When bad spinning happens to bad people

October 6, 2005

The vaunted White House political operation, known for its ability to spin, manipulate, and cajole, seems to have forgotten that when dealing with skeptical allies, it’s rarely a good idea to call them names.

The conservative uprising against President Bush escalated yesterday as Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president’s envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.

A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin résumé and that her selection — Bush called her “the best person I could find” — was a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right.

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. (emphasis added)

Yeah, this is a brilliant strategy. Conservative activists are apoplectic, conservative lawmakers are growing less and less fond of the president’s nominee, and to placate movement-wide fears, one the White House’s top strategists accuses his friends of being misogynistic snobs. Smart move.

The main complaints cited at the Norquist and Weyrich sessions yesterday, according to several accounts, centered on Miers’s lack of track record and the charge of cronyism. “It was very tough and people were very unhappy,” said one person who attended. Another said much of the anger resulted from the fact that “everyone prepared to go to the mat” to support a strong, controversial nominee and Miers was a letdown. As a result, a third attendee observed, Gillespie and Mehlman came in for rough treatment: “They got pummeled. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Remind me again how the Bush gang got a reputation for being politically savvy?

The story ignores the point that they probably are misogynistic snobs. This is why I will never, ever be a Republican. I won’t have to associate with people like this. Thank God for the Democratic Party.

And the suprising thing is that Bush probably could have gotten a solidly anti-Roe nominee through this time. Instead be pissed off his base.

  • “And the suprising thing is that Bush probably could have gotten a solidly anti-Roe nominee through this time. Instead be pissed off his base.”- Rian M.

    A little gas on the flames, eh Rian. Egggsssellent.

  • From the same WaPo article: “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.”

    They demanded that he take it back? This is a closed door meeting and Gillespie said what what was on his mind and they tell him to take it back like it will disappear from his mental chalkboard ’cause they tell him to.

    “Take it back Ed, just take it back.” What a bunch of bozos.

    That Ed Gillespie is a mean man. He hurt their feelings. I hope he said he was sorry.

  • Remind me again how the Bush gang got a reputation for being politically savvy?

    I never thought of them as being all that savvy. Rather, the Democrats have been flabby, spiritless, self-serving bores while the media have become overpaid, celebrity-seeking bottom feeders. The Reps have had serious funding and many hardworking whackos going for them (not to mention millions of tv-brain-dead, fearful, superstitious Americans in the electorate) … it’s obviously been enough so far.

  • “And the suprising thing is that Bush probably could have gotten a solidly anti-Roe nominee through this time. Instead be pissed off his base.”- Rian M.

    Who’s to say Miers isn’t solidly anti-Roe? Her fundamentalist credentials seem to be strong. Dobson supports her. This is a stealth nominee. If the hard right doesn’t like her, good. But will they vote in the 2006 midterms? If so, we gain no advantage. If yes, we can take back the senate.

  • It’s typical GOP arrogance – ignore the substance of criticism and instead attack the character of those who criticize. That the non-reality-based GOP base is so used to the demoniztion rather than substance is why the GOP is considered “politically savvy” (I would give it another term). The difference, in this case, is that the demonization, against Reagan’s 11th Commandment, is against fellow GOPers. Thus the howls of outrage. Sorta nice to see them get a taste of their own arrogant medicine..

    • Comments are closed.