The Dems’ next move

October 3, 2005

It’s possible Bush isn’t aware of it (it’s more likely he just doesn’t care), but the White House has come under some criticism of late for having a “cronyism” problem. The president seems to fill just about every high-level government post he can find with a close and loyal ally, experience and qualifications be damned. (See Mike Brown, Karen Hughes, Julie Myers, David Safavian, Scott Gottlieb, et al)

In response to this criticism, Bush nominates Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, a long-time buddy with no experience or public record. It’s hard to guess which phrase we’ll hear more in the next couple of weeks — “stealth nominee” or “Bush cronyism strikes again.”

This isn’t likely to play out well with Senate Dems. From the outset, Bush is asking quite a bit. Vote for his nominee, but don’t expect to read her paper trail (there isn’t one); don’t expect to review her White House memoranda (privileged); and don’t expect her to answer questions during the confirmation hearings (she’ll be taught not to).

What, exactly, is the pitch? Put Miers on the Supreme Court — because she served a term on the Dallas City Council 20 years ago, did a good job with the Texas Lottery Commission, and has demonstrated absolutely zero independence from the Bush White House. Oh yeah, and she thinks Bush is literally the most brilliant man she’s ever met.

I don’t know what do Dems do now, except wait a bit for the right’s depression to send the entire Republican establishment into complete and utter confusion.

Harry Reid came out with a relatively positive statement this morning, explaining that he “likes” Miers, which only made the right more upset.

The conventional wisdom is that a nominee’s narrative is largely set within the first 48 hours or so. With this in mind, by sometime Wednesday, the mainstream media will probably be reporting a) “Harriet Miers, who’s nomination has been well received on the Hill…” or b) “Harriet Miers, who’s limited record has made her nomination more controversial than John Roberts’…”

At this point, after about six hours, the latter is slowly taking root — and Dems haven’t had to lift a finger. My sense is that it should stay this way. Talk about filibusters and coordinated attacks are unnecessary, and in all likelihood, counterproductive when so many on the right are apoplectic.

Apropos of nothing in particular (!), I was musing this morning about the role the Supreme Court plays in the impeachment of a president and vice-president.

  • I don’t know Reid’s game but I would like to think he is trying to look like a responsible and reasonable adult that is more than willing to give Miers a fair hearing – while letting those on the right do all the anti-Miers shouting.

  • Finally the Bush talents of incompetence and uncaring start to impact his own people. When even Republicans start to exhibit signs of ‘buyers remorse’ you know the pillars of sand this administration has always been founded on are starting to crumble. Whoopee!!!

    When the indictments of Rove, Libby and even Cheney himself come down, I’d sure want my personal lawyer on the Supreme Court. Hmmm, you may be on to something there, PW. This could be even more interesting than we already think!

  • Curmudgeon nailed what I have been thinking all mroning. Knowing the risk that losing either the house or congress in 06 could set off all sorts of investigations – torture, intelligence, Plame, Armstrong Williams – all of whcih could lead to high level people facing serious charges – it makes perfect sense.

  • This a bit from the Bullmoose that I think is pretty good. I do think this a pick from weakness.

    http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/10/harriet-souter.html

    The Miers pick is clearly a reflection of the President’s weakness. One can only wonder what other problems the Administration is anticipating. The President clearly feels he cannot risk a fight at the moment. But, he might have over-compensated by selecting someone who is not being received well by his most fervent believers – they have to view it as Souter all over.

    Democrats should, at least, indicate that it initially does not appear that Miers is a Scalia/Thomas extremist. They should applaud the President for apparently not bowing to pressures from the right – this will drive the conservatives nuts.

  • “Listen closely”, that`s the sound of the Republican party self-destructing,right before our eyes. There`s enough on these guys now without the Plame matter,to proceed with impeachment. The list is long.Just what was it that got Clinton impeached? The culture of corruption is present everywhere. The investigation on the corruption here in Ohio has the convicted Gov. Taft`s approval rating at 15%. Ah yes, the sound is music to my ears.

  • Q: Ms. Miers, you are reported to have said that Mr. Bush is the most brilliant man you have met. Can you give us specific examples of his behavior and decisions that led you to form this opinion? Do you still maintain this opinion, since becoming WH Counsel? Who is the most brilliant woman you have met, and why?

  • Has everyone around here read Marvin Olasky’s take on all of this?

    Marvin “father of compassionate conservatism” Olasky felt he didn’t have enough info on her so he spent today talking to people who know her– the Texas supreme court justice she has known for 30+ years as well as dated, also her pastor. Within the little reports of these interviews there are many assurances for conservatives that she is more than adequately Christian and conservative.

    They’re all mad now because Bush didn’t give them some right-wing freako like Janice Rogers Brown. But in time they may see that Miers is a fine alternative who isn’t wearing a lightening rod strapped to her head.

  • You know something just occurred to me – why didn’t they announce her nomination late in the day or more particularly late on a Friday? This administration seems to love to do that so they can spint the talk or at least time it right.

  • Yeah, but that’s not the sort of thing that will sway conservatives against her– but all the evangelical, churchgoing anti-abortion Christian stuff will make them trust her a lot more.

  • I very much disagree with the strategy of the Dems sittingback and trusting the correct meme will result from the first 48 hours. The pitch should be:

    “While I am pleased to see the Administration finally recognizes the need for the Supreme Court to be diverse, I am disappointed that the White House did not name a more experienced woman with a more compelling record of achievement.

    Although Ms. Miers certainly has some noteworthy accomplishments, providing counsel to this often mistaken administration – and we have yet to determine if many of the Administration’s errors in judgment have been based on her counsel – does not compare with the preparation for the highest court of John Roberts or the literally scores of women, including Republican women, currently serving on the federal bench, state Supreme Courts, as state Attorneys General, or in the US Senate.

    I hope Ms. Miers can prove me wrong in her hearings. But to expect us to simply trust an Administration that has so often proven itself untrustworthy with a choice that we cannot research, that has no track record, and who will fill the immense shoes of the measured and moderate Justice O’Connor is asking more than I believe is appropriate. I, like many Americans, am leery of the President nominating his personal friends to high positions of responsibility — as my friends in New Orleans know all too well, sometimes that hasn’t worked out. The Supreme Court is too important, the stakes too high, the country too in need of the best America has to offer to accept an unknown and untested jurist, even if — or, if this Administration is so cynical — just because she is a woman. I cannot give Ms. Miers a free pass on those terms.

    So I will listen to what Ms. Miers has to say, because I respect what she has done and relationship we have had with her in her present role, but I am sorry for the dozens of highly qualified female jurists who have been passed over for no apparent reason. To paraphrase the distinguished Lloyd Bentson from the President’s own home state, I know Justice O’Connor, Justice O’Connor is someone I greatly respect, and sadly, Harriet Miers is no Justice O’Connor.”

    We should set up our opposition – while making it clear we are not anti-woman by actually listing Republican women we would find acceptable – right from the first moment.

  • Dems response – just laugh.

    What more could we ask from this administration than to load a conservative court with a Chief Justice who will carry no weight with the other justices. And now a justice who is almost to the left of center (though a corporate suckup).

    What he has given us is a court that will stall out – it could have been much worse.

  • Geez, guys. Read that Democratic ‘praise’ again. They just said that Harriet Miers has a really nice personality. Literally. That isn’t any more of a compliment here than it is a a frat party. This is, I think, a subtle way of belittling the nomination without saying anything actually nasty.

  • Q: What is your friend Harriet like?
    A:She’s smart and has a really good personality!

    Great! Let’s make her one of the most powerful people in the country!

    The argument over Roberts was that the Senate had to confirm because their job was to determine qualifications. In Robert’s case he was qualified. In this case they can probably wait for the hearing and come off looking pretty good opposing her because she is NOT qualified.

    I agree that the Dems only look better by not kicking and screaming right out of the gate. Save that for the hearings.

  • I’m with zeitgeist. Furthermore, I think Leahy and Biden should have to give that speech as penace for giving Roberts a pass out of their committee.

    Also, I’m with MNProgressive that we “only look better by not kicking and screaming right out of the gate” however, I don’t think what zeitgeist suggests is rightfully seen as kicking and screaming. Measured reponse to a regrettable nominee is how I’d characterize it.

  • If the Dems fight they will loss anyway unless they filibuster. That will only benefit the right. They will start calling Dems obstructionists and excersise the nuclear option. Nobody wins. If the Dems filibuster and win Bush will just say “see, I nominated a moderate and those mean ole Dems Blocked her. He will feel free to nominate a hard right candidate and the Dems will be so damaged after Miers that it will be hard to garner support from the public to block. If the hard right in the Senate filibusters, which seems a real possibilty and are successful in blocking Miers Bush will nominate a hard right candidate which will lead to a Dem filibuster and the nuclear option and again nobody wins. That will also re-energize Bush’s base and hurt Dem chances to make gains in ’06. I say take her and take her quick.

  • Could it be that Bush nominated his personal counsel because he is afraid of being indicted?

    The Supreme Court helped him before……..maybe he’s betting he’ll need it again. This time with one more true loyalist.

  • It’s kind of funny. After reading the Olasky stuff (thanks, Zoe! ), I actually feel better about Harriet as a person. She seems to have sought out the church for emotional solace, to give some meaning to an otherwise rather empty personal life. She doesn’t seem to have strong opinions about ‘that’ issue even though it’s a conservative church, which I regard as something in her favor.

    What still makes me nervous is whether she can distance herself from her personal loyalty to Bush if she gets on the bench? That’s a real big question that should be answered before the cheering starts.

  • Jerry B, I agreed with that sentiment on Roberts — he was too smooth, too skilled to lay oa glove on, and he was replacing a solid conservative. Say what you want about Roberts, his credentials are rock-solid (and he had dozens of beltway Democratic attorneys praising him).

    But part of the goodwill we bought by letting Roberts through was for the sole purpose of being able to block this one if needed. It is hard to say we’re obstructionist when we gave Dumbya his Chief Justice. We have standards, however, and they aren’t met by in-your-face cronyism. I don’t known that filibuster is necessary, but I would do everything short. I would ask hard questions, give good speeches, meet with editorial boards, go on talk shows, whatever. I think we can get some real points here, and by passing Roberts we gave outselves plenty of cover to do it.

    • Comments are closed.