It’s the left’s fault?

October 27, 2005

As conservatives high-fives each other this morning over the demise of Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination, TNR’s Noam Scheiber has a provocative message for liberals everywhere: you blew it.

The left can gripe all it wants about right-wing conspiracies, but it seems pretty clear that Miers’s withdrawal, and the almost-certain nomination of a more conservative candidate, owes much to its own tactical stupidity.

It’s obvious to pretty much everyone in America other than employees of the Alliance for Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood et al that the right bases its assessment of someone’s conservatism partly on the left’s reaction to them. Had these groups commenced freaking out about, say, the winks and nods given to James Dobson by the White House, or Miers’s support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, this whole story might have shaken out a little differently, and the liberal interest groups might have gotten someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect.

At first blush, I’m tempted to disagree with Scheiber and say he’s overstating the significance of the left on the right’s perspective. Bill Kristol and Rush Limbaugh came to their own conclusions about Miers, regardless of what liberals had to say.

But the more I think about it, the more I think Scheiber might be onto something.

When the controversy over what Rove told Dobson about Miers first broke, I spoke to a friend of mine who’s a staffer for a Dem senator. It sounded like the kind of thing Dems would want to raise a fuss over — but the staffer said Dems wouldn’t touch it, at least until the hearings. The right was busy imploding and fighting amongst themselves; there was no reason for Dems to get in the way.

Except maybe there was. Republicans don’t seem happy unless they’re tearing an opponent apart. Had Dems gone after Miers, the GOP (at least some of it) would have reflexively defended her against “scurrilous liberal attacks.” Instead, Dems kept their powder dry, Miers had no allies, and the nomination had no where to go but down.

As near as I can tell, for many on the left, and I include myself in this, principles about merit and competency took precedent over strategy. Harriet Miers was obviously unqualified for the Supreme Court, so liberals opposed her. It was as simple as that.

Let’s hope who’s ever behind Door #2 doesn’t make us regret it.

The next SCOTUS pick will be despicable. Democrats will be forced to filibuster and the media whores will once again drag out the “partisan divide” canard. This, of course, will play to the Bushies attempt to cover their rot with the “criminalization of politics” talking points. It’ll be Clinton/Lewinski circus but under entirely different circumstances. Clinton lied about blowjobs, whereas the entire Bush cabal lie about EVERYTHING and I mean everything.

It’s already started. Just heard Hillbilly Heroine Fat Ass just say he’s itchin’ for a fight over the next SCOTUS pick and can’t wait to rally the Conservative base (sociopaths). Meirs is just the start of political Armageddon and the Bush Corruption Machine will get swept away with it.

  • It is sad that we even speculate about regretting having principles. It was with full understanding that Door #2 would be worse that I vocally opposed Miers. Tactics are fine, and even extremely hardball tactics have their place (in campaigns, for example), but I will not give up the principle that the Supreme Court really should be the highest, most noble and least tainted branch of government. That justices should be distinguished and among the brightest legal minds in the country. That respect for it as an institution should flow from the unassailable character, analysis and wisdom of its menbers. The fact that it has not always lived up to that standard is no reason more reason to quit striving for the ideal than “being in Iraq” is a reason to stay in Iraq.

    If we have to risk a public relations problem to filibuster Door #2, so be it – we’re positioned about as well to take that as we have been in a while. But we should never, ever regret calling out the Miers nomination for the haphazard, lazy, cronyistic mistake that it was, even if Miers might have voted our way in the end.

    If we want justices that will vote our way so badly, we need to get them the right way — by winning elections — not by playing mindgames with the looneys on the right.

  • Scheiber is famous for being too clever by half. A good deal of what’s seen as power in Washington isn’t procedural, it’s political. And forcing George “I Never Back Down” to Back Down demonstrates to the entire country that his political will and power are failing. What Scheiber – and you – are overlooking is that Miers’ withdrawal changes the entire context of the next nomination. I can’t remember a president being as boxed in on all sides as Bush is now, and the right did that to him, not the left.

    Consider: if Bush nominates someone like Owens, the Dems can oppose her violently and still say that they were willing to give Miers a fair hearing, and that they supported (in the main) Roberts’ nomination. The Dems are perfectly positioned to fight a nuclear fight in the senate at just the moment when Frist is a non-factor and Bush is faltering.

  • This is an easy call.

    We did the right thing here.

    Rome was not built in a day folks. If you want to be the party that got in by hook and by crook, your short stay in power will be remembered that way.

    I want us to be the party that got things right. Americans who do the honest thing, the right thing, no matter what the political advantage is in doing it. That’s what Americans want. They hate the fighting, and they hate the corruption. We should give them civility and honesty.

  • Simple binary solution set:

    1. Oppose Miers. Result: Conservatives play “partisan” card against Dems. Miers not confirmed.
    2. Support Miers. Result: Possible Trojan horse. Support Bush. Miers not confirmed.
    3. No action. Result: Miers not confirmed.

    They way I see it is Miers was not going to be confirmed, period. Tactics then dictate that you let Cons sow discord among themselves.

    But what zeitgeist said is right. It’s sad that filling such an important position hinges on such subjective topics.

  • Because the far right was so violently opposed to their own party’s nominee, they’ve lost any credibility to lash the left should the Dems violently oppose the next nominee. They ate their own young, so to speak. Everyone expects the Dems to oppose a Republican nominee; few expected the right to be so opposed to their own Republican President’s nominee.

    It appears that the Dems will have free reign to fire away should the next nominee be deemed too conservative. Sure, the right will do their best to demonize any opposition to the nominee, but their position has been seriously marginalized.

    At last, things are finally beginning to sway back in our direction. I knew it was just a matter of time before the Bush administration began stepping all over themselves. With everything going on, this will get very interesting. Very interesting, indeed!

  • I would not forgive a politician from either party for letting Miers get in. It’s as simple as that. The SOTUS must not be disgraced by such incompetence.

  • zeitgeist is right on the money, and scheiber is completely wrong about this (i emailed him as soon as i read it). the dems should have come out strongly in favor of miers because…let’s see, because that would have given the hard right who thought she was soft on abortion and deficient in the smarts department pause before they drew their conclusions?

    not a chance, not one frickin’ chance.

    and yes, the next nominee will be awful.

  • She wasn’t qualified. Simple as that.
    And the next selection will be awful.
    Well, we expected that before Miers
    showed up, didn’t we? So no loss.
    And from the public’s point of view,
    Bush will have lost some of his
    leadership shine. He took a
    political walloping here, so severe
    that even the unengaged, uninformed
    American people will hear about.
    And that should help a little for 2006.

  • The next nominee will be used partly to distract from the criminality of key WH operatives. Politics of the filibuster could kill the criminality of Fitz investigation.

    As for Zeitgeists lecture on principals, please. It was the wingdings that killed Meirs nomination, not the Dems “popcorn” strategy.

  • Also, keep in mind that the arguments that conservatives used against Miers are the same ones that they attack liberals for using– ideaology, lack of paper trail, and so on. We can thank Bush for Miers, her nomination twisted the usual political game into something that might not have such a predictable script.

    While I think the next nominee will likely be awful, there’s a chance it’ll be some moderate-appealing person as well. Bush does not have the support of his party right now, his numbers are awful, so he might need a win in the form of a smart, competent choice, like Roberts. Frankly Bush might not be in the mood for a battle in the middle of a shitstorm.

  • Miers was not qualified. Period. The democrats played it exactly right this time. Scheiber’s an idiot Poking the wingnuts with a stick by playing to type would have been stoopid. Following Scheiber’s advice, what would’ve happened? She probably would have gotten in, and once installed, would have voted like the Texas republican she is on abortion, etc. Meanwhile, the media narrative would have given the American public the impression that “she’s not so bad… pretty middle of the road.”

    Score? Seven points for the administration. Bush gets a crony who will go along with whatever he wants when Scooter and Rove appeal their convictions all the way to the supreme court.

    Instead, the democrats showed tepid disdain toward Miers with hints of following up with an overwhelmingly negative vote. Result? Internal GOP discord, Bush is shown to be beholden to the most radical fringe elements in his party.

    Score? Seven points for us. And now, let him go ahead and nominate Micahel McConnell or some other wingute constituion in exile type. Let’s have the fight. Let’s not forget, a majority of American’s support abortion rights, let alone easy access to birth control. If they do indeed manage to pull the court way to the right, abortion and birth control will be issues number one and two in EVERY election across the country.

    Bring it on.

  • I’m gonna jumpon the bandwagon here – zeitgeist is right. I’d much rather face a fight in the position we’re in now, having taken the high road re Miers. I don’t care what it may have cost us; coming out in support of Miers would have been just plain wrong. Her nomination was an insult to the Court and the country. You don’t play politics with that.

  • High Road on Miers? Dems sat back and watched the GOP tear into themselves. That’s the high road? Zeitgeist’s point was obvious and condescending. The point is: The filibuster is coming. The corporate whore media wants a business friendly SCOTUS and will push the partisan bullshit which will provide cover for the corrupt Repugs. Will we be ready to fight against an extremist candidate AND still maintain momentum on the Fitz/DeLay/Ambramoff front?

  • Sparky, as opposed to phony support for Miers or for shrieking like the right-wing banshees at Miers, sitting tight and saying friendly-sounding things was the high road.

    and yes, it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

  • howard, I always thought the high road involved telling the unvarnished truth. By simply allowing the right-wing to oppose her for supposed lack of paper trail, the Dems are not positioning themselves on the high road. Miers was unqualified Bush lackey but should be opposed for being an extremist. Dems again took the path of least resisitance and will now be hamered as partisan obstructionists for the next qualified exptremist.

    Also consdering the disaster of the Kerry and Gore response to the Rove inspired Swift Boating, I take issue with your second point.

  • zeitgeist has anyone told you lately how right you are? Well, you are.

    That said, what do we do next?

    The first thing to do is determine the proximate cause of today’s withdrawal. My guess is that it was her incompetence. If this is true, then it must be confirmed and widely disseminated before the convention wisdom that the base killed her nomination becomes hardened. For once the wisdom hardens it will be used as leverage with the President and the Senate to get fiery-eyed wingnut for the next nominee.

    The reason that I believe the proximate cause was incompetence is that the withdrawal occurred the day after she resubmitted answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire. The spin coming out of the oval office is that the decision to withdraw her nomination came last night at about 8:30pm. However, my understanding is the White House resubmitted her answers at 11pm last night. Why submit those answer if the decision to withdraw had already been made? The question is, did the White House receive any feedback from the committee on the resubmitted answers before this morning’s announcement? I suspect that they did and it would certainly put the lie to the claim that the right killed the nomination.

    The first step is to find out if the Committee did send feedback to the White House. The next step depends on the answer.
    Who amongst us can find the answer?

  • The Republicans are in a no win here. Appoint a nominee to appease the religious right and they lose privacy advocates. There is still a majority who believe that a woman has a right to chose and a right to privacy. If the Republicans nominate a moderate, they will bring forth the wrath of the right and lose support, money, there as well.

  • That is idiotic.

    What if the Democrats did pretend that they vigirously opposed Miers? What if that faux-opposition does rally the Right around Miers?

    Then she gets a hearing and the Democrats, who are already on record as opposing her, end up getting support from people like Brownback and killing her nomination in committee.

    Or she gets out of committee and Democrats and a few right-wing Republicans vote her down on the floor.

    Were all of the Dems supposed to oppose her, or only some of them – just enough to make sure she gets confirmed?

    Scheiber’s scenario only works if Miers goes down somewhere along the line – and that would require Democratic cooperation.

    How exactly do Dems then get “someone far better on their issues than they had any right to expect” after they helped kill her nomination?

  • sparky, the dems are going to be hammered by the lapdog pundits no matter what: high road, low road, no road. so it’s a waste of time to worry about that.

    and the “high road” isn’t telling the unvarnished truth. In fact, the high road is often about not telling the unvarnished truth: it’s to take the path above the muck, as the dems did here. how, after all, were they supposed to paint miers as an extremist? that’s what bush was counting on: there was no way to paint her as anything but his loyal servant.

    as for walking and chewing gum, you asked if “we” could maintain opposition to an overtly extremist nominee while still painting the gop as corrupt slimeballs. of course “we” can.

    kerry and the swift boating (not sure about your reference to gore) isn’t even an analogous situation, much less useful insight into how “we” will try and handle things.

  • I think the way the conservatives went after Meirs has legitimized everything the Democrats will have to do to oppose the next nominee. In that way, it’s worked beautifully. It’s now hypocritical of them to claim there should be no questioning, no idea of where the nominee stands. The right wants an unquestioned ideaologue with a paper trail. She’ll be confirmed, but only after everyone outside of the cult gets the total craps scared out of them.

    But it’s definitely true that conservatives are knee-jerk cultists. They will defend who we attack. But the fact that they are so transparent is to our advantage. They are our puppet. We need to make wedge strategies that gets the cult to react in such a way that damages them. We should be making wedge strategies that makes them lepers for any halfway sane person. Every time they have to choose between appeasing the cult and America, we win.

  • Gee, someone should tell Scheiber that the Republicans failed to line up either way on Miers before her nomination was withdrawn. Sorry, but that hypothetical dog don’t hunt, Noam.

  • Here is the information for the NYTimes in support of my post at #18.
    http://tinyurl.com/7mcw8
    (This is a redirect created by a FF extention which replaces a long URL with a short one.)

    Ms. Miers called President Bush at 8:30 Wednesday evening to inform him she had decided to step aside, the president’s chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today. Mr. McClellan said the decision was hers alone, in recognition of the “unresolvable impasse” over the issue of separation of powers. As he has repeatedly, Mr. McClellan described Ms. Miers as “extraordinarily well qualified.”

    […]

    The timing of her withdrawal was curious in some ways. As recently as Wednesday afternoon, for example, she had been calling on senators on Capitol Hill. Moreover, on Wednesday evening she submitted a revised questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, supplementing an original that senators in both parties had described as wholly inadequate.

  • howard, your considerable semantical skills aside, I still fail to see how Reid’s maneuvering positioned “us” to take a pricipaled stand on the next nominee. Robert’s skated by being cagey. Meirs went down because the Righties did not trust her as a credentialed enough conservative. They only used the paper trail excuse to provide Bush cover. Dems sat idly by and you call that “above the muck”, I call it the road to least resistance.

    When it comes to SCOTUS, principal DOES count. Everything Zeitgeist and you are saying is just the opposite. We will now go through a lengthy, headline stealing confirmation battle with a worse candidate, only because the Dems were too timid (or would you say brilliant?) to get in the “muck”. Not the Dobson wink to the fundies on Miers? Not the evangelical christian nod from Bush? There was plenty of principal to oppose Miers. At least the GOP opposed her for something.

    • Comments are closed.