thing in your life, but what about the rest of us?"

There have been a few cases over time -- the occasional column and op-ed piece, or brief news story -- about how a number of noted fundamentalist activists who had supported the GOP for years finally had to let go when they realized that they weren't getting anywhere, or that they were indeed being used. It's the same ideological disappointment most extremists eventually feel with their more widely accepted counterparts in the mainstream, but sometimes it takes something big to shake them up out of it.

In the past few weeks, Bush has successfully angered both the small-government base and now the fundamentalist base. Hey, anything to cause the big tent to finally collapse...

She is immensely, perhaps irrationally, into birthdays: "She always remembers everybody's birthday, and has a present for them. She'll be finding a present for somebody in the middle of the night.... 'Can't it wait until next week?' 'No,' she'd say, 'It has to be done now.'"

xpost

but they're probably blinded by their conviction.

yeah, that and daddy/authority issues. can't question those in authority who God put into power now, can we?

Here's an excerpt from the president's announcement on Harriet Miers. Among the charities that Harriet Miers has worked for are the following:

[T]he Young Women's Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.

Stop right there. Exodus Ministries? Does he mean this or this? We need to know.

Alleged tits, please. Remember, she's an old maid.

Also from Wonkette...

The statement of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as released to RAW STORY.

“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court."

VERY interesting.

"Dude, go for it. Totally. She'll be fine. Seriously. I'll behind you all the way."

Kinda the same way Reid was behind nominating Scalia as Chief Justice earlier this year...

The White House quickly noted that some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077952

'hey, stop doing that thing youre unfairly accused of doing!!'

i dunno. at this point, i'm quite happy to let the preznit's remaining supports boil for a while. enable the hubris, remove all feedback control mechanisms so that the engine runs so hard that you get cataclysmic system failure(which we might be watching unfold).

but yeah, when you're under fire for appointing political cronies who clearly don't know their shit, nominating somebody who's never been a judge before for the supreme court is a bit questionable.

Almost as much as appointing your chief political advisor/campaigner
as responsible for overseeing relief & rebuilding efforts for a locality devasted by natural disaster.

"I pooed my pants, Ma"

If I was of a conspiratorial mind, I'd say that this statement was OTM. Pick someone doomed to fail and then zing everyone with a Robertsesque second choice. If the Democrats try to filibuster a second nominee, well LOOK WHO'S HOLDING UP THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN.

http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/

Yeah the Dems have to save that political capital ... for .... ummm ...

Can we just abolish affirmative action for Republicans?

Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable."

---

In our editorial board meeting this morning, one of my colleagues, a fellow who is high on Miers and who is to the left of me, was exulting over Bush sticking a shiv in the back of social and religious conservatives with this pick. And I'm thinking that the president is so embattled on so many fronts right now, from the Iraq debacle to the Katrina mess to the GOP's ethical scandals, that he doesn't need to alienate his base. I think he has just alienated his base, which had every reason to expect better of him.

And there's lots more. I'm honestly entertained by this.

You should actually read the whole list -- there's stuff like this:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "[W]hen I Choose Judges In New York, I Look For Practical Experience. And So The Fact That She Hasn't Been A Judge Before, To Me Is Actually A Positive, Not A Negative." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Press Conference, 10/3/05)

CBS' John Roberts: "The President Conducts A Nationwide Extensive Search For The Best Person For The Job To Be The Nominee To Be Associate Justice To Replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor And Finds Her Down The Hall." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/3/05)

And these are supposed to be *positive* endorsements! Good job, guys! I wonder which Kool-Aid drinker at the GOP had to type this up.

x-post

I *so* didn't need that visual.

if anything, this cuts against the popular left understanding of GWB that he is a drawling figurehead while the rest of the crew take care of the actual work. of course we know that his 2nd-admin cabinet changes were based on loyalty and not idealogy, but if Miers really is such an unqualified candidate, it suggests that things are organized around his easy monomania to god knows what bottomless degree. no one could just give him a list of 10 solid conservative choices that aren't too off the charts and have him pick one? why would anyone in his circle go along with this if the reaction has been so immediately (and one assumes predictably) pissy?

Black humor is the modus operandi these days. Else my sanity would collapse.

I wished Miers looked more like Roddy Piper than Rutger Hauer.

Just talked to a couple of people in the Bush orbit who was making the case for Miers. Comes down to: Bush has made good judicial picks to this point, so why would he suddenly go south now?; Miers has overseen the selection process that has produced many conservative nominees; she might not have a paper trail on hot-button issues before the court, but she has something more important: Bush's absolute confidence that she is his sort of judge and that she won't “grow” in office; everyone who works with her has the highest regard for her deep principle, and she is a well-grounded individual. The bottom line is “trust us.”

How hollow it all sounds.

har har. "don't worry; she'll be appropriately clueless once installed..."

Some of Miers' background -- yeah, supporting the International Criminal Court makes perfect sense with the rest of Bush's re...hey, wait!

And did we mention the securities fraud?

Can we just abolish affirmative action for Republicans?

Affirmative action != trying to make public relations gains by not nominating two white dudes

sure you can -- worse would be Chief Justice Clarence Thomas (who, when he isn't being Scalia's judicial sock-puppet, has views that even Fat Tony thinks are harsh).

luckily, though, we seem to have dodged THAT bullet.

I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

William Kristol is editor of The
Weekly Standard.

Collapsing around your ears, Bill. I think even another terrorist attack would work against him at this point.

Actually, I think Thomas' constitutional jurisprudence makes a hell of a lot more sense than Nino Scalia's . . . even though both of them are batshit crazy.

I think you're giving Reid far too much credit. And the GOP/its base far too much credit to think they're not just going to fall in line again and again.

As with Roberts, certain elements of the GOP sigh and signal their disapproval to make the Democrats look worse when they talk about voting down or filibustering the nominee.

Perhaps. But then you get Sen. Dick Durbin smiling and lookign pleased as punch; meanwhile Judicial Committee Chairperson Arlen Spector sounded positively circumspect if not dour. Reverse these positions and you get the Roberts nomination chatter two months ago. It can only be Harry Reid telling his senators, "Let the president have this one. We're thinking of dividing the GOP base and thus winning in 2008." It may be shortsighted since this woman will serve longer than any president who gets elected in '08, but it's the first sign of a Machiavellianism no Democrat has displayed since Bill Clinton left office.

Might not work, but it's as good as anything given the circumstances (circumstances including the absence of a clear Democratic agenda).

So I can expect a couple more centuries of glorious debauchery before we implode and take Western Civilization with us. Phew.

They already made jokes about that on the Corner, so...

Yeah, her name is Harriet and she looks like Rutger Hauer!

(It goes on to say, unsurprisingly, that they probably won't do that, but funny all the same)

"Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"

But there's a key difference. Hosility to the international community and "unilateralism" (code for protecting America's interests first) are principles Bush wins respect by defending. Cronyism is not a principle, or at least one not easily defended. Miers may be great stuff, but I don't think anyone can doubt Bush picked her because she's his gal Friday."

Um... Weren't these the same folks who were talking "nuclear option" a few short months ago - all because filibustering a Bush judicial nomination was supposedly the most heinous political crime imaginable? Oh my sweet, sweet irony. My senses are swimming.

yep, keep showing those openings, bill.

time to hit them on the "weak leader" or "betrayal" areas, watch the blows land more damage than "Bush lied/thousands died" could...

I mean, the loyalty issue is an obvious one, but I'm not really sure that you could be in Miers position(s) for the past five years without marching the Bush goosestep to perfection. Seriously, if one of his most loyal subjects doesn't see eye to eye with him by now, who else would?

Then again, I just can't figure out why anyone among the best and the brightest would be working for Bush in the first place. If you're that smart, you know better. Right?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051003/051003_miers_hmed_8a.h2.jpg

White House via AFP - Getty Images file
Harriet Miers, at the time staff secretary, is seen on Aug. 6, 2001, briefing President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Gee, what historic document did El Doofus claim to have looked thru on AUGUST 6TH, 2001?

Wait, Roberts was a white man. I'm really confused. Is he a "stealth" black woman or what?

Well then, let's party!

Anyway, I disagree. Kerry and other Dem prez hopefuls who voted to greenlight the Iraq invasion were guilty of STUPID Machiavellianism.

Entertaining dust-up at work:

Kmiec defends Miers

Hewitt refers to Kmiec by way of getting annoyed with the likes of Ponnuru.

Bainbridge tells Hewitt, politely, to STFU.

Ponnuru himself follows up.

Fun fun! Can't wait to see what Hewitt says next.

WTF was the bit about revising the posse comitatus act(to allow the army the power to arrest americans here) in order to quarantine any avian flu outbreak or pandemic? did anybody else hear "Don't Fear the Reaper" start playing?

same old shit: we fucked up, so we're pushing for this legislation to give us more power.

also, if Rove is reportedly busy trying to drum up support for the nominee this week, who's running the whole "hurricane rebuilding" thing?

talking how rightwingers might try to kill the nom, judging from the tone of an email from conservative activist Richard A. Viguerie:

“Liberals have successfully cowed President Bush by scaring him off from nominating a known conservative, strict constructionist to the Court, leaving conservatives fearful of which direction the Court will go.”

"oh yeah, boo, but don't worry. We don't really do anything."

"AAAAAAAAAAAGH, you're COWING US!"

haha

Call me an intellectual snob if you want, but while I don't insist on Ivy League credentials, I do insist on documented high power thinking.

Not up in THAT bitch you don't.

Hewitt claims this piece is 'simply brilliant' as a defense of Miers. Ponnuru quotes what he rather dryly terms 'the most interesting part' -- leaving Lowry with the perfect and obvious follow-up:

FETCHING BEVERAGES?!? Wow, the Miers boosters are really stretching...

!!!

BRING
IT
ON

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential deference to which senatorial discretion is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s ‘‘argument’’ for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked in advance — to insure a considered response from him — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ‘‘I agree.’’ Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ‘‘I do.’’

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’ confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of ‘‘diversity’’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing
Miers, deplored judges who ‘‘legislate from the bench.’’ Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ‘‘discriminated against’’ because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Volokh, Balloon Juice, etc.

But i just gotta repeat what the Rude Pundit said in the post linked to upthread:

...And then Ponnuru joined the party liberals have been having for about, let's say, four and a half years now: "[T]he argument that the administration making is, this was a good decision because the president made it and the president makes good decisions. And that might be enough for a monarchy, but it's plainly not a persuasive argument in a democratic system." Which used to be called "questioning a President at a time of war" or "treasonous" or some such shit when it was the rest of us who asked Bush to actually persuade us that he's right. Hey, National Review, welcome back to America - now why don't you help clean up the fuckin' mess you made?

"She just asked us to pray for her," Kaycia Key said. When the preacher's wife tried to find out why, she said, Miers responded: "You know I can't tell you that."

Since, apparently, Knight Ridder no longer employs editors, let me be the first to ask

1) What does Judge Hecht mean by "semi-romantic"?
2) What issue split the comgregation?

I love how he in essence called Bush unreflective and stupid.

"Under the rubric of ‘‘diversity’’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses..."

"Fear my needlessly dense prose cleverly inverting tradional formulae."

Wanker.

The lesson people seemed to have taken away from the Robert Bork hearings was that you cannot be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice if you tell the Senate your real views. That is patently untrue. You only have to avoid telling the truth if you are a conservative jurist. That is because the country does not agree with the conservatives.

Judge Bork told us honestly that he did not believe in Roe or the right to privacy. He did not get defeated for being honest and forthcoming – he was defeated because his views are solidly outside the mainstream.

I come at this from a unique perspective because I am one of these freak judicial conservatives. I have attended Federalist Society meetings, as John Roberts did. I think Roe is comically wrong (constitutionally speaking, it would have been excellent legislation). I don’t believe the constitution outlines a broad right to privacy. It is quite specific as to what kinds of privacy rights you are entitled to in the Bill of Rights. I don’t even believe in the Miranda warnings.

But I recognize I am in the minority. Most Americans wouldn’t want me on the Supreme Court. And if they realized that most of the conservative judges nominated feel the same way as I do, they would also reject them. But instead we play hide and seek.

This purposeful obfuscation inevitably leads to mystery picks like Harriet Miers. Supreme Court justices shouldn’t be like a box of chocolates, we should know what we’re going to get inside.

Miers was picked for a couple of reasons. The first is undying loyalty to President Bush, which is the main qualifier you have to have to get any important government job these days. Her other qualification was that she didn’t have other qualifications. She has done nothing that would indicate her true beliefs – the perfect recipe for a conservative judge you want to sneak on to the court. This is getting absurd.

This is part of the reason true believers on the right are upset. They now realize the President is embarrassed of them. He cannot pick one of their intellectual stalwarts because the administration realizes the American people don’t agree with the conservative movement. This has to be a painful moment of reckoning for the right. They will never get any of their true, principled legal scholars on the court. The best they can hope for is people who are so unqualified for the job that they might be able to trick the American people into thinking they are moderates.

I also think extrinsic political circumstances have wrought havoc with the GOP plan, tho.

If the courts were just about getting the votes, then the preisdent should have chosen Dennis Hastert for the Supreme Court.

BEARDS!

I would have preferred Dan's answer, but the truth is.. there a lots of single, god-fearing older women who are very happy being single, god-fearing women. This doesn't prove Miers is one of those, but it's not inconceivable. Then again, I'd imagine the pressure among her peers in Texas would give her a harder time than if she, say, lived in Seattle, where that would be considered normal... (well, at least the single part, not the God-fearing part.. haha)

"most everyone she hangs out with would have a problem with that"

uh, everybody knows "confirmed bachelor/bachelorette" types. some are workaholics. doesn't mean they're gay. i think it's really retarded that our society at large assumes that, "if they're single, something must be wrong with them, aka THEY'RE GAY! if they don't have kids they must be heartless, selfish bastards!"

to me, the real thing to worry about is that Cheney+W have a puppet in the supreme court for the next 20ish years.

m.

Also, many of us are kidding. Well, I'm kidding.

I foudn this one interesting(remember this is from 1981):

A major conservative fund-raiser -- declaring the New Right is not "a paper tiger" -- vowed Wednesday to enter the fray to keep Sandra O'Connor from winning Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

The declaration by direct-mail wizard Richard Viguerie came as fundamentalist opponents to Mrs. O'Connor opened a new First Amendment front and other foes of the Arizona judge continued to attack her record on abortion.

...

Viguerie said the New Right -- an informal coalition united by ultraconservative views on both social and economic issues -- has to wage a battle against Mrs. O'Connor's record on the abortion issue, or else the White House "will just think we are a paper tiger."

...

McIntire, who described Reagan's choice as "a dark and sad day for fundamentalism in our churches," marched with about 20 demonstrators outside the Supreme Court and in front of Senate offices. One carried a sign saying, "Get a Judge Who Doesn't Fudge."

True, but it's the court's opinions, not it's vote tallies, which are the subject of future consideration. I think that those of us with more liberal sympathies are going to have to accept that there are going to be some decisions that won't go our way in the coming years. But eventually the pendulum is going to swing away from the far right. When that happens, any future liberal justices would presumably have an easier time tipping over an opinion written by a (at this stage presumed) lightweight like Miers than a judicial heavyweight like Luttig.

Well, it depends on what GWB has planned once he leaves office... granted, it may just be an eternal retirement of playing golf. *shrug*
Also, once GWB leaves office, Miers doesn't necessarily have to answer to Bush anymore (or vice versa, if the rumors are true.)

"Oh hit me there, please." *SPANK* "FUCK YEAH!"

"Oh, please don't throw that Harriet Miers into the briar patch!"

"There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," he said.

At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism." Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but "was talking more broadly" about criticism of Miers.

...

"The message of the meetings was the president consulted with 80 United States senators but didn't consult with the people who elected him," said Manuel A. Miranda, a former nominations counsel for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) who attended both.

Weyrich, who hosted one of the two private meetings, said afterward that he had rarely seen the level of passion at one of his weekly sessions. "This kind of emotional thing will not happen" often, Weyrich said. But he feared the White House advisers did not really grasp the seriousness of the conservative grievance. "I don't know if they got the message. I didn't sense that they really understand where people were coming from."

Etc. etc. etc.

i dunno, man. they might get even more desperate and start pulling some bigtime shit...

Frum responds to Hewitt and others, is not happy.

Noonan complains mightily.

Hewitt finds an ally in Lileks. I am not sure this is a positive for either of them.

Anyway, keep an eye out on NROWorld via the Corner and Bench Memos, Bainbridge, Instapundit, RedState and more today to watch some amusing/creepy shit go down. Also, note this on the President's schedule today:

11:40 am THE PRESIDENT participates in a tribute to National Review Magazine and William F. Buckley, Jr.

EEOB - Room 450, The White House

Hmmm...

1) batshit insane fundies and
2) "the Direct Descendants of Barry Goldwater"

sonned!!

Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.

haha

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them — as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee — by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.

awesome

At the most basic level it is the power of Congress to ratify treaties and confirm Presidential nominations.

Then again, I have irrational hatred against Ann Coulter.

Then again, is any hatred towards Ann Coulter irrational?

There's obviously a LOT of inside information we're not in on... it may be revealed soon. Or it may not. This is what makes all this up-in-arms thing really interesting (good or bad)

OMG

Frum posts reader responses.

Levin blames McCain.

McCain expressed views may have indirectly made Bush cry "Mommy" and nominate his bestest buddy. TO THE PLANK!

Krauthammer vents (as well as implicitly trashing Hewitt).

Continuing conservative angst via the Washington Post

As Sullivan himself notes, "I'm beginning to think that this appointment was an expression of the president's contempt for the conservative intelligentsia." A tempting vision.

Meanwhile, Hewitt remains bitchy, Bainbridge sasses back Churchill for Disraeli, and some RedState.org commenters are starting to hyperventilate that she told Leahy she liked "Warren" -- turns out she meant Burger, not Earl, but it's still not good enough for the Roe haters of course.

Hahahaha can I answer this one????

Frum wonders 'what now?' and foresees problems

Bork -- yes, that one -- trashes Miers. The ConfirmThem comments make for wonderful bile.

Taranto reports interesting gossip from the National Review celebration

And speaking of, NRO types argue that killing the nomination will rejuvenate Bush -- I have my doubts.

Hewitt explains the obvious -- 'gee, that blogosphere reaction was quick, wasn't it?' -- and continues to whistle in the dark.

Bainbridge trashes the 'faith card' and wonders about her politics.

And as more than one right-wing writer has worriedly noted, Reid and crew in the Senate seem all too remarkably composed, even relaxed right now on this matter -- a strategy which calls to mind how the 'Social Security reform' card was countered with a general refusal *not* to play the game, because they didn't have to.

We won't know how badly we're wounded until they are both seated and start voting and writing opinions. Obviously, Miers is not going to win points for brilliance, but then, neither does Thomas - and he does plenty enough damage just by sitting there like a bump on a log. In some ways, mediocre judges are much more reliable and predictable, if they are intellectually stolid and inert. Bush himself guarantees Miers 'won't change her mind'. What a fabulous recommendation!

no comment

The unexpected silver lining, though, is this crack in the Republican hivemind, so to speak.

That said, I'm hardly happy with Miers, myself. But it's better to go with someone with slightly uncertain odds of being awful, then someone with definite odds of being awful. Lesser of two evils, etc. etc. barf barf.

I have no doubts she would vote against Roe. None.

Harry Reid's comments thus far are baffling. I really don't think he can game this and not make a fool of himself unless he's positive that the nom will fail. And Tony Blankley says he has a hunch that it will.

Of all the bad decisions Bush has made, this nomination ranks with the worst if not the worst. ZERO upside.

*blink, blink*
OH YEAH, I FORGOT.

I still say play it straight.

More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers.

One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?"

Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered to offer any help Miers might need. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."

It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving her out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs.

But the desirability of a talent is not the same --by a long shot-- of its necessity. President Bush has made a different calculation. It isn't the one I would have made, but that's no excuse to wage a campaign of self-destructive (to the GOP coalition) recrimination

Which is, I think, his first fully tacit claim, after the Dobson etc. mutterings he made yesterday, that it's all about political 'calculation' overriding other factors. Be interesting to see who picks up on this in response.

This has all the political calculation of Bush and no one else. It's certainly not a Rove-ian choice, it doesn't have the markings of Cheney. It's worlds apart from the Roberts nomination.

In fact, it has all the hallmarks of Bush's own decision making. It's a gut choice, not one that seems to be borne of long discussions or careful assessment or vetting. It strikes me as the kind of decision that came from Bush hearing a lot of people argue about a host of candidates, then saying, "This is bullshit. I know Harriet. I like her. She'll be good. What's the next topic." I don't see this as a calculated choice in any way at all, as far as political context or outcome is concerned.

The more I think about it, the more dismayed I get. The Roberts nomination was politically sage, a great pick with tremendous upside. But nominating your personal counsel is simply a disastrous show of judgment--imagine the outrage if Clinton would have done such a thing. It's bad politics all the way through.

Kerry/Gore nominating Hillary -- nah, can't see it. I could see said blogs *assuming* that, in that it's a convenient example of a hate figure to plug-and-play into this scenario, much like their effusions over Luttig etc. are convenient choices of the 'right' person. Then real life stepped in and they cried.

bahahahah. not bloody likely.

it's a long shot but this juicy personal info he wouldn't "divulge" and the ensuing white house campaign using him to convert evangelicals to her cause may well sink the nomination. Specter and several other senate republicans on the committee are PISSED OFF.

then to ease off the pressure on her during the hearings, letting all the republicans tear each other apart going after her.

I guess I'm just wondering at what point do the lines change for who's playing defense vs offense for her case. I still can't get over the image of Harry Reid & Dick Durbin trying very hard to hide grins and offering up as much positive/enabling language as they possibly can:

"Well, she's a candidate with the very strong support of the President, and we really look forward to talking to her thru this process" etc etc etc.

Kerry or Gore probably would have nominated Sonia Sotomayer or Jose Cabranes. Though maybe they're too Northeastern.

If you want to ramrod your (anti-choice) agenda through, it's a pretty politically savvy choice to do it in a way that seems highly unthreatening to the other side by picking someone who both seems relatively unprepared to be a leader for your team and is unknown enough to raise serious home-fan misgivings.

don weiner, still on message.

The White House needs to know this. Really. It's getting worse. Trust me.

Aw, poor baby.

except that when you pick someone who is your legal (and very likely, personal) confidant, you are much more likely to be certain of that person's view on matters like Roe. So in that sense, that is, the most OBVIOUS sense, picking a crony isn't maybe as unthreatening as it is likely to be a CERTAINTY with regard to ideology. I don't find that savvy at all. The only reason it is savvy is perhaps that she doesn't have a wild-assed paper trail of rulings to haunt her--hell, isn't her close association with Bush a damn close enough approximation to know that she is likely to be a stooge in the right-wing army? Or is it somehow worse if it's a more academic/judicial candidate with fierce intellect or deportment, the kind that can crusade for wingnut causes from the bench?

And yes, I'm on message. Like always, my fax machine and email inbox tells me what to think.

If those disappointed by the Miers nomination want to assure that a Michael Luttig or a Michael McConnell never get nominated much less through the Senate, they will pursue tactics that will diminish the Senate majority so that the constitutional option is off the table.

Hidden implication -- 'we'll get them next time around, just trust me!' -- which is of course precisely what the annoyed people don't want to hear. This is going to go on...

...This newspaper is second to none in its pro-American sentiments; in the early Bush years it devoted much ink to defending the President against the often malevolent and ignorant attacks of a congenitally anti-American European media. But we know a lost cause when we see one: the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs – all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed America’s post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamed of. As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed into the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage.

(found this via the Big Picture)

If Arlen Specter is really serious about subpoenaing James Dobson, some of his Senate colleagues had better advise him to think twice. It’s one thing for Democrats like Ken Salazar or Pat Leahy to behave that way — quite another for Republicans to do so.

Of course evangelicals like Dr. Dobson annoy the life out of pro-choice “moderates” like Arlen Specter. But they also allow him to enjoy the post of Judiciary Committee Chairman because his party’s in the majority.

No, it’s not like the Religious Right will vote for a Democrat if Republicans mistreat them. But they will stay home — even as it is, it’s a real matter of debate within some religious right communities whether they should be engaging in politics at all.

Even as everyone enjoys having their say about Harriet Miers, her faith, and “what Dr. Dobson knew and when he knew it” — be aware. If the Religious Right goes, Republican electoral dominance goes with them.

Essentially a restatement in other words of what Hewitt's been arguing.

So what happens in the comments section? Oh, where to begin...

oh man, it's shit like this that makes me wanna start some sort of enabling campaign. "Dude, go for it!

The nomination of Miers is one of three things: a brilliant move by the president; a blunder like Reagan's nominations of Justice O'Connor and Kennedy or the first Bush's of Souter; or a betrayal of the sort that occasions taking leave of the whole project.

Other than those who are easily betrayed --and probably already feeling betrayed because of budget deficits of less than 5% GDP or a failure to put machine guns on the Mexican border-- the GOP voters in the last category are very few indeed. They have disproportionate representation among the conservative punditry.

...

Concern over the direction of SCOTUS --an issue second only to winning the GWOT-- counsels support of Miers. Even those convinced it is a blunder ought to now turn their attention to the Iraq elections and away from Miers until the hearings are underway.

Not that they will. Only that they should.

It's all about subtext, of course, and as always with Hewitt neither Bush nor his overriding goal must be sacrificed -- and the target must be his own fellow pundits. Time to watch them eat their own...

I like to call those people, "pundits who have long ago given the fuck up on Bush and Republican leadership."

why just stop there? landmines have worked so well in South Korea and Eastern Europe, let's go for that!

A judge's personal beliefs are not to be brought to bear with the case, but oh shit, it's a betrayal when a Justice doesn't necessarily toe whatever the Party Line is that week.

Another confirm.them comment< thread worth scanning, just to see the bile. Hewitt comes in for a particular roasting.

This Balloon Juice bit, meanwhile, even if only one example, suggests a much more lopsided reaction against her than the support-the-Prez wing is allowing for.

Should we allow/support getting a hilariously/horrifyingly incompetent nominee thru the system who'll have massive conflicts of interest for the next 3 years and who'll write some seriously weak sauce opinions while letting the rightwing tear itself up?

or do we use our powder now and let her falter/kill her nomination off only to have the strong guano loco come thru next time that has the unified & unifying support of their base?

Instapundit sums it up and wonders what crack Bush and crew were on.

ned i feel 4 u

I knew you would understand!

Bush's nominee to replace O'Connor is (205 new answers, 285 total)
alabama chief justice roy moore (12 new answers)

Oh man, imagine if.

Yeah, both parties infamously suffer from this. Unfortunately, it's the Democrats who have a tendency to do this before the election.

I was one of the grass roots volunteers working my butt off for the President's reelection. Among those I worked with on the campaign, there was no issue that was more important than appointing the absolute best people to the Supreme Court. Never once did I hear a list of elitist qualifications or anything of the sort. The discussions always centered on picking candidates in whom we could have confidence and fight for.

It feels like I've gotten kicked in the teeth, and the guy who kicked me, along with his best buddies, are telling me I'm a jerk for not enjoying it. What's worse is that I think they actually believe I am a jerk for not enjoying it.

Which is why so many of the purported leftists on this board anger me. They have no idea nor do they care what O'Reilly, Sullvan, Frum, Goldberg et al have to say.

xpost ned otm

(xpost)

yes, how can i live without the benefits of such great intellect, compassion and mental health

OH NO

Perhaps it's just a matter of environment -- but even so, hell, I live in OC, and my reaction is the same as Ethan's. Only Hewitt ever actively riled me up, to my surprise, and as he's spent this past week shooting more holes in his foot than anything else personally that feeling long passed.

Behind the scenes, Republican allies of the White House said they were trying to put together a public relations strategy to combat the mounting criticism over the Miers nomination. The effort, they said, would include administration officials, the Republican National Committee and conservative advocates who will carry onto television, talk radio and other forums the message that Ms. Miers, the White House counsel and a close confidante of the president, is a strong choice and that Mr. Bush will stand firmly behind her.

They said the White House was working to assemble a dossier that would back up its case about Ms. Miers' record of accomplishment, her legal qualifications and her conservative credentials. The administration was trying to assemble and review as much documentation as it could find about Ms. Miers's public record before she came to the White House, including details of her service on the Dallas City Council and her role as president of the State Bar of Texas.

Jim Dyke, a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee who has joined the White House to help confirm Ms. Miers, said in an interview she was being seriously underestimated.

"President of the Texas bar association, president of the Dallas Bar Association, head of a major law firm, those are impressive credentials and they are being summarily dismissed," Mr. Dyke said. Asked about Mr. Specter's remark, Mr. Dyke said that as White House counsel, Ms. Miers already had "a mastery of the Constitution and constitutional law," and said she needed to do nothing more than any other nominee to prepare. He added, "There seem to be some unfair assumptions being made."

Bainbridge in response:

It figures that George Bush would rather just look into somebody's heart than actually do his homework before making a selection. But who in the White House is pulling this stuff together and what if they don't like what they find? Will they tell Dobson but not the Senate or the rest of us? More generally, it is precisely this sort of "act first, think later" business that most drives me nuts about Bush.

You're not alone there...

A piece at Townhall.com calling for withdrawal, Patterico comes out against (no surprise really), Quin Wossname proposes an exit strategy at ConfirmThem and the comments are flying, Hewitt calls in an interview from Lino Gralia, Frum gets fed up with people assuming he's out to get Miers due to personal spite, Podhoretz and Lopez deal with the negative mail as they do and so it goes and goes and goes...

JF: Here's the problem. Because the White House has been so unfair to Harriet Miers and her supporters, because they haven't collected the information, they've sent you onto the beaches of Normandy without proper ammunition and armament. Because of that, we are going to see six or seven surprises come down the road the next few days, about Harriet Miers. Now all of them are sustainable individually. The problem is because the White House was completely unprepared for this, they're doing a disservice to you and her supporters...

HH: Want to give me an example of one, John?

JF: The Texas Lotter Commission, and all the various contracts that were allocated, how they were allocated, and Harriet Miers' role in them.

HH: And what's that going to tell us about her?

JF: The story will be coming out this week, and it's going to involve possible interference by the governor's office with the operations of the Lotter Commission. I'm not saying Harriet Miers was involved. I'm simply saying these are stories that are going to come out, that need answers, and frankly, the White House hasn't done the homework. I hope they have the answers ready.

And how!

Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, quickly developed a deep and almost gushing admiration for her boss from her earliest days in Texas government.

"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect!" she wrote in 1997, in a belated birthday note that was typical of the tone she used in her correspondence with then-Gov. Bush.

...

Bush responded to her birthday wish in kind, and included a humorous, if baffling, postscript.

"I appreciate your friendship and candor. Never hold back your sage advice," he wrote. "P.S. No more public scatology." Whether Bush was referring to Miers' rough-and-tumble time as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission or something else isn't clear. Scatology refers to "the study of or preoccupation with excrement or obscenity," according to Webster's dictionary.

Why of course the emphasis is mine.

Various other bits from Miers during that time.

U R TEH BEST GOV'RNOR EVAH!
BFF,
HARRIET

P.S. I DID A POO

A few days later, Ms. Miers wrote to thank the Bushes, saying, "Texas has a very popular governor and first lady!" She recalled a little girl who collected Mr. Bush's autograph and said, "I was struck by the tremendous impact you have on the children whose lives you touch."

The notes to Mr. Bush date from at least March 1995, around the time he named her to the lottery commission, the files show. On March 25, on the letterhead of her Dallas law firm, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Ms. Miers wrote to thank him "for taking the time to visit in the office and on the plane back - cool!"

"Keep up all the great work," she wrote. "The state is in great hands. Thanks also for yours and your family's personal sacrifice."

In October 1997, Ms. Miers sent Mr. Bush a flowery greeting card in thanks for a letter that he had written on her behalf. In it, she said of his daughters: "Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are 'cool' - as do the rest of us."

She added, "All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing," and ended, "Texas is blessed."

...

Some papers from Ms. Miers's time at the commission , a position to which she was named by Mr. Bush, depicted her as a bureaucrat with a keen eye for procedure. They also showed she sailed through her confirmation hearing. Minutes of commission meetings showed Ms. Miers in command, questioning employees and other commissioners on topics like advertising, charitable bingo operations and bids to help manage the lotteries. One lawmaker asked what groups could run bingo, saying, "Could the Ku Klux Klan?"

Ms. Miers responded, "Well, I would certainly hope not."

Yeah, you'd think.

-- Her taste in stationery (50lb Book? 70lb Text?)
-- Her recipe for devil's food cake
-- Paperclips vs. staples
-- Her secret shame: huffing helium from the birthday balloons

http://game-science.com/reviews/img/ps2_kd/intro.jpg

Goldberg, as I semi-predicted, is starting to rip into his own audience a bit. There's a lot of talk about how all the division 'is good for the health of conservatism' but now the knives are coming out a little more thoroughly.

The Gang of 14’s centrist Democratic and Republican senators met and gave preliminary approval yesterday to Harriet Miers as President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.

Emerging from a meeting at the offices of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, “This nomination didn’t set off any alarm bells with any of us.”

The significance of this provisional endorsement, though presented in a low-key fashion, could be huge, for it means that unless damning evidence emerges during the Judiciary Committee’s as-yet unscheduled confirmation hearings the nominee is unlikely to be filibustered, and a party-line vote would mean confirmation. A party-line vote is far from assured because conservatives have not welcomed the nomination.

Yesterday’s meeting was the Gang’s first formal opportunity to discuss Miers, and several of the senators said they are still early in the process and under no commitment to vote for the nominee.

“This is the beginning of a lengthy process,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).

But the Gang’s raison d’être is to prevent both politically motivated filibusters and the “nuclear option,” a rule change to cut off debate. The Gang thus seems to be lining up to force colleagues to accept an up-or-down vote on Miers’s confirmation.

White House advisers are already looking ahead to the State of the Union address next year as a way to lift President Bush out of his political doldrums.

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson will take to the airwaves Wednesday and Thursday to clarify what information he got from the White House or other sources about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Dobson has faced a barrage of media attention in recent days because he has tentatively endorsed Miers just as other conservatives or evangelical Christian leaders have expressed doubts about her qualifications and concern about the lack of a paper trail outlining her views.

I was going to write a juicy piece with lots of good quotes from White House sources, but in the past twenty-four hours I’ve gotten calls, emails, and instant messages requesting that I please not quote anyone. What’s going on?

Here’s the story I was going to write: I was going to write about the flurry of White House conservative staffers contacting me to vent. Slowly, but surely, momentum among the conservative staffers shifted from tight lipped Bushies to angry activists and then abruptly stopped. A couple worked under Miers and said they loved her, but could not fathom that she would be considered for the post, given that no one really knows where she stands except potentially on affirmative action and that would be bad for the conservative position.

What all the callers wanted to say, but then decided they should not say, or at least not be quoted saying, was that Andy Card really and truly was the person pushing Miers. The general theme was that Tim Flanigan had moved on in 2002, Gonzales had moved to Justice taking well trained staff with him, and Miers was left to fill a definite void with some lesser experienced staff.

Those who mentioned Roberts praised Miers handling of Roberts and commented that Miers went to bat for Roberts right out of the gate with a game plan in place, but no one was there to do the same for Miers. An independent source tells me that Miers begged for more time, but the White House demanded that Monday be the day. Interestingly, there is a credible rumor out there that the White House insisted on Monday because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor.

Part of the Miers pick seems to be a confused process and a rush job, which adds credibility to the rumor of a last minute back out. But, the White House conservatives and outside parties all indicate that they were ignored. They were heard but not listened to. Several who talked to RedState insist that warning flags were given to Andrew Card and others, but that those warning were ignored and Card pushed the issue all the way to the President’s desk.

One outside source who has a good ear to the ground tells me that the White House most likely has nothing else to offer in Miers’ favor, but will just recycle previous sound bites. This same source bolsters what a White House staffer tells me, in that the vetting process was so poorly done that much of what is now coming out about Miers was unknown before her nomination.

The remaining questions are whether Republican Senators will force the White House to withdraw the Miers nomination and, if so, will the replacement be less favorable to conservatives.

The mention of a sudden last-minute substitution is starting to gain a bit of further traction elsewhere, but this appears to be the more coherent source. The word that Card was behind a lot of this had been circulating for a bit.

Ramesh, you note that Erick Erickson speaks of a "very credible rumor" that the intended nominee dropped out at the last minute. My bs detector suggests this might be some weird back-spin back-channel spin from the White House (of the "hey, give us a break, we had a good nominee but she quit and we had to go out there with somebody"). I mean, come on. Everybody on the relatively short list has been there for months and months. The idea that somebody would drop at the last minute rather than keep his or her name out of contention at an earlier phase seems a tad far-fetched.

Anyone seriously expecting a meaningful conservative division is smoking crack.

But even a meaningless conservative division is more fun to watch than the We Love George show.

Immediate ConfirmThem reaction -- in short, "DOBSON = PWNED," as they see it.

sure sounds like Dobson’s just trying to avoid a subpoena.

This is PURE spin. NOTHING in his tale falls into the “super secret, hush hush stuff that I shouldn’t know”.

He’s just trying to dig himself out of the legal mess that he’s now in.

Wonder if people will be foolish enough to fall for it.

Pretty transparent and disingenuous if you ask me!

Hope he still gets pulled in front of the Committee. It’ll be a lot of fun watching him commit perjury.

Major piece right now is this one from the NY Times saying a slew of Senate aides are opposed to Miers.

From NRO world:

Frum: 'A Sinking Nomination'

Lopez publishes a batch of letters on Miers -- to say opinions are split is understating

Goldberg adds to Podhoretz's skepticism I linked to a few posts back. McCarthy chimes in. Goldberg also wonders if some leaking couldn't have helped. Geraghty offers up a thought, countered by Podhoretz

Kurtz responds to Hewitt over the potential Senate seat cost and to that NY Times article.

Ponnuru responds to Hewitt (more on that in a bit)

Podhoretz meanwhile responds to the news that Specter is annoyed with the 'pummeling' Miers and Bush are getting.

I didn’t volunteer for Reagan years ago just to see the party overrun by religious fanatics, who can’t think straight.

....

Hewitt titles his major bit so far this morning 'A Lean and Hungry Look...,' responding to the NY Times piece. He's not thrilled. (He also links, though not approvingly, to a parallel Washington Times piece.) He also notes a new pro-Miers switch.

Balloon Juice calls Dobson's stuff 'pure bullshit'

BillMon at WhiskyBar offers up some thoughts on the perceived Card/Rove power struggle being played out.

Brookhiser serves up some summary.

BigLizards and Captain's Quarters on opposing views on 'Did Laura Bush really say that?' The comments in the latter are, shall we say, ripe.

And it's another busy day at ConfirmThem:

From the Confirm Them email bag:

I am not sure if you caught this over the weekend, but the White House has launched a new line of attacks against the critics of the Miers nomination. Apparently unable to make their earlier claims of sexism and elitism stick, they have begun smearing the conservative judges that were preferred by some of the administration’s most vocal critics. Brit Hume had a pretty nasty exchange with Bill Kristol on Fox News, where he attacked Sixth Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder out of nowhere and claimed there is “all kinds of evidence that she is a judicial activist,” or something to that effect. (This claim, by the way, is absolutely laughable. Unlike Hume, I am quite familiar with Judge Batchelder’s record, and there isn’t anything remotely “activist” in it.)

I did not vote for this President so that I could see his flaks attack conservative judges. If the White House or Brit Hume have substantive arguments regarding Miers’ qualifications, they should offer them. But this new diversion, attacking well-respected judges in order to distract us from the issues at hand — Bush’s cronyism and Miers’ lack of relevant work experience — is truly despicable. Importantly, this was just the opening salvo. For the past several days, the White House has been calling the media with negative talking points on Batchelder and other judges. (Obviously, you have no particular reason to believe me, but I am sure you can confirm what I am saying with minimal effort.)

Conservatives looked the other way while Bush passed steel tariffs, engaged in the type of nation-building that he specifically campaigned against, and spent more money than any President in history. We did so in part because we care deeply about the judiciary and we trusted that Bush would live up to his promise of appointing Justices like Scalia and Thomas. It is bad enough that he broke that promise. It is beyond the pale for him to add insult to injury by unleashing his hounds on conservative judges whose sole crime seems to be their popularity with the Republican base.

And yes there's lots more...

Meanwhile, from another corner of NRO world, Lopez:

Alberto Gonzales was Miers flacking this morning. I bet that got those disgruntled, depressed, and demoralized Republican staffers on the Hill to work!

whats up with this nro vs sullivan shit- making fun of dudes sleep apnea?!

I don't know, it's some weird default thing between them. Did you see Sullivan's site got hacked this morning?

A journalist friend just spoke with a top Texas lawyer who spoke with Priscilla Owen last week. He says that she "most emphatically" did not withdraw her name from consideration to the Court. If the White House spin is that Harriet Miers got the job because nobody else wanted it, it would seem that the White House is at a desperation point.

Heheheh.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051011/capt.lasa10610111334.bush_hurricanes_lasa106.jpg?x=380&y=296&sig=FC4Y5cRkegl6bpSpzlHzbA-- http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20051011/i/r3900324799.jpg?x=380&y=270&sig=G9NWXbIlbgKpdg2r58kNOA--
Humanity building project being taped for a morning televsion show, in Covington, La., Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005. Hurricane Katrina left an estimated 350,000 families homeless in the region. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Also, I love the shot of Laura in the 2nd pic. If you ever wanted a photo of somebody's mom wanting to help but clearly having no idea what to do, there you go. "Uhm, do you guys need anything?"

(i'm posting this in here b/c i can't find a better spot)

yeah it was lame, just like skull & crossbones shit right?? they shouldve reposted his personals ad desperately seeking 18 yr olds for unprotected HIV+ buttfucking

Yeah, I remember some lame graphic. Apparently it might be this dude.

I've long doubted that a shrewd Republican president would want to see Roe over-turned. It's too useful for voter turn-out and direct mail. So what we're seeing is an inevitable clash between the party's elite realists and its grass-roots true believers. That's what makes this such an interesting moment.

My guess is that Rove talked Bush out of Gonzales and, almost in a fit of pique, Bush picked Miers instead. But that's a guess. I have no idea what the president's motivations were in this odd pick. Neither, it appears, do his most die-hard supporters.

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Some Supreme Court candidates withdrew from consideration but that had nothing to do with President George W. Bush's eventual selection of White House lawyer Harriet Miers, the White House said on Wednesday.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed what conservative Christian leader James Dobson told his radio program about an October 1 telephone conversation he had had with top White House aide Karl Rove, in which Rove tried to convince Dobson to support Miers for the Supreme Court.

A senior administration official said it was "just a couple" of candidates who had withdrawn from consideration.

80% != 'a couple,' I believe.

With conservative unrest toward Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court showing no signs of abating, I wondered why we haven't seen any of the Republican senators mentioned as 2008 presidential candidates come out against her, a move that would win them plaudits among the party's ideological right -- not to mention scads of press coverage.

I made several phone calls to Republican consultants and advisers to try and find answers. The overwhelming consensus was that even though President Bush's approval ratings are not stellar currently, none of the potential '08 candidates is willing to risk his wrath by making the political gambit of publicly opposing Miers.

"Nobody wants to take a sharp stick and poke it in the eye of the president no matter what his approval rating is," said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster with the firm Public Opinion Strategies. "He is too strong with Republican primary voters and three years from now he will remember anyone who votes against his nominee."

An adviser to one of the candidates often mentioned as a 2008 contender echoed Bolger's sentiment. "The danger for anybody is that this president takes those things very seriously. You cross him at your own peril."

The adviser, who asked to withhold his name in order to comment more freely, acknowledged that declaring opposition to Miers could help a candidate in the "competition for someone to emerge as the right wing alternative."

Chuck Todd, the editor-in-chief of the Hotline -- the premier political tipsheet -- says in his column today that the lack of public opposition to Miers is about -- surprise! -- money. "The Bushies may become unpopular with the grassroots during the next election but they'll be able to financially veto candidates if they please," Todd writes.

To date, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback (R) has been the most outspoken of the would-be presidential candidates. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brownback said recently of Miers: "A lot of us wanted to see somebody that was a well-formed jurist so that they had a track record of what they would do in cases coming in front of the court. Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record and doesn't seem to be well-formed in her judicial philosophy, having never been on the bench."

Brownback is a favorite of social conservatives but is little-known nationally and would seem to have the most to gain by publicly opposing Miers in the near future.

Here are a few snippets of comments made about Miers by GOP senators often mentioned as considering presidential bids in 2008:

* Sen. George Allen (Va.): "I want to be assured she's not going to be a [Associate Justice David] Souter."; "Right now, I'm keeping an open mind. I need to learn more. I'm trying to discern as best I can what her judicial philosophy is."

* Sen. John McCain (Ariz.): "Over the course of 30 years, Ms. Miers has accumulated vast experience as a legal practitioner, led her peers as the head of state and local bar associations, and worked tirelessly as a dedicated public servant."

* Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.): "I have met her, but beyond that, I really haven't worked with her. I know very little about her."

* Sen. Bill Frist (Tenn.): "She understands the importance of judicial restraint, and will faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench."

Yeah, it's not so fundamental to my concept of justice. At least so far.

And, as Christopher Hitchens rightly pointed out on Monday, how on earth is her religion a sign of integrity?

ConfirmThem bits here and here continue the general angst, and then there's this one, posted by about the only top level Miers supporter at that site:

opposition to Miers seems to be inversely proportional to geographical distance from D.C. or New York. A very trustworthy source of mine — yes, a Senate staffer on the Republican side — drew a sharp distinction between private staff complaining on the one hand (which does seem to exist), and open Senate opposition, on the other. Certainly, the former does not necessarily translate into the latter.

My source noted, correctly in my view, that “the hearings will actually matter this time” and that if Miers “exceeds low expectations, she’ll be fine.”

"Can you spell your name?"

"Yes."

"Great, you're in."

Questions about Roberts' religion are SO out of line...oh wait.

Still, the "pulling a Souter" thing is pretty telling from bush supporters. Changing your mind EVER is the greatest sin of moral weakness, since you were obviously mistaken before and can't be percieved as weak. We must stay the course!

Xpost:

some Jefferson researchers(e.g. Thom Hartmann) have talked about how he wanted the other half of that bit to talk about how the U.S. shouldn't have a standing army, so he added that militia thing. However, other delegates didn't like that so much, and so they stripped the second half out.

I'd just as soon not stand in front of either of those.

Think of where it has been.

Keep an eye on this -- Bainbridge is liveblogging a conference call with RNC chairman Ken Mehlmann. So far:

11:41 Miers will not be swayed by the "Georgetown cocktail set." Mehlman acknowledges that conservatives have been burned by past GOP nominations, but emphasizes that Bush knows Miers better than past GOP Presidents knew their nominees. (But what happens if we don't trust Bush's judgment anymore?)

11:43 Judicial activism is interfering with the GWOT by "micromanaging" decisions. Miers will be solid on executive prerogative. Acknowledges that she'll have to recuse herself in some early cases. (Did she support use of torture?)

11:44 Broke barriers

11:46 Questioner asked for concrete evidence she's a Scalia or Thomas. Mehlman says she is but doesn't support it with any facts.

11:49 Somebody (I think Mark Coffey) asks about news that some candidates refused to be considered. Mehlman doesn't know.

xpost

"Georgetown cocktail set."

hooray! "whiff of elitism" incarnated into a new talking point!

As for the Georgetown crack, I think that's more in response to the idea that folks once *on* the bench are then swayed away from their previous positions to the Bad Evil Liberal Place (see also: Souter, Kennedy).

11:54 Somebody (I think it was Ed Morrissey) asks why we're getting stealth candidates when we control the White House and Senate. Mehlman says we'll get information at the hearings (but what if Miers cleaves to the Ginsburg rule with both hands?)

actually, i was referring to the Zentradi exchance. (Or Invid?)

(also, totally hott: the zentradi chick with green hair)

Call ends. My mind is unchanged. It was a lot of assurances but not a lot of facts. And facts are what we need.

ethan edwards from the searchers
ethan suplee, big ol fat dude in mallrats
ethan ryman, wu-tang affiliate and executive producer for 'return to the 36 chambers'
ethan hunt from mission impossible
ethan coen, director of fargo
ethan frome, fucks his wifes cousin & breaks her spine with a sled
ethan allen, revolutionary war hero

The desperation of the White House is intensifying. It seems to me that the personal religious faith of a nominee to the Supreme Court is completely irrelevant to the job in question. Interpreting a secular constitution requires no religious faith or affiliation. If the president really does believe that faith is an actual qualification for the court, then once again he has stepped over a line between church and state. Religion should neither qualify nor disqualify someone from SCOTUS. Isn't that a no-brainer? Is there an evangelical take on the fourteenth amendment? It's also just plain amusing to hear that, according to the White House, a) no men were considered for the post and that b) opposition to Miers is possibly a function of sexism. Did we elect Hillary Clinton last November?

It starts off better.

Dudes, that's like the conservative version of Goodwin's Law.

xpost ned haha

Concerned Women for America have questions!

Finemen predicts the conservative crack-up! (Again?)

Lawrence Littman should testify! (Apparently.)

Balloon Juice has thoughts and more thoughts!

And Bainbridge has a poll. Rah, I guess.

He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right.

Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation.’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”

GASP! OMG!

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/HowTo.JPG

BUSH = "RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUWWWWW!"?

http://hauntedweb.com/v-web/gallery/albums/Frank/100_2781.jpg

lest we just forget who exactly suggested Ginsburg to Bubba 12 years ago...

At some point, you ever wonder if the ACLU will stop defending those who actively work for their destruction?

I asked Justice Hecht if there is any chance of Harriet Miers withdrawing her nomination. "None," replied the justice with absolute certainty. He repeated the point. He has talked at length with her since the nomination, and she's not for turning.

So the question is, "What is the advantage of carrying on the attack from the right?" Answer: None.

This while in contrast Frum has coordinated a petition against, while ConfirmThem goes out on the anti-Card warpath (and then again) and a Sullivan reader points out a little irony.

The more entrenched this gets the more entertaining -- for the moment, I will emphasize -- this will be.

Bush doesn’t care about abortion, and neither do the bibliocons. They understand that even if the Supreme Court was to strike down Roe, the states would legalize it anyway, and they’d lose their moral authority. It’s one thing to say that five men in black robes are imposing their personal views on you, and quite another to be faced with the certain knowledge that the people hold values that define you as outside the mainstream. So it’s best if Roe stays intact and the conservative movement has the issue to complain about.

The real problem that bibliocons have with the court showed up earlier this year in the great shouting match over the corpse of Terri Schiavo. All along the bibliocons and paleocons had been telling us they were fed-up with activist judges getting involved in state and local issues where they didn’t belong, but suddenly they were all over the courts for refusing to be activist with respect to the family and the State of Florida. So it became clear that the right wants the mirror image of what the left wants, an activist bench that is willing to impose its personal values and beliefs on the rest of us.

http://images.blogads.com/boetvmbpmdpn/andrewsullivanblogads/3264058/thumb?rev=rev_3

Just Asking . . . [Erick]
Which very public supporter of Harriet Miers is contemplating a very public break off of that support?
Posted at 10/12/2005 10:34:43 PM EST

"Accessing Roe vs. Wade.... loading...."

But more to the point, Fund has up what is so far the most detailed take on the process leading to the nomination. A must-read.

okay, already, something about this suggests JUUSSST a bit of wishful thinking

To vote against Miers because the Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism is against her is not the way to gain Evangelical favor. The opposite, in fact.

I'm loving Hewitt's ridiculous terminology -- it doesn't even make a catchy acronym. (Not that his favored GWOT does either.)

hahahaha. man, nothing says "rightwing thinktank" like THAT as a title.

BERNARD KERIK

When his incompetance (in the form of Brown at FEMA) screwed several million Southerners, who are now the bastion of the party, they got queasy over all those floating dead bodies, but, hey Louisiana was mostly Democratic anyway, right?

But now that he's incompetantly messed up his chance to make a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS, the blood is in the streets.

This screw up has Bush's fingerprints all over it. They can't blame Rove. This is their own lad's doing. I just can't help but wonder who they thought they elected. Bush hasn't changed an iota from the fool they voted for.

http://www.billandted.org/pics/actors/jimmartin.jpg

STATION!

We shouldn't stop there, though. Mike Patton for president! Imagine the State of the Union address being delivered in ranted Chinese Italian over Buzzo solos.

I was perfectly willing to assume that, given her achievements, Miers was a bright and competent woman. Having read the excerpts from her writings in David Brooks' column today, however, I'm surprised and appalled. No, I don't think you have to be a great academic theorist to be a fine supreme court justice. But it never occurred to me that Miers could be so pathetically bad at presenting her thoughts. I still don't doubt that Miers has real-world smarts, yet she truly seems to lack the minimum ability to express herself in the way that a Supreme Court Justice must. My overwhelming concern is still with Miers' views, and not with her competence. (I suppose her clerks can cover up her deficiencies.) But after reading her writings as presented by Brooks, I am shocked and embarrassed.

Anyone an actual subscriber so we can see this, or has this been copy/pasted somewhere else yet?

http://sillyshit.blogspot.com/2005/10/in-her-own-words-new-york-times-mr.html

Hewitt, meanwhile, at the end of a 'boy it's great about Iraq' piece includes a bit more of trying to spook out people about a Miers withdrawal vs. a confirmation -- but interestingly, he leaves aside a question of a Miers rejection. There are good reasons to assume this, but increasingly I'm wondering if it might not happen anyway.

DOGBERT FOR SCOTUS

The White House political arm is taking a special interest in U.S. senators who are potential 2008 Presidential candidates, especially when they come to New Hampshire. The goal is to put them on the record on the Harriet Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is under fire from the right and left.

Bush administration political director Sarah Taylor has been making calls into the state to advise local activists working on behalf of the nomination with the Washington-based Progress for America organization.

"They are obviously well aware of our special role in the political process," said political strategist Jack Heath.

As part of the coordinated effort, activists Tuesday night approached Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., at St. Anselm College with a letter saying that Miers is qualified, deserves "fair treatment" and a filibuster-free up-or-down confirmation vote.

It was signed by Republican National Committeeman Tom Rath, Cornerstone Policy Research head Karen Testerman, Ed Naile, chairman of the Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, and GOP activist Susan Duprey, president of the Devine Millimet law firm.

Starting Saturday, when Republican Virginia Sen. George Allen visits the state, the group will not only give Presidential candidates the letter, but also ask them to sign a pledge to support fair treatment of the Miers nomination.

Heath says Democratic senators will also be approached. That would include Delaware's Joe Biden, who may campaign for Manchester Mayor Robert Baines before the end of the month.

"these days"?

(i know, picking on Brooks = fish in a barrel, but still)

This sentence is all the evidence I need that the Miers nomination has brought about Brooks' complete and utter intellectual collapse (not that it wouldn't have been blown over in a modest autumn breeze anyway). Which big conservative goals were the ones that Bush so effectively pursued again? Was it those farm subsidies? Or maybe the steel tariffs? Was it the massive expansion of entitlement programs? Was it his enormously successful implementation of "faith based" social programs?

xpost

It really does not offend me that race or gender would be a factor in Bush's thinking. They can be qualifications for the job of a nominee--part of the job description being to get confirmed. The Miers supporters who say that the president is under no obligation to pick the most qualified possible justice may be defensive, but they're not wrong. We didn't complain when Bush I picked Clarence Thomas, and we didn't pretend his race was irrelevant to his nomination, either.

Personally I'd like to see this line of thought get bandied about more over there and elsewhere -- bring on the cognitive dissonance!

Now to top it ALL off -- Drudge has a little something...

No phrase has made me hum with greater pleasure.

I love the exclamation point! this dude really does worship Winchell, doesn't he?

Q Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't say that it did.

Q So why are you peddling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of her background, Terry; it's part of who she is.

Q But you just said it was not relevant to judicial philosophy.

well he doesn't really HAVE to, now, does he? he doesn't really need to actually ask the question word for word, b/c he "knows what's in her heart" and that she goes to this conservative church.

xpost

http://www.thousandrobots.com/blog/files/palpatine_02.jpg

*Senate chamber fills with Force-created turds*

*a certain Coil album starts playing*

to put your own allies in the most untenable position possible based upon exceptionally bad decsion making.

While steadlily going in reverse in the driveway of your own home, intentionally abruptly pressing gas pedal as to crash into garage door for no apparent reason.

And my favorite:

Getting used to everyone hating you except your core supporters and thinking what the hell, it'd be cool to see what it's like to have everyone hate you at same time.

That crazy Drudge...

*Not including Scottie, for whom it is daily.

WHouse dismisses critics wanting Miers to withdraw

...Spokesman Scott McClellan signaled full steam ahead with the Miers nomination, saying the White House lawyer had begun filling out a questionnaire required by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider her nomination, and hoped to turn it in early next week.

[...]

"I have tried to avoid memberships in organizations that were politically charged with one viewpoint or another," Miers said, according to a copy of the testimony put on the Drudge Report Web site.

McClellan, asked about the report, said Miers has been supportive of the Federalist Society, including participating in events and giving a speech to the society last spring.

"I know she's proud that a number of her attorneys on her own staff are members of the Federalist Society. And she, like the rest of the White House, knows that the Federalist Society has been a great ally on many important issues, particularly when it comes to the federal judiciary," he said.

http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/10/me_dubya_you_ja.php

i hope it's on scantron

http://www.medical-library.org/journals/mddx/Rorshach/sld002.gif

http://theoblogical.org/movtyp/images/wtfwjd.jpg

It also defies common sense to think that there won't be an occasion in the next three years where Miers' position will force her recusal.

You'd have to be an idiot not to assume that Miers won't march in lockstep with whatever Scalia tells her to do. But Rove et al don't seem to grasp the fact that when Bush more or less promised another Scalia, not some toadie who's experience with Constitutional law appears to be minimal.

Somewhere right now Ari Fleischer is laughing his ass off and sipping champagne.

In 2001, Bush's first year in office, Miers rejected the text of the White House Christmas card and ordered a new version because, the White House said, she did not think it was written well enough.

heres that card: http://www.holidays.net/christmas/card2001.htm

Rude Pundit has a bit about that birthday card to each other.

Yes, the letters between Bush and Miers reveal quite the friendly relationship between them, with Miers' affections for Bush resting somewhere between cock worship and train porter behavior. One might say it's all just chummy. The rest of us would say it's creepy. Example: For the sake of argument, say that you're a grown woman, a professional, in your fifties, and you are friends with the governor of the state, as well as his occasional lawyer and a political appointee. Let's say that you're late getting a birthday card to the governor.

Chances are you would not send a Hallmark card with a sad puppy and "I'm Sorry I Missed Your Birthday" on the cover, with the pre-printed verse message, "This is the wish/That should have been sent/Before your Birthday/Came and went." Chances are you would not add a note that said, "You are the best Governor ever - deserving of great respect!" Chances are you wouldn't handwrite in "Sorry" next to the pre-printed message. Chances are you wouldn't write at the bottom, "At least for thirty days - you are not younger than me." You might do these things if you were writing to a child, a well-loved niece or nephew whose birthday slipped your mind while you were too busy with, say, your fuckin' job. But if you were that fiftysomething professional with your fiftysomething professional governor-friend, wouldn't you wanna act like an adult? 'Cause, really, and, c'mon, a fuckin' puppy dog card?

Now there's this, which is kinda amusing no matter how you look at it:

Court nominee was slow to respond to several liens placed on properties she controls in Dallas, records show had to reimburse Texas city for failing to clear weeds, debris from vacant lots

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Over at NRO, Franck notes this:

To have any White House fingerprints on a confidential exchange that resulted in any kind of assurances — however speculatively offered — about a nominee's future vote on the fate of a specific Supreme Court, is a matter that will justly attract the attention of senators. All senators, anti-Roe as well as pro-Roe, should be concerned about such backroom maneuvering in what amount to the precincts of the executive branch. It is a maxim of the separation of powers that each branch of government jealously guards its prerogatives, and reacts almost instinctively to the merest whiff of encroachment on them. If there is actual knowledge in the executive branch about Harriet Miers's views on Roe v. Wade, then the Senate is equally entitled to that knowledge, in order to do its work of advice and consent properly.

oh fuck me, he's still around?

Can we pause to absorb the full magnitude of this catastrophic misjudgment?

1) Conservatives have argued for years that it is utterly improper for senators to probe nominees' personal views on religion and abortion. With this stunt, the White House has not only invited but legitimated a line of questioning that conservatives have opposed for almost two decades.

2) If Fund is right, the White House was acting in such a way as to persuade a group of religious leaders that they were being given more information on a nomination than would be given to the US Senate. Congress - and yes Republicans in Congress - already feel that the White House treats them with contempt. Now congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further, with potentially lethal consequences for everything that remains of the president's legislative agenda.

3) The stunt also threatens Republican relations with religious conservatives. The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?

Our beloved President, the great communicator, making his case today with a bunch of Texas judges:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AFTER MEETING WITH FORMER TEXAS
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

The Oval Office

11:27 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I want to welcome some of my fellow Texans here in the Oval Office. We've got Republicans and Democrats, people who have been on the court, attorney generals. They're here to send a message here in Washington that the person I picked to take Sandra Day O'Connor's place is not only a person of high character and of integrity, but a person who can get the job done.

Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench. She is smart, she is capable, she is a pioneer. She's been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She has been a leader in the legal profession. She's impressed these folks. They know her well. They know that she'll bring excellence to the bench.

So I want to thank you all for coming. Thank you for being part of a group of people who understand that Harriet Miers will be a superb Supreme Court judge.

Welcome. I'm glad you're here.

JUDGE HILL: Thank you. Mr. President, we just all want to thank you for this nomination. We're excited about it, and we're here to try to let the people of America know what we all know, that she is an absolutely fantastic person and a great lawyer, and will make a great judge.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming. Thank you all.

END 11:29 A.M. EDT

Sure told ME a lot!

From today's White House briefing:

Q John Fund writes an article today saying that several people on a conference call assured religious conservatives that Harriet Miers would overturn Roe versus Wade. You were going to find out if any member of the White House staff was on that conference call.

MR. McCLELLAN: That was not a call organized by the White House, and as far as I've been able to learn, no one at the White House was involved on that call.

Q And is it correct that Karl Rove was the person who asked those two people who made the assurances that she would overturn Roe versus Wade -- that Karl Rove asked them to join?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's well-known that Karl and Dr. Dobson spoke about the nomination and about the process. And they had a good discussion. And Karl talked about individuals who know Harriet Miers well, like Justice Hecht, and said that they would be people that probably would be willing to talk about her.

Your first question, Mr. Perry?

"It is what I term the president's second faith-based initiative, which is `trust me,'" Santorum said, mimicking a line used previously by conservative pundit Pat Buchanan on NBC's Meet the Press. "I think, candidly, we deserve better than that."

If Dan Savage deserves a lifetime achievement award of any kind, it's his "redefinition of Santorum" campaign, which has twisted the context of this phrase to hysterics.

For decades, conservative thinkers have criticized justices for deciding cases based on their personal desires, feelings or views on policy. Now conservatives are asked to support a nominee on the grounds that these attributes assure that Miers will "vote right." This accepts the dispiriting notion that the court is just one more political institution.

Elsewhere NRO reports:

Miers has submitted her response to the Senate questionnaire. An attachment to her response will show that, when running for Dallas city council, she expressed her support for a Human Life Amendment and for a general ban on abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Not surprising at all but still, an attachment? Slightly curious, not to mention contradictory of what Frum notes was reported by Schumer. Frum also boils down the weird kerfluffle from last night between Miers and Specter over Griswold.

Hewitt's allegedly on vacation this week, leaving Bainbridge to take the lead in that debate, noting an exchange on Hewitt's guest-hosted show involving Fund last night talking more about the Texas Lottery Commission deal. And so forth...

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/10/19/PH2005101901187.jpg