pageok
pageok
pageok
The Selling of Harriet Miers:
I realize that the White House is trying to sell the Miers candidacy to conservatives, but stuff like this seems a little desperate:
MIERS VOTED FOR REAGAN IN '84
Fri Oct 07 2005 17:24:18 ET
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a senior official on Harriet Miers' confirmation team that her political evolution began in 1984 during the Reagan revolution when she voted to reelect President Ronald Reagan.
  Well, there goes the Walter Mondale Fan Club vote.
Anonymous Coward:
Calculated tradeoff, since they locked up the spinster vote with her nomination.
10.7.2005 8:15pm
A Guest Who Enjoys This Site:
I guess hope springs eternal. I voted for Reagan - twice. I guess this means I DO actually have a shot at the Supreme Court someday. That's obviously why I voted for Reagan. He always said he wanted the Republican Party to be the party of "hope."
10.7.2005 8:34pm
Chris Murphy (mail):
Of course, the implication from the comment by the "senior official" is that she voted for Carter/Mondale in 1980. Maybe she has some chances with the Walter Mondale Fan Club yet.
10.7.2005 8:40pm
ANM:
I have the gut feeling that Bush was determined to nominate a crony. He glaringly suggested Alberto Gonzalez as a potential nominee, only to hear the protests of conservatives, effectively cutting the AG from the list. Bush then defaults to Miers.
10.7.2005 9:07pm
Interested Bystander:
Miers nomination is the result of Bush's deep-seated mistrust of intellectuals &intellectualism and the Senate leadership's weak-kneed leadership. Had the "anti-nuclear" compromise not been struck, I don't think Bush would need to fly beneath the radar. But he does and has. He made a pick that he's comfortable with, that he knows will bring his supporters a step toward their goals (reverse roe, get prayer back in school, keep god in the pledge, yadda yadda yadda). I guess he didn't figure those folks would follow the right-leaning intellectual elite in believing that Miers lacks the intellect, credentials, temperment, experience, and demeanor of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Miers might best serve her President by vulcanizing conservative support for whomever is nominated in her wake.
10.7.2005 9:36pm
John B (www):
And four years later, gave money to ... Al Gore? I'm just sayin'...
10.7.2005 9:48pm
Perseus (mail):
Copy editor alert: Replace desparate with desperate. (I'm not holier than thou. I make lots of mistakes too.)
10.7.2005 9:49pm
CPB:
If only she could've produced a picture of her wearing a Reagan-Schweiker in '76 button. Then she could've been considered for Chief Justice.
10.7.2005 9:50pm
Lochner Monster:
Notice nothing on her votes in '80 or even the general election in '88 (the same year she donated to Gore, and then the DNC five days before the election).

Geez, I wonder why that might be?
10.7.2005 9:57pm
A Bemused Guest:
Bush's nomination of Miers is a reversion to type. Donald Trump has described Bush as 'snake bit.' Bill O'Reilly has described Bush as 'tired.' Krauthammer, Will, and Kristol have all been quoted here.

Bush's reversion to type is the same problem that Clinton and Carter had when they fell into a similar "state of mind." Governors from southern states are used to an extremely powerful relationship vis a vis other governmental elements within their state. Thus, when the Governor says "do it" or "trust me" or "I think this is what is best done" they are accustomed to such phrases being interpreted synonomously and acted on accordingly.

So, when cronyism, the mindset of a southern governor, and being snakebit all come together... Is there any surprise that Bush would put forth a crony and actually enjoy the political retribution he is exacting by publically dividing the neo-conservatives from the ultra-right from the compassionate conservatives from the true moderates? Is it possible that he's, I think unintentionally, accelerated the fractious process the Republican Party was inevitably doomed to see in the jockeying for the '08 nomination; especially since Bush has, thus far, avoided "grooming" anyone as his successor (with the possible exception of Condi)?

Chuck Schummer and other prominent Democrats have publically stated that they pretty much intend "staying out of the way" while Republicans beat up on each other. If this is what Bush defines as "reaching across the aisle," I think he's chosen a heck of a time to do so; maybe having had one too many barbeques with Bush the Senior's "other son" - Bill Clinton. Because, so far as I can see, all Miers' nomination does for the Republicans is to help the Democrats.

After all the cries of cronyism, favoritism, incompetence, inappropriateness, investigations, corruption of the process, lack of planning, fiscal irresponsibility, and recalictrance - and that's just from the REPUBLICAN side - how is Bush ever going to groom anyone without their being stigmitized with the same 'handicaps.'

Basically, I'd love to be Nancy Pelosi's speechwriter. It was an easy job to write exclusively for her - all you had to do was write one speech, changing the names as appropriate, because all she ever says is that [insert name] is evil, incompetent, criminal, irresponsible, and corrupt. Now, I'd either be enjoying royalties from the Republicans or seeking a large settlement for use of my copyrighted material. What a gig that would have been.

Had I only known.
10.7.2005 10:13pm
MassRepUnsure (mail):
I am sorry if this has not been mentioned before:

I am a politically conservative attorney who has wished that W would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. I say this just to have my beliefs in the open.
If it comes to it, how does Miers decline her nomination?

I do not believe she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She may be very intelligent and an expert in her field, but that does not mean she has the intellectual ability and training to be a Justice. Conservative Senators could use this nomination to show that nominations are not a matter of politics, but a matter of ability and talent. This opposition would give Republican Senators the high ground in the next debate.
10.7.2005 11:15pm
Perseus (mail):
Speaking of desperate, I'm wondering if Miers has any skeletons in her closet such as an ethics violation, employing an illegal maid or gardener, DUI, being cruel to kittens, etc. that might be enough to force her nomination to be withdrawn.
10.8.2005 1:48am