Why Bush will not withdraw the Miers nomination
[Note- I've had this post in mind for about 5 days, but wanted to wait until I had time to do it justice. I'm not going to get the time, so I'm just throwing it out there in rough form.]
Everything I think I know about President Bush tells me there is no possible way he will withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. First, his sense of honor, character and loyalty would not let him do it. Miers has given up a tremendous amount of income at the height of her career to serve Bush. Since her nomination, she has been slandered and belittled. I imagine that the White House has been shocked at the brutality with which she has been knifed in the back. If the public does not get to see her testify at hearings, all that will ever be known about her are the claims that she is "third-rate", incompetent and unqualified. Her reputation and future career as a top-notch lawyer, built over a lifetime of hard work, will be completely trashed. I don't see how she could be anywhere near as effective in securing the top drawer clientele she attracted in the past, if she doesn't get to testify. No matter how politically expedient some might argue it would be for Bush to get rid of her now, I just can't see him doing that to her.
Second, the President understands that the real end game is the vote of the Senate. All the gnashing of teeth and hissy fits by pundits and bloggers is ultimately meaningless. Clarence Thomas has survived a far more devastating personal assault for many years. He has risen above it all and continues to do good work on the Court. I imagine Miers and Bush are prepared to put up with the personal attacks against her, comfortable in the knowledge that, once confirmed, she can be a productive justice, too. And Bush has a far better feel for who is holding the cards in this poker game than the pundits screaming for her scalp. This hand will be won privately, one senator at a time, not in the court of public opinion. In the end, Bush knows that few in the GOP want to go on record with their constituents back home as having rejected his nominee. I don't think he will let them sink his friend behind closed doors. They will have to stand up and cast their votes on the record. I think and Bush likely knows that few will vote no.
Third, withdrawing the nomination without a hearing would vindicate the backstabbing Chicken Littles. For many of the conservatives who have joined the assault on Miers, the real target is Bush. I don't think it would be wise for W to allow those attacking him to claim a victory over him without cost. Obviously, the White House is convinced that Miers will do well when the nation tunes in to hear her. Even if the nomination is not confirmed, I suspect (and Bush likely believes) that her performance will put the lie to much of criticism and many of her critics will be revealed as having been harsh and mean-spirited. Many viewers will probably conclude that the anti-Miers forces were wrong in their descriptions of her. What else are they wrong about? It can only help Bush to have his critics cut down to size as a result of having their credibility placed in question.
Liberals have been misunderestimating W for his entire political career. I find it remarkable to see so many conservatives now making the same mistake. George W. Bush is the anti-Clinton. He doesn't bend with the prevailing wind. We have seen him persevere against the conventional wisdom on issue after issue for five years. I fully expect that he will stand strong and tough on the Miers nomination and see it through to her confirmation.
Given his record, only a fool would bet against him.
Finally, is it really politically advantageous to Bush to cut her loose now? How does it help him? The confirmation process may very well be contentious, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't benefit from it all. Can he get hurt more than he is right now? I think withdrawing now would be selling at the bottom of a bear market.
UPDATE (Wed morning):
Welcome to Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Hedgehog and Red State readers (and thanks for the links). I appreciate the commenters and e-mailers who express their agreement and disagreement with thought and courtesy.
Later today I'm planning a post to respond to the points of disagreement and outline where I think the right side of the political spectrum diverged onto alternative paths. Hope you can check back this afternoon.
Again, thanks for your responses, both pro and con. Those who point out my errors help me improve and I certainly need to do a lot of improving (just ask my wife).
NOTE: Everyone needs to check out D J Drummond's take which I referenced here.
2nd UPDATE -- and hello to those from Betsy, Memeorandum, and Alexandra (and a big thank you to them).
Everything I think I know about President Bush tells me there is no possible way he will withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. First, his sense of honor, character and loyalty would not let him do it. Miers has given up a tremendous amount of income at the height of her career to serve Bush. Since her nomination, she has been slandered and belittled. I imagine that the White House has been shocked at the brutality with which she has been knifed in the back. If the public does not get to see her testify at hearings, all that will ever be known about her are the claims that she is "third-rate", incompetent and unqualified. Her reputation and future career as a top-notch lawyer, built over a lifetime of hard work, will be completely trashed. I don't see how she could be anywhere near as effective in securing the top drawer clientele she attracted in the past, if she doesn't get to testify. No matter how politically expedient some might argue it would be for Bush to get rid of her now, I just can't see him doing that to her.
Second, the President understands that the real end game is the vote of the Senate. All the gnashing of teeth and hissy fits by pundits and bloggers is ultimately meaningless. Clarence Thomas has survived a far more devastating personal assault for many years. He has risen above it all and continues to do good work on the Court. I imagine Miers and Bush are prepared to put up with the personal attacks against her, comfortable in the knowledge that, once confirmed, she can be a productive justice, too. And Bush has a far better feel for who is holding the cards in this poker game than the pundits screaming for her scalp. This hand will be won privately, one senator at a time, not in the court of public opinion. In the end, Bush knows that few in the GOP want to go on record with their constituents back home as having rejected his nominee. I don't think he will let them sink his friend behind closed doors. They will have to stand up and cast their votes on the record. I think and Bush likely knows that few will vote no.
Third, withdrawing the nomination without a hearing would vindicate the backstabbing Chicken Littles. For many of the conservatives who have joined the assault on Miers, the real target is Bush. I don't think it would be wise for W to allow those attacking him to claim a victory over him without cost. Obviously, the White House is convinced that Miers will do well when the nation tunes in to hear her. Even if the nomination is not confirmed, I suspect (and Bush likely believes) that her performance will put the lie to much of criticism and many of her critics will be revealed as having been harsh and mean-spirited. Many viewers will probably conclude that the anti-Miers forces were wrong in their descriptions of her. What else are they wrong about? It can only help Bush to have his critics cut down to size as a result of having their credibility placed in question.
Liberals have been misunderestimating W for his entire political career. I find it remarkable to see so many conservatives now making the same mistake. George W. Bush is the anti-Clinton. He doesn't bend with the prevailing wind. We have seen him persevere against the conventional wisdom on issue after issue for five years. I fully expect that he will stand strong and tough on the Miers nomination and see it through to her confirmation.
Given his record, only a fool would bet against him.
Finally, is it really politically advantageous to Bush to cut her loose now? How does it help him? The confirmation process may very well be contentious, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't benefit from it all. Can he get hurt more than he is right now? I think withdrawing now would be selling at the bottom of a bear market.
UPDATE (Wed morning):
Welcome to Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Hedgehog and Red State readers (and thanks for the links). I appreciate the commenters and e-mailers who express their agreement and disagreement with thought and courtesy.
Later today I'm planning a post to respond to the points of disagreement and outline where I think the right side of the political spectrum diverged onto alternative paths. Hope you can check back this afternoon.
Again, thanks for your responses, both pro and con. Those who point out my errors help me improve and I certainly need to do a lot of improving (just ask my wife).
NOTE: Everyone needs to check out D J Drummond's take which I referenced here.
2nd UPDATE -- and hello to those from Betsy, Memeorandum, and Alexandra (and a big thank you to them).
posted by Stan at 4:25 PM
14 Comments:
Well said, Stan. There's no way I can see GWB giving in to what has happened. It's amazing to me that the conservative opposition to Miers thinks they can make him do that. Do they think this is a game?
Good reasoning. I see it as almost *impossible* that Bush backs down here. There's some possibility that the documents thing might provoke a standoff with the Senate (see Krauthammer's speculation on this), but there's no way *Bush* pulls this thing. Its not him.
One thing this does point out though, is the coming civil war in the Republican Party is a lot closer than people think. The God Squad is *incensed* over this nomination, and they've temporarily joined forces with the elitists (aka grads of Harvard Law). This infighting will break out into the open in a *huge* way if the Republicans do poorly in 2006, as seems likely. (Whats more, "doing poorly" in an offyear election is pretty common, but it'll be be made into Waterloo by the press).
Which means going into 2008 there will be an outright pitched battle for the nomination, which will *probably* mean a Democratic President next time around. Unless they nominate Hillary in which case all bets are off.
Anyway, as I see it from here...
Belmont, CA
All Things Beautiful tracked back with 'The Incredulity of St.Will (Extended Version)'
I have just received a copy of a letter written by SMU School of Law Dean John Attanasio who has written to Senate Judiciary in defense of Miers...Stan @ Two Minute Offense tells us why Bush will not withdraw the nomination.
Your blog is well written and well thought out.
I just hope you are 100% wrong. The sooner this nomination is pulled, the better off everyone is, especially the President.
Perhaps he's waiting for the the indictments from Fitzgerald to be announced. He can help move that story to below the fold if he soon thereafter announces Miers' withdrawal.
It's good to read someone else who feels as I do about this. I had grown used to this kind of personal destruction from the liberal media, but to see it coming from conservative pundits really bothers me.
I certainly won't be renewing my subscription to NRO, I hope they have to beg for donations forever. I can't believe the tone this thing has taken on. I'm beginning to feel like journalism corrupts everybody who participates, even those who fancy themselves to be conservative.
Thank you...
Well stated...
Reminds me again, of why GW is a Great President...
Boy Michael
NYC
The White House should quietly can the Miers nomination under the cover of this business about executive privilege and the fact that the Senate wants a bunch of documents, and the President isn't going to release them (rightly so), etc. etc. I think it was Bob Novak who suggested this. So the Senate graciously accepts her withdrawal and the issue, instead of being about Miers, is about Executive vs. Legislative prerogatives.
I cannot support Miers' nomination at this time because she clearly is not qualified. It's pretty bad when both the chairman and ranking members are telling her to re-do her questionnaire. It's pretty bad when you read reports about how she's got to study for the hearings, when Roberts was able to extemporaneously breeze through the hearings, no notes, no worries. Why can't we have another person of the same caliber, brilliance, and experience as Roberts? Why settle for mediocrity when you can have excellence - conservative excellence? Bush scored a touchdown with Roberts. Why has he now chosen to punt?
There were plenty of very solid judicially conservative appellate judges to choose from but President Bush had to go with Miers, why? Because he knows best?
Nonsense.
We'll see how she does at the hearings, but from all I have seen and read I'm not terribly impressed.
If she is confirmed, I hope time will be prove me wrong, and she'll turn out to be a good justice.
Thomas Katsampes
http://www.katsampes.com
Stan, I'm grateful for your very sane and well-reasoned comments. The antiMiers are sounding hysterical and desperate (are they afraid for us to hear Miers respond in the Senate hearings?). What I find disgusting is their abandonment of intellectual sobriety, something much esteemed by the founding fathers.
Stan,
I like your logic and agree with you. W is the anti-clinton in many ways and he does have a strong sense of conviction. He does not react to polls to make his decisions.
Thanks for the post
Oh, Jeremy- "I've yet to see any "personal attacks" against Miers"- go to Jonathan Adler's posts at NRO where they make an extended point about how a typo in her questionnaire response ("contact" instead of "contract"- it is obvious that they had to rely on spell-check given the time) means she is too sloppy to be a SCOTUS justice when she is actually supposed to be meticulous, to see how petty the personal attacks have been.
And none of the opponents here have cited one specific documentably supported objection to the nomination. "Not conservative enough"? We simply don't know. We can have ideas, but we don't have actual evidence- the stuff about sending money to Gore, the feminist lecture series, and the Texas Bar affirmative action outreach ("quota"? Perhaps- ask the quesiton and don't let her dodge it) are either already dealt with and well-explained, or we don't really know yet and the answers will come from the hearings- if the SJC does its job.
Stan correctly points out that the Entitled Right Punditry immediately threw a giant temper tantrum when the nomination was announced and has been pounding on the floor and kicking its feet wildly ever since. And much of the commentary I've seen has been other unrelated recycled gripes, most of which are either incorrect, unimportant, fueled by ignorance, or are essentially unrelated policy differences (Katrina spending, steel tariffs, highway spending, drug benefits, immigration, etc.), giving the distinct impression that it was just time for us Real Conservatives to have a good cry over the fact that the American public and Senate are not enough in agreement with us so we get to have our own way about everything. I heard almost exactly the same caterwauling in 1986 and 1987 about another Republican president who now looks to have been a pretty good president.
The thing to do now is what we should have done several weeks ago. Dig for all the information we can find, publicize it without the side comments, let our representatives and lobby organizations know our well-supported views and concerns based on facts (e.g., send Sekulow a letter, enclose a $20 contribution), ask our senators to be sure that certain questions are answered appropriately (I could provide a list), and wait to see what the hearings turn up.
If Miers looks bad, she will withdraw. If she looks good, she will be confirmed. If she looks liberal, the center-right senators will vote "no".
But the state of the "debate" to date has been appalling. The best comments on substance have been made by John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff at Powerline- go read their stuff.
I agree with you. Crimeny, whatever happened to common courtesy? Let her have her hearing. If she tanks then a "no" vote will be the correct vote. If she proves to be the caliber of person that Bush says she is, then a "yes" vote will be the correct vote.
I think that part of the oppostion to Miers is because she a single woman of a "certain age" and whether people like to admit it (or even recognize it!) or not, the public is suspicious of women like her. "There must be something wrong with her if she couldn't get a husband" is an underlying theme that runs through the minds of people. In general, I think there is a perception of single people (male or female) of a certain age that they are "oddballs". I wonder if the opposition to Miers would be as strong if she were married?
Finally! I have been looking for someone who could articulate what I've been feeling. I am as conservative as one can be - arrived in Washington with the Reagan Revolution and have been dumbfounded by the rancor and snarlyness of the backstabbing so-called conservative press. The announcement wasn't even seconds old when the outcry began. Why? Why all this outrage? Is it because she's an outsider to the Washington Elite, the Conservative Brand that is now loosing touch with the Red State Americans? She seems far more "Red State" than these pundits who appear more like outraged Puritans calling for a hanging or Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts calling for "off with her head." In fact, the more I think of it, the more I think this whole episode is something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Thanks for putting it straight. I will now become a regular reader of your blog.
bb
Stan,
I agree with you that the President will not withdraw the nomination. This can be characterized as loyalty or stubborness, or both.
Where we part ways is that I originally believed in and trusted the President's judgment upon hearing of Ms. Miers' nomination. I even had a popular post regarding Misunderestimation defending the President and asking for the yelling to quiet down. My support was more for the President and his right to his choice of nominee.
Although I am not a 'yeller' my position has come around somewhat. It is my belief that this nomination will fail, either in Committee or in the Senate vote. She will not withdraw, and neither will the President. As a result, he will be forced to put up another nominee after already having suffered great political damage.
I don't pretend for a second that the conservative opposition will carry any weight, but it is important we be heard as long as the conversation is civil and productive. I know that my mind was changed as a result of many such conversations, and we should all remember that the reason we're all in a tizzy is because this is such an important issue.
Great post and some solid reasoning. Congratulations!
Stan, I agree with you, I support Harriet (because we need more concurrence, not brilliant nuance), and you've said it well.
Still, I'm getting convinced we conservatives won't do better on Miers than listen closely in the hearings before making up our minds; but I tend to think if Miers goes into the hearings, she comes out confirmed. Therefore, I sort of agree that, to stop her, she must be withdrawn before hearings; so the anti-Miers strategy is correct for their goal.
I don't agree with their goal.
Post a Comment
<< Home