Exposing the Soft Underbelly
DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, Bush promised to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Now the bill has come due, and the response the president's supporters have received has been: 'trust me.' Some have noted similarities between this nomination and the last 'trust me' Republican nomination to the Supreme Court, David Souter. Bush the Elder told conservatives that Souter would be a 'home run.'Yet, I believe that a new pandora's box has been opened today with the news surrounding Dr. James Dobson's statements surrounding the firestorm engulfing him as of late. Herein, Dr. Dobson discussed that Karl Rove did, in fact, personally assure him of Miers merits and assuaged his fears pertaining to the murkiness surrounding her credentials. However, what I find to be a crucial caveat revealed by his statments regards what Karl Rove reavealed to him in his assurances. Specifically, Mr. Rove admitted that Miers was not President Bush's first choice. As reported by the Drudge Report,
In the past few months, Bush has had two opportunities to fulfill his own election pledge. The president instead selected a brilliant, but largely untested, Rehnquist acolyte and his personal attorney. Conservatives want to know how Miers fulfills his election pledge. Instead of getting any clear evidence of a conservative scholar or action in support of conservative judicial
initiatives, the Bush administration has kept its lips silent after demanding trust.
'What Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it,' Dobson said, according to the transcript.
Personally, this seems to be that much more damning to this nomination and the hurdles President Bush has to overcome with his base. I find it incredibly dissapointing that this admission bears credence through someone as close as Rove to President Bush. Conservatives are not naive, and I think it is elemenatary to immediately assume that conservatives (and anyone, for that matter) is solely attacking this woman based upon her sex. This is to the point of being insulting to anyone critizing this decision. There are legitimate concerns conservatives should have on a decision of this magnitude. Politics are inevitably involved with anything President Bush engages, and, a woman being nominated can be construed as mandatory for the due to this nature of who was retiring. With such said, your humble pundit still finds it extremely disspointing that this President took a poltical path more expedient for him rather than fulfilling a fundamental issue promised to his base.
What are we conservatives supposed to take from the tactics surrounding this nomination? Nothing seems to be falling into place for the Bush Administration as we move closer and closer to the nomination process in the Senate next month. Essentially, we know nothing of this woman and have no possible way (as of now) of ascertaining what her ascension (if it occurs) will mean for the Court's future. As alluded to by Captain's Quarters, President Bush has taken a 'trust me' approach to us, which has put him in a precarious position with his base. Instead of understanding our concerns of knowing nothing of this nominee, Presidnet Bush has now begun to go on the offensive with those questioning his judgement.
Now, as we have learned today, she was not even President Bush's first choice. How is this to play as a factor into his 'trust me' strategy? It is eroding his creditibility on the matter, it further emboldens the rhetoric and assertions many conservatives have uttered since the announcement was first made. How is this stark constrast to be reconciled by President Bush? We are not sexist or any other asserted accusations emanating now, we are curiuous.
Donkey Stomp - Conservatives, Hold Your Fire! California Conservative - The Laura Bush “It’s Possible” Controversy Blogs for Bush - On Misunderestimating W The Hedgehog Blog - Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers: What's the Difference? Hugh Hewitt - Defending Harriet Miers... Professor Bainbridge - The SCOTUS is Not a Patronage Appointment Michelle Malkin - MRS. BUSH & THE SEXISM CARD Democracy Project - Which Bush is President? Hard Starboard - A Kick To The Nads From A Very Nice Lady Hyscience - The Sexism Card Speak Easy - Sexism? It's Possible Cao's Blog - Bashing Laura Bush Sister Toldjah - The Laura Bush "It's Possible" Controversy It'sAPundit - The Sex Card Media Lies - Have conservatives lost their minds? All Things Beautiful - The First Lady and Professor Althouse SerandEz - Laura Bush: Not Accusing Left of Sexism Don Surber - Malkin In The Middle Stop the ACLU - Now Lets Bash Mrs. Bush! The M. Sheldon Show - I May Pay for This One ProLifeBlogs - Is Bush Pro-Roe? Mr. Snitch! - Michelle Malkin laps it up The Moderate Voice - Republican Sexist Staffers Blasting Miers Nomination & Bush Does More Than Wink: Says He Picked Miers Partly For Her Religion Reganites Unite! - A Simple Miers Analogy