October 05, 2005

10/5: Trust But Verify?

Has much changed in the SCOTUS nod of WH counsel Harriet Miers? Not so much. The intensity is still on the right, where opposition is not unanimous, but overwhelming. Pres. Bush himself is coming under withering criticism -- the issue of "trust" is raised again and again -- with some declaring his presidency all but over and others openly saying they wouldn't be upset if the party loses control of Congress in '06. George Will's latest column echoes their concerns, and makes the rounds, on liberal blogs as well. As for the left, many are greatly enjoying the conservatives' consternation and see her pick as a win for the Dems, but neither is that a unanimous sentiment. Cautious optimism seems to be the general rule.

MIERS I: Where There's A Will

No doubt about it, Will's 10/5 column is the hottest thing out there this a.m. Reax comes in from all corners:

>> Some conservative Miers-optimists concede Will's points: Decision '08 writes, Will "makes the best case to date of her unsuitability," but adds: "Will has not convinced me to oppose her nomination; what he has done is much more subtle: he has taken away a reason to support her." The Politburo Diktat: "I wrote earlier that I was 'relieved' at Miers nomination. After Will's blowtorch, it's hard to say anything good about this nomination."

>> Others on the right enthusiastically agree: Patterico's Pontifications: "It is gold from start to finish." Balloon Juice: "George Will spells it out. ... Questions about intellectual property, issues regarding executive power during wartimes, right to die, etc., and so many things Miers just hasn't been thinking about in the manner you would expect from a person nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice."

>> Most on the left are pretty happy with the column: TBogg: "In short, Will is admitting what he has danced around for the past five years: Bush is a lightweight." Peking Duck observes: "The chorus from the American right has never, ever been so unified in condemning flight suit boy." AMERICAblog: "That's some tough stuff. Love it when the wingers fight among themselves. It's also funny how the tide has turned on approving judges. The right-wingers castigated the Democrats who held up judicial nominations. Remember "Justice Sunday"? Now, it's just fine." Democracy Guy: "There's no zeal like that of the recently converted. Welcome to the club, Mr. Will." At the blog of liberal UCLA law prof Mark A.R. Kleiman, Berkeley public policy prof Michael O'Hare heads his post on the column: "Will prepares the plank." [Update: Yeah, we botched that one.]

>> Interested observers: Moderate Joe Gandelman calls it "Perhaps the most devastating column written by a GOPer" on the Miers nod, and "perhaps one of the most devastating columns ever written about the President by a Republican during his whole term." Right-leaning UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh calls the column "stunning" and writes: "The White House should be getting very nervous this morning."

>> A sneak peek of the column was posted to RedState last p.m., where it has since attracted dozens of comments. To give a taste of the response, we'll try something new: a medley of comments by RedState's participants: "I've tried to have an open mind about this nomination, but this is the final straw ... [Bush knew what he was doing] on Afghanistan & Iraq, which is the only reason I'm even cutting him even the slightest slack now. ... I have so much respect for Mr. Will, and he's nailed this issue. ... I really doubt that this nomination will ever be withdrawn. It will most likely pass, unless Republicans block it. ... I agree with [Will] about the McCain-Feingold law [being unconstitutional], but he wrote a column a few weeks ago and repeated the same theory on This Week labeling the reversal of bad precedent to be juducial activism. Its not. And by doing so he equates us with libs. ... doesn't have to guess about her. Heck, look at all the conservative judges with paper trails that have 'evolved.' This gal is evolved. And she's more qualified than that Ginsburg fiend! ... who will stand and filibuster against BOTH party's leadership[?] ... No filibuster, if she's not cut out for the SC vote her down."

MIERS II: Right Wronged?

Righty radio talker Hugh Hewitt, Miers' most prominent blog supporter, posts an e-mail from a reader: "Miers was, I am sure, involved in many discussions about what it was that W wanted in a nominee. She knows that he wants an Originialist, that he wants someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. She also knows that the court is his legacy. As a woman of faith and obvious integrity, do people honestly believe you would accept the nomination while knowing in her heart that she would shatter all of her president's plans?" Hewitt predicts: "By day's end there will be great and spreading fear on the left, and perhaps some genuine remorse among the shoot first and think later right." But this doesn't seem to be the case. Prof Stephen Bainbridge, who had previously criticized Hewitt for supporting Miers (see 10/4 Blogometer) continues to question Hewitt's judgment, citing a list of Hewitt statements that "insult" anti-Miers conservatives, and listing 11 reasons why he is anti-Miers as well: "Senator John Cornyn, who knows Miers well, has been quoted as saying that 'She is obviously not a Scalia or a Thomas.' Isn't a Scalia or Thomas precisely what Bush promised us?" The Anchoress, another of Miers' few strong defenders on the right, is disressed by the current split: "Shall the current 'scorched earth' climate of polarization between left and right, which has steadily grown since 1992, now exist within the right?" She even invokes Yankees SS Derek Jeter as a metaphor: "Some things are simply intangibles... they cannot be tallied up and put into columns. Jeter is never anyone's first pick for anything -- everyone has their reasons why he's not 'the best choice.' But ask any manager in baseball if they would like to have Derek Jeter on their team. ... Bush knows this woman, Harriet Miers, very well. He knows her like he knows Condi Rice. That does count for something. Intangibles count. Often they make the difference." Right Wing News's John Hawkins posts a few outraged comments from his own site, some of which declare "Bush is finished" on account of this "betrayal." Hawkins adds: "I've seen comments like these all over the blogosphere from the very people who should be Bush's biggest supporters. Now, after reading that, you want to try to tell me that it made any sense whatsoever for George Bush to select Harriet Miers when he could have chosen much more qualified candidates that could have been easily confirmed while simultaneously making these very same people happy?" He concludes: "Do the right thing W: pull the nomination."

Some think the Miers nod may have been an intentional "wild pitch" that will eventually allow Bush to name a more conservative nominee. The Llama Butchers is one of them: "I'm not completely convinced that this isn't some kind of stunt, that Miers might have been, well, a deliberate wild pitch. I'm not saying I believe this yet, just that I haven't dismissed it as being beyond the realm of possibility." So are some commenters at Poliblog.

RedState's Erick Erickson is of 2 minds about the nod. 1st, "John Roberts' career tells me that conservatives should not have to hide in the closet until after they are on the Supreme Court. By picking a stealth nominee, Bush has, I think, set us back a bit." 2nd, if the Dems "accept Miers they will most likely have put a female Scalia on the bench. If the Democrats now reject Miers, the President can make the case that he (A) consulted the Democrats; (B) took one of their own recommendations; (C) saw them reject she who they recommended; (D) so now he feels free to go with someone like Alito or Luttig or Batchelder or Corrigan. ... Bush has been thrown into a political briar patch and, while I disagree with the nomination based on her stated qualifications, it just might be that this is the play of the year." Pejman Yousefzadeh makes a similar point: "The Roberts confirmation process was notable for perhaps defusing the arguments of people like Senator Charles Schumer, who has sought to make ideology a major point of contention in the nomination process. ... Now, with the nomination of Harriet Miers, we are left wondering not only about the nominee's qualifications for the Supreme Court, but also opening the door anew to issues of ideology."

Conservative Hedgehog Report is taking predictions from readers about the Miers' jud cmte vote, floor vote and date of confirmation. Just 17 of 25 participating so far think she will be confirmed. Those who predict she will expect a contested confirmation vote. 3 of those who predict she will not do not believe she will even get a floor vote.

Another interesting theory comes from Mike Huckabee President 2008, where Blue State Republican wonders if Bush "may have deliberately set the stage to drag liberal Democrats into the biggest and most defining political fight of modern times. ... By selecting a nominee with no record of legal opinion to pick apart, but who is widely reported to be an evangelical Christian who is pro-life, the President has put the Dems in an exceedingly uncomfortable position." He writes, their "radical base" may demand Dems oppose him "based solely upon their base's opposition to Mier's personal, religious views. This runs in direct contradiction to Howard Dean's widely discussed strategy of appealing to religous voters in order to win back the majority and the White House."

RedState's Augustine admonishes GOP sens. for backing Miers when they know nothing about her legal opinion of Roe v. Wade: "I would remind them that Senators Durbin, Leahy, and Kennedy consider themselves to be 'personally pro-life,' too ... And one can't help but wonder if they would have such enthusiastic respect for Ms. Miers' dishearteningly vacant legal resume if this nominee originated from a president with a (D) after their name."

In his 10/4 presser, Bush said: "She knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for. And I know exactly the kind of judge she'll be." Univ. Madison-WI law prof Ann Althouse -- who says she is inclined to trust Bush on this nod -- exclaims: "Jeez, that's like something from a movie script where everyone in the audience is supposed to see the mistake the character is making!"

MIERS III: Left To Their Own Devices

A few lefty bloggers are rather pleased with the nod: Liberal Clean Cut Kid says it's related to the Roberts nod: "Significantly, Bush has avoided the debate over whether conservative justices should fill the bench, has neglected to take advantage of the best opportunity Republicans will have in the next 20 years to ensure the Supreme Court is filled with conservative ideologues, and has done so at a time when he controls the selection and voting process. ... And that is something every Democrat can support." TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt, on having served on a board with Miers: "I didn't get to know her well, but we sat next to each other for several hours at the last meeting she attended and I liked her. We only talked law, not politics, but she won me over - and I was pre-disposed not to like her, that being the year that Bush was running for President and knowing she was his personal lawyer."

Most are somewhere in the middle: Josh Marshall gives advice for Senate Jud Cmte Dems: "[F]ocus on the fact that Miers has been involved -- often deeply involved -- in pretty much everything that the White House has been trying to keep secret for going on five years. That should make for interesting questioning." Lefty Dadahead understands where the right is coming from: "My reaction to the Miers pick is similar to my reaction to the Roberts pick: if I were a wingnut, I would be pissed. ... They feel like they've earned a sure thing; instead they've been given another question mark."

Others are more skeptical: Liberal Oasis writes, although the Miers nod didn't go over well on the right, "Does it mean that Miers isn't as conservative as Roberts? Does it mean liberals should get behind Miers? No, and No. ... 'disappointed base' does not equal 'moderate judge.' And should not equal 'Dem support.'" In an interview, Focus on the Family's James Dobson wouldn't completely explain his support for Miers: "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about." Andrew Sullivan responds: "Isn't it strange that a man like Dobson now knows more about Harriet Miers than the Senate will ever likely be able to find out?" Lefty Armando responds to Sullivan: "Sully, it is not strange for THIS Administration. It is however, outrageous and unacceptable. Senate Dems need to find out -- what does James Dobson know? And they need to demand the American People be told as well."

MIERS IV: Reax To The Reax

Lefty Penn State prof Michael Berube: "There seem to be three schools of thought on Harriet Miers. The first is that of the Skeptical Left: You've got to be kidding. No, really. Who's the real nominee? The second is that of the Wary Left: maybe she's a stealth candidate the like of which we never imagined. The third is that of the Disappointed, Depressed, and Demoralized Right: I was so hoping for Vlad the Impaler. Now I worry that my Impaler will never come. The Left Coaster, one of the leading anti-Miers sites on the left, has put together a "page to consolidate key facts about Ms. Miers."

My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, a member of the conservative women blogger community/carnival The Cotillion, puts together a round-up of fellow Cotillion members' takes. Their stance is more neutral than on conservative blogs at large, but plenty skeptical. Little Miss Attila, to Bush: "Is this one of your crazy-like-a-fox moments, or another gross capitulation?" SondraK snarks: "I don't care what anyone says, I'm never going to vote for George Bush for President ever again."

California Conservative worries that Dems are "openly celebrating the conservative infighting": "From the looks of it, it might even be suggested that some conservatives have written the Democrat's newest talking-points." He points out that Jesse Berney, who writes the Kicking Ass for the DNC, did "little more than offer quotes from some of the major conservative websites, including Confirm Them, The Corner, and RedState.org. In an update, Berney adds: 'Conservative blog Ankle Biting Pundit has a roundup of right-wing reaction to Miers's nomination.' That's the post. Nothing more. Nothing else needed, actually."

Mystery Pollster points out that according to a CNN poll, "conservatives were nineteen percentage points happier about Roberts" than Miers: "The difference is big enough that it suggests ... that liberals and moderates are reacting to Miers much as they did to Roberts. Only self described conservatives appear to be significantly less enthusiastic."

REPUBLICANS: Not Afraid To Lose?

Conservative radio talker Neal Boortz writes: "I'm sorry, but the Republicans richly deserve to lose control over the House and the Senate in 2006. There is no excuse whatsoever for their profligate spending, and no excuse for Tom Delay's absurd claim that there is no fat in the federal budget. Every American should be disgusted at this spending spectacle." Ne Quid Nimis agrees: "Between the seemingly interminable list of Bushite missed opportunities, semi-screw-ups & grandiose debacles, I'm left rooting for Giuliani '08 w/ a slight but solid Democrat legislative majority."

Ankle Biting Pundits: "Some conservatives have lately argued that we could use a good dose of President Hillary to revitalize the 'Spirit of 1994' and recapture the conservative ethos after these last few years of pork and drift. After all, the conservative movement, one could argue, reached is zenith under the presidency of the Hildabeast's hubby. Maybe history will repeat itself. Maybe." ABP recommends 2 books on North Korea and Iran, arguing that those situations worsened under ex-Pres. Clinton.

TERRORISM: Did A Suicide Bombing Nearly Become A Homicide Bombing

One tragic but seemingly inconsequential story from the weekend, the suicide of OU student Joel Hinrichs outside the 10/1 Sooners game, now seems to have more to it than it 1st seemed. Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs both have good round-ups. The Jawa Report explains, Hinrichs' father is "denying reports that his son's death was somehow politically motivated. However, both World Net Daily and the Northeast Intelligence Network are reporting that law enforcement agents found jihadi material in Hinrich's apartment. Included in the material were instructions on how to make bombs used in suicide attacks." Wizbang: "News 9 in Oklahoma City reports (video) this evening that Joel Hinrichs attended the Norman Mosque, roomed with a Pakistani student, and tried to buy a large amount of fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) just four days ago." Tapscott's Copy Desk writes that Hinrich had a "large cache of bomb-making materials" in his apartment. He also writes, ex-Sen. David Boren/OU pres. David Boren "seems determined to have everybody believe [Hinrichs] was merely a disturbed young man who decided to commit suicide by blowing himself up within 100 yards of a stadium containing 84,000 screaming fans of Sooner football. Sorry, I don't buy it, at least not yet."

SOCIAL SECURITY: With A Whimper

At the presser 10/4, Bush said: "There seems to be a diminished appetite in the short term" for revamping Soc. Sec. Atrios comments: "Let's remember that we won one." For what it's worth, Club for Growth's Social Security Choice blog hasn't been updating daily since last week, and there has been no post since the night before Bush's 10/4 speech.

SPENDING: Of Course It Would Be In Alaska

Liberal MoxieGrrrl, not a party to the right-blogosphere's PorkBusters project, nevertheless seizes upon an Anchorage Daily News story about a particularly outrageous fed'l grant: "Yes people, $500,000 (FIVE. HUNDRED. THOUSAND. DOLLARS.) of FEDERAL GRANT MONEY was spent to paint the f---ing airplane like a goddamn fish. My god. Did we elect monkeys to run this f---ing country?"

BLOGS VS. THE MSM: If Malkin Covers A Story, Does Keller Immediately Pull Reporters Off The Beat?

The story about DSCC staffers who allegedly illegally obtained likely SEN candidate/LG Michael Steele's (R-MD) credit report has faded from the headlines, but Michelle Malkin, who has dubbed the case "Chuckaquiddick," keeps the heat on. She writes: "The New York Times still hasn't published a word about the Democrats' credit report dirty trick involving two of Chuck Schumer's former employees." She also highlights a report that the DSCC is paying for the staffers' $400/hr atty: "Sen. Schumer sure has a funny way of showing his commitment to protecting Americans' privacy."

ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Miller Gets Booked Again

On 10/3, Arianna Huffington broke the news that New York Times' Judy Miller had signed a "hush hush" $1.2M book deal with Simon & Schuster, to be edited by her usual editor, Alice Mayhew. Upon this report, Huffington followed up on 10/4, "Team Miller went into damage control mode," including a "Rush and Molloy" column with denials by "unnamed 'reps'" at the Times and publishing house. Huffington defends her scoop: "Miller has absolutely, positively been telling friends that she has a $1.2 million book deal. Period. The end."

Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus, Tom Maguire, R. Musil, Anonymous Liberal and others have been attempting to puzzle out what a New York Sun-reported letter from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby could have meant, and what charges might be filed when the investigation concludes.

KATRINA RESPONSE: An Even Worse Bus Experience Than Wesley Willis Ever Had

At conservative Wizbang, N.O. resident-until-Katrina Paul reports that there were other buses, in addition to the infamous sunken ones, that could have been used to evacuate Orleanians, but weren't. He narrates a set of photos: "On the left is the Superdome. On the right is the OTHER Orleans Parish bus barn ... less than 5 miles from the Superdome. These buses never flooded and the route from there to the Convention Center and the Superdome was open the whole time. The hurricane blew in Monday morning and this picture was not taken until Wednesday. They did not finish evacuating the Superdome until Saturday. To put a fine point on it... These were not private buses. They did not belong to a neighboring parish. These buses belonged to Mayor Ray Nagin. He could have used them at any time. He didn't." Over a series of updates, Paul and fellow Wizbanger Kevin Aylward fend off criticisms and expand on the original posting.

THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Pretty Soon It'll Be Easier To Ask, Who Doesn't Have A Blog

This week brings a handful of new blogs from establishment figures and orgs.:

• Coinciding with a site redesign, the Weekly Standard debuts their blog, which we would name, except we forgot, and the site has been down all morning.
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) went live on 10/5 with her official campaign blog: Schablogsky.
• Also going up this week is Washington Post's The Fix, written by ex-Roll Call reporter Chris Cillizza. The blog is a competitor of National Journal's Hotline On Call (which you probably don't need us to tell you also publishes the Blogometer).
• And CA GOP consultants Bill Whalen, Dan Schnur and others have started a new blog, Flash Report, which follows state and nat'l politics.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: It Depends On What The Definition Of "Qualifications" Is

The American Thinker's Thomas Lifner picks up on a quote from a memer of Miers' church, as reported by Marvin Olasky at World Views: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." Lifner: "As the court's new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices. Her ability to do this type of work with no resentment, no discomfort, and no regrets will at the least endear her to the others. It will also confirm her as the person who cheerfully keeps the group on an even keel, more comfortable than otherwise might be the case with a level of emotional solidarity."

LEST WE FORGET: The Right Stuff?

Iowahawk posts Miers SCOTUS "job application." A sample:

JOB 1: CURRENT POSITION
EMPLOYER: _____President of the United States, Washington DC____
TITLE: ___Assistant to President/Office Activity Planner________
TYPE OF POSITION: ___ Full Time   ___Part Time _x__ Flex Hours
SUPERVISOR'S NAME: ___George W. Bush____________
DATES OF EMPLOYMENT: __Jan 2001____ to ___current_____
REASON FOR LEAVING: ___Seeking opportunities for personal/professional
growth as a lifetime appointee to judicial body of
large Western democracy____

NOTES AND ERRATA: We Love Our Lawyers

In yesterday's edition, we mistakenly attributed opposition to Miers at liberal "TalkLeft" to CO atty Jeralyn Merritt. In fact, those were the words of another contributor, AR atty John Wesley Hall. In fact, Merritt is quoted in today's edition as currently supporting Miers' nod. For more, see this post by Merritt last p.m.

Posted by at October 5, 2005 12:42 PM