Having read a ton of reactions from the left and from the right I have come to one solid conclusion. Everyone was geared up for a fight and everyone is feeling ripped off. It’s like paying fifty bucks to see Mike Tyson fight Evander Holyfield and all you get is an early round ear-biting disqualification.
Yet, I don’t think people should despair of a good fight. I don’t think Harriet Miers chances of being confirmed are very good. Bush inadvertently played into the post-Katrina memes of incompetence, lack of qualifications, and cronyism. He also failed to feed the right-wing beast that has been fighting for this moment for thirty-two years. They are furious, depressed, despondent, confused…
If Miers embarrasses herself (or is exposed as corrupt) in the hearings it could easily become a reinforcing lesson that further cements the Katrina fallout.
And if indictments come down in the Plame case, there will be very few people in the mood to defend the Presidency.
My first take? She might be a terrible judge, she might be a less than terrible judge, but her selection was a short-term political mistake.
she is a disgrace, as is the chimp! What is a greater disgrace is the response of the leader of the democratic party. H Reid should either step down voluntarily or he should be removed from his position. If we are to have any chance at all in 06 and 08, then comments like reid made today must be denounced clearly and as loudly as possibe. The sob didn’t even wait a day before getting into bed with this crone! Not even a DAY!
as far as I can tell, he practically picked her himself. Unless he was performing some jujitsu, Meirs is basically Reid’s pick. But, if her hearings are the disaster I think they are going to be, Reid might be quite happy to have made the suggestion.
as far as I can tell, he practically picked her himself. Unless he was performing some jujitsu, Meirs is basically Reid’s pick. But, if her hearings are the disaster I think they are going to be, Reid might be quite happy to have made the suggestion.
I would like to understand Reid’s glee — don’t we just get a hard-core conservative pick to follow? It’s still Bush & friends making the nominations.
her selection was a hard slap in the face to all Americans who want to be proud of their country. The fight that matters is the one against Bush, and Miers presents the perfect public stage for launching it. Her nomination reeks of the same cronyism and corruption that shaped Iraq, the Katrina response, the privatization thievery, and the stench emanating from the Texas mafia that includes Bush, Delay, Rove, and all the rest of the new American oligarchs.
If we had an opposition party in Congress, it would not dream of failing to seize this opportunity.
What are we going to do with all of that dry powder?
the powder is nice and dry. However, the other side is mumbling about their own filibuster. That would be a lovely outcome, because it would restore the filibuster to undisputed legitimacy.
Her problems are going to begin on two fronts. Unless she is more of a scholar than I think, she is going to look like an ass in front of the judiciary committee. And then there is the whole Texas mafia angle to consider. As Bob Shrum said, “We are going to know a lot more about the Texas lottery than we ever wanted to.”
We’ll see. I think she might not make it.
However, the other side is mumbling about their own filibuster. That would be a lovely outcome, because it would restore the filibuster to undisputed legitimacy.
41/55 Republican senators would need to support a filibuster based on purely ideological concerns, correct? I don’t see it happening — not before an election year.
What are the early grumblings based on? Ideology or the competence issue? If it’s the latter, why is Harry Reid endorsing her?
purely for the sake of argument that Sam Brownback thinks he is getting sold down the river and launches a filibuster? Or refuses to vote her out of committee?
That provides the cover for the Dems.
But I envision this as just becoming an embarrassment to everyone. Reid can turn around and say, “I had no idea she was a crook.”
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think she is going to have some problems getting confirmed.
It’s the cronyism, stupid.
But I envision this as just becoming an embarrassment to everyone. Reid can turn around and say, “I had no idea she was a crook.”
I can’t help but feel that this would reflect poorly on Reid as well, since his name is so closely associated with her nomination. If your scenario plays out, don’t you think the meme will be “Bush was pressured by Reid into this poor choice?”
anti-choice?
I’m confused. Tony Perkins is bitching that she’s pro-choice. Liberals are bitching that she had to be anti-choice. Who knows.
A reporter for the Dallas Morning News was on NPR tonight and he said he covered her a lot when she was on the city council, etc., and he says he never once heard her express a partisan political opinion.
she was anti-choice – so take your pick.
My first take? She might be a terrible judge, she might be a less than terrible judge, but her selection was a short-term political mistake.
We need to stretch this out in to a long term mistake…
If we can stretch it out long enough with holds on votes, long arguments in committee, etc., well, she could be history before bush loses out to his lame duckedness OR loses control of the Senate, OR has to resign. Nevermind that every minute we waste her away in arguments, demands, etc., is another day that Sandra is still a judge.
BooMan, she’ll only look like an ass if the senators themselves don’t look like asses. And I’m thinking of some Democratic senators as I type this.
Their long, pontificating statements and questions are unclear, and so convoluted that one can scarcely figure out what in the hell they’re talking about.
Simple declarative sentences and questions would be ever so much more effective.
I’m wondering if her harshest questioning will come at the hands of Republicans. That would be fun to watch.
I think you might be right Boo. Given our over-exposure to “Brownie,” have we already forgotten Bernard Kerik?
Look, she looks not too good to me. But now we have a situation where she’s gonna have to sell herself to the Judicianry committee. Everybody write your Senators telling them you don’t want anymore of those softball questions like with Roberts. Since Miers is a blank slate they almost have to ask more than with Roberts who was a judge.
Wait for it, the angle, the opening–then attack. The fiar right and the far left are screaming, that means there are some opportunities here, and in a few different ways. The shriek and leap frontal assault method isn’t gonna be real effective. Now it’s time for more macheavellian methods involving slowmotion attack at the beginning. Let’s find out more about her.
and how not to ever answer a question directly. She probably trained Roberts and knows it by heart. You never have to answer any questions because it might come up before the court!
she has to provide some content because she is a cipher.
make the pres come up with any papers and she has been with him the longest of any job she has ever had.
or, should I say, Bork Harriet. Drag her through every sorry-ass scandal. Or can she just invoke lawyer-client privilege?
Bush nominates a new Clarence Thomas.
Not a win for the Dems. This could turn out to be a brilliant GOP ploy.
Right on. As the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for …”
but Sundance is airing a documentary on Operation Condor, to our everlasting shame.
It’s painful to watch.
Especially in the context of our insane war on terror, with all of its horrendous human rights violations and fomenting of hatred and new terrorists.
as I watched this, i had a thought … i wish on the 24th that those walking past the White House had all pointed at once and shouted “Torturers, torturers,” over and over and over again.
In the film, that one woman’s complaint that it’s impossible to know to whom one directs one’s anger and outrage is telling. Except that in our case, now, we do have a specific target for our expressing our outrage. But we don’t do it.
It was a really excellent documentary too. I’d spent some time in Argentina during the reign of the Generals and I can tell you the terror these psychopaths instilled in the public was palpable.
Everytime I see the odious Kissinger pontificating on TV, I wish for him to experience the same results that his criminal complicity inflicted on so many inmocent victims around the world.
There was a brief segment in the film where a group of latter-day supporters were praising Pinochet and his battle against the leftists and communists. This segment reminded me immediately of a segment in a short video here by a guy named Chris Hume who interviewed some participants in the Pentagon’s so-called “Freedom Walk” on Sept 11. The weaponized ignorance of these interviewees was exactly the same as the Pinochet supporters.
Chilling, but not surprising.
is a fair-minded and decent individual, how do we know so positively that she’s a poor choice?
She may indeed turn out to be unqualified, but I’d like to ask the naysayers; Who could they nominate of whom you’d say “Yeah, that’s a great choice”?
She was nominated by the Bush regime. Can you think of any reason why they’d be willing to nominate anyone whose ideological positions on the major issues are different from their own?
They won the election and control Congress. They have the right to nominate someone of their ideological persuasion. It’s what the voters asked for.
Bush never hid the fact he intended to nominate a Scalia/Thomas type to the bench.
Of course they’ll nominate who they want, as is their right. I don’t necessarily agree though that the voters asked them to appoint unqualified stealth nominees whose only positive attributes are a ruthless corporate attorney character and an almost fawning loyalty to the imbecile in chief.
Well, that’s different from what you said. I agree, she must be exposed as an unqualified crony. This nomination appears to be a gift to Democrats. It alienates the Repub base and further exposes to the American people the cronyism of the Bush Administration.
You say; Well, that’s different from what you said.
I don’t know what I said previously that you are referring to with this remark.
I think it’s a setup.
If the right wing of the Republican party decides to vote against her, and the Democrats mostly vote against her, then her confirmation could fail. At that point Bush can say “See, I nominated a moderate and the Democrats voted against her. They won’t accept ANYBODY. Therefore, my next attempt will be a hard right wing judge with well-known conservative opinions.”
The natural response on the left would be a fillibuster, which opens them to accusations of non-cooperation with a fundamental part of the governmental process.
Can the Democrats afford to look uncooperative in the runup to the 2006 elections?
Excuuuuuuuuuuse me? and nothing personal directed at you asdf, but since when is the opposition not supposed to look like they are opposing things? WTF?
When did it become that the D’s must get along and not look like they are uncooperative and the R’s can do and say anything they want no matter how uncooperative it may be? WTF is going on here? If there is no difference between the D’s and the R’s then why bother with either of them? This whole idea of we musn’t look like we are obstructing is just plain illogical and not what these clowns were elected to do.
I can’t believe how many folks have bought into the Rebulican mantra of Dems as obstructionists or uncooperative. . .so many usually astute and logically thinking people are buying these 1994 to present Republican talking points. . .I am really a bit bewildered.
When? When? WHEN? for god’s sake W H E N? does my elected representative stand up and represent my interests and the general best interests of the American people? Just when the F is that?
Wait. . .Johnny Mathis has the answer. . .“The 12th of never!”
I understand what you’re saying, but if there’s a fillibuster in progress in, say, August 2006, the Republicans will be making lots of noise about it. Perhaps it’s worth it, I don’t know…
Didn’t mean to rant off on you like that. . .I have just had it, finally, after years and years of this stuff. . .not your fault for holding a different view and still having hope.
I hope you are right. I personally just don’t have any trust in seeing anything different out of this bunch of cowards.
I say let’s have the filibuster battle, (the “nuclear option”), and get it over with. We should have gone for it back when Owen and Brown were up for appointment, instead of capitulating via the odious gang of 14 to the Repub agenda.
If we’re going to lose the fight anyway, lets at least lose by standing up for our principles rather than betraying those principles and still winding up losing anyway.
.
Who the hell is …
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) …
to advise Harriet Miers?
See also my previous comment first thread – A Good Friend to Bush!
▼ ▼ ▼
Bush did not look happy when declaring Miers’ nomination. What do we make of this in poker terms?
SCOTUS is supposed to be their ultimate cake. Bush does not need any stealth tactics; they can just nominate and appoint anything they like.
From the PR side, it is a terrible step. Just when Bush needs a PR boost, he nominates someone who instantly confuses the base, to put it mildly. What sense does it make? Even conservative pundits do not figure a spin. Principles and base support does not seem to matter this time. Does Bush care only about satisfying his crony friends? Or is he thinking about impeachment already?
It is hard to say now how the hearings will play out, and what options will be available. For this time, dems should concentrate on the hearings and do not think much about the outcome. If Meirs is an ideal conservative, Dems cannot do much against her. If she is Bush’s blunder, let conservatives to figure that out.
What Dems can do (and should do) is to provide an exemplary hearings process, with all reasonable questions and inquiries. Not that kind of blabla as with Roberts, where the main concern seem to be avoiding tickling. Better options will come only with good questioning.
I come here for the political commentary. This is a gem:
I don’t even know why I was writing angry comments earlier today. But I think you summed it up for me BooMan. I have been at the raw end of the pay-per-view hype letdown deal a few times. And that is exactly the feeling I am getting about this.
We’ve all been expecting a huge fight. I think rage was our first reaction, because that’s what we expected. The corporate hacks will continue to slither into power in government. Not a surprise.
Are we really peace-loving people, or is our blood-lust going to dominate our behavior? That’s the plan – put this fight on TV and call it the ‘real world.’
I’m just going to watch and wait for my moment to fight back.
http://tinyurl.com/a5nau link to article at Huffington Post about when she was Managing Partner at Texas law firm and having more than once to pay fines for investor fraud..golly gee, why am I sooooooo UNsurprised.
As a woman professional (no, not that kind of professional!) I feel deeply uneasy about this. This woman does NOT seem qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I hate to admit it, but she seems to have some decent personal characteristics. She is loyal, a hard worker, modest, apparently sincerely religious. Fine. But that doesn’t qualify her to be on the Supreme Court. But, to me, this is why Bush nominated her.
So many women in previously male-dominated jobs have heard this charge: you got this job just because you are a woman. (One of my best male friends at the time, a minority, told me when I was looking for a job that I would have no trouble getting one, because I was a woman–that still stings.) So what are we to say about Harriet Miers? The one thing that seems so clear to me is that she is not qualified for this job. Am I wrong? Have there been men nominated to the Supreme Court who had equally non-stellar qualifications? Who was that guy who Nixon nominated who was turned down because he was condemned as mediocre. There was some good sound bite that went along with that.
Clarence Thomas comes to mind, but even he had a year and a half on the DC Court of Appeals (the traditional stepping stone to SCOTUS) before being elevated. He’d never been a judge before that.
each of the qualities you attribute to her is one more evidence of her lack of qualification: “She is loyal, a hard worker, modest, apparently sincerely religious.” I can’t think of, or even imagine, any good justice with more than one of those qualities.
that someone on the Supreme Court could at least be that. But you are right. What I want to see is someone who is an independent thinker, and she gives no sign of being that.
the bus boys at the downtown restaurant belong on the court. Judges, lawyers, and pols haven’t a clue about hard work. Bush works very hard at understanding each simple sentence that comes his way. Doesn’t help a bit.
It was this guy Carswell who Nixon nominated:
“In 1969, the Senate defeated President Richard Nixon’s nomination of Judge Clement Haynsworth to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Abe Fortas (see below). Still angry about the Haynsworth defeat, in 1970 Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell, a Southern conservative with “strict-constructionist” leanings, to fill the Fortas vacancy. Carswell had recently been appointed to the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which served the Deep South. His nomination was a surprise to many: Carswell had been a judge for just a short time and was seen as lacking distinction. Prominent legal scholars publicly criticized the nomination.
Some senators tried to sell Carswell’s rather unremarkable career as an asset. In a famous speech in Carswell’s defense, Republican Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska argued: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that.”
From this link
On behalf of mediocre people every where, I thank you!
ROFLMAO!
I suspect the administration knows the (R) party is in a world of hurt between the war, Katrina, the scandals (DeLay, Frist, Plamegate, etc.), and on and on. So, if they’re taking on water fast, who are they going to try and satisfy with their remaining power? The theocrats and zealots? Hardly. They’re a tool whose use is spent. No, they’re nominating this one for the plutocrats, which is why they can find willing Democrats in the senate to go along for the sake of comity. If she happens to be a social conservative that’s icing on the cake, but it’s not the bottom line. The bottom line is feeding their corporate masters.
But this may be the Achilles heel in their plans, as there may be sufficient skeletons in her closet to allow a coalition of irate conservatives and liberals to kill the nomination. When they have to have the vice-president appear on Rush Limbaugh today to placate the pitchfork-wielding mob, they’ve got to be concerned that they may not get her through for the sake of big business.
I suspect the titans of corporate America have had about enough of this whole bunch and are getting ready to pull the plug on the circus. Corporate money will elect a “moderate” Democratic congress in 2006, the theocrats will start slinking back under their rocks as they lose a few key court cases, Kos will declare victory, and the strip mining of Montana (WY, WVa, etc.) will increase by orders of magnitude, using the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn coal into oil (Hey, it’s a proven technology – it powered both Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa, so it’s gotta be good, right?) and everyone can have another round of drinks as the Titanic sinks into the icy waters.
And the meek shall inherit the earth, only no one told them that the fine print said it would all look like post-Katrina New Orleans. The Sheep Look Up.
Politics is difficult. Sometimes I get in fits of anger over specific steps by the Dems that I find repugnant … Joe Biden backing the bankruptcy, etc. laws because his state (Delaware) has lots of credit card companies (which I find very difficult to forgive or reconcile somehow).
My Rep. Norm Dicks backing CAFTA. Then, I get an e-mail that Norm Dicks has proposed counter-legislation to strenghten the Endangered Species Act (he’s very, very good on that), and I am happy with him.
I guess it’s like relationships. We have to put up with the good and the bad sometimes. And look at the big picture.
Taking your title a bit more literally, has anyone considered that Miers may have “suggested” herself to Bush, and he obliged? She was, after all, tasked with presenting nominees to him for consideration.
Recall that she was in charge of a preemptive background check on Bush before he ran for Governor of Texas in 1994. Perhaps that turned up something that she held on to, thinking it might come in handy someday?
</tinfoil>
Didn’t Dick Cheney do the same thing? Wasn’t he charged with finding Bush’s veep?
Maybe the selection is just a simple case of picking a family friend for the top court when facing possible indictment.
For the most part I expect Miers to be confirmed esily, if grumpily.
For all the outrage amongst the so-called “conservative”, (read extremist wingnut), base of the party, the major players in the Bush regime care little for either the evangelical fascist agenda or a true conservative agenda of fiscal restraint and the rule of law. BushCo cares about itself first and foremost; their ability to wage war in the quest for global hegemony, their ability to loot the treasury, and their ability to remain beyond the reach of the law here at home. And, of course, they care little for the democratic process, preferring to circumvent it with impunity whenever necessary.
So, they’ll have no qualms about betraying the evangelical nutbirds (again), and they’ll have no qualms about continuing to betray the interests of the true fiscal conservatives.
The only way I see Miers not being confirmed is if pressure is brought to bear behind the scenes in such a way that she is compelled to withdraw her name from consideration herself. And even if the MSM picks up on the details of this story, I doubt it will derail her.
I think you and Knoxville (up a few comments) have it just about right.
is probably an imprudent thing to say, and certainly impolitic, but does it seem to anyone else like Kos has Harry Reid’s balls firmly planted in his mouth?
I have been arguing all day that we should withhold judgment on this nominee. But he seems to be as pro-Meirs as Dobson. One of them is going to have a lot of egg on their face.
Now I have an analogy inextricably visualized in my mind’s eye and it’s — eeeeeewwwwww — icky.
(Good one, Boo. Will check it out to see what you’ve been saying.)
I don’t see anything really wrong in Kos’ analysis. What do you take issue with?
Reid had to offer up some names. I’m not sure what caused him to offer up Meirs. But clearly she’s better than a Janice Rogers Brown. We KNOW she would be Scalia/Thomas.
He’s got the whole enchilada in there.
From AmericaBlog:
.
Editor’s Note: On Oct. 2, President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s a profile of Miers that appeared in the Aug. 8 issue of BusinessWeek, when Miers was helping the effort to win Senate confirmation of John Roberts to the high court. Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on Sept. 29.
BUSINESS WEEK August 8 — [As lawyer] her list of clients included Microsoft, Walt Disney, and Bush, whom she met socially in the 1980s. She joined his 1994 gubernatorial campaign as counsel — and later represented him in a title dispute over his East Texas fishing cottage. Governor Bush rewarded her by giving her the high-impact job of cleaning up the scandal-tarred Texas Lottery Commission.
… But the same characteristics that endear Miers to Bush — loyalty and discretion — make her one of the capital’s least-known Very Important Players. “She never seeks the limelight,” says Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. “She’s just extremely devoted to the President.”
… Miers followed Bush to D.C. and was assigned one of the most sensitive jobs in the White House: staff secretary, responsible for reviewing every piece of paper that crosses the President’s desk. She took the counsel’s spot when Alberto R. Gonzales was promoted to Attorney General. In the first few months on the job, she was a key player in the developing strategy for the Administration’s showdown with Senate Democrats over the stalled judicial nominations and will be the point person on future court openings.
… That’s just what Bush wanted when he tapped Miers, a workaholic with a soft Texas drawl, to oversee the top-secret mission of choosing a replacement for O’Connor. Her task, associates say, was to give the President the pros and cons of each of the dozen or so contenders — and find any skeletons in their closets. “Her job was to turn everything upside down to see what might fall out,” says former White House deputy counsel David G. Leitch.
Despite her influence, friends say Miers is shy and uncomfortable with small talk. Several colleagues from her days on the Dallas city council describe her as “a loner.” Democrats complain that Miers did not visit the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, during her first six months on the job. After learning of the perceived slight, Miers trekked to the Hill in late June to meet Leahy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
A stickler for detail, Miers doesn’t have much time for social calls. White House colleagues say that she arrives for work as early as 4:30 a.m. and often departs after 10 p.m., leaving little time for her favorite diversions — tennis, running, and opera. But Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) remembers persuading Miers to see Plácido Domingo sing Wagner. “I went to sleep twice,” Hutchison recalls. “She never even bobbed her head — and she had come to work at 6:00 that morning.”
Hutchison says she expects Miers will someday have even more power. If Bush has the opportunity to make additional Supreme Court nominations, “she will definitely be on the short list,” predicts the Texas senator. If so, Bush may be hard-pressed to find someone to match her skills as a vetter.
▼ ▼ ▼
Shhh… Is this Roberts-Miers conspiracy? 😉
I just had to send LTE this to the Chicago Tribune.
“There is nothing like a good oxymoron to start the day! I got a lovely chuckle out of the headline on your profile of Harriet Miers: Known for widom, loyalty to president. Good one.”
It’s clear that the Miers pick is more personal than political. When Bush’s friends, and perhaps Bush himself, someday find their criminal convictions on appeal to the Supreme Court, they will need a friend there to help them out. Just like his Dad’s friends on the court helped him out with the election.