Brownback Might Vote Against Miers
Wow. The L.A. Times reports that, while Sen. Sam Brownback hasn’t decided that he is opposing Miers, he is seriously considering it:
[I]t was a slap in the face to the White House when Brownback, after three days of lobbying by White House aides to persuade leaders among evangelical conservatives to support Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers, emerged from an hourlong meeting with her Thursday and said he was prepared to vote against her.
“I still think there’s a lot to learn about this nominee,” Brownback said, citing doubts about Miers’ positions on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. “I must do my own due diligence, and I can’t say that all these issues are overcome in a one-hour meeting.”
Asked if he was prepared to vote against Miers, Brownback said: “Yes.”
Asked if he was prepared to vote against her even if President Bush pleaded with him directly, Brownback replied: “Yes.”
Ouch.
So: naming a candidate that splits your party in half — is that part of the vaunted MOOSEMUSS strategy?
Just askin’.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt correctly complains about the spin of the L.A. Times story. He points to his interview with Brownback, and says:
In this interview, as with all the interviews he did yesterday, Brownback conveys caution and the possibility that he could vote against Miers, along with the possibility that he might vote for her. That position didn’t serve the Times’ agenda, so they chapped his exchanges up until they found a grabber.
Nice work, that, but don’t call it reporting.
Hugh has a good point. The Times‘s phraseology — saying that Brownback is “prepared to vote against” Miers — suggests that Brownback has already made up his mind. You have to read the story carefully to see that this is not so. That is why I was careful at the beginning of this post to note that Brownback has not made up his mind — so that my readers would not be misled the way some L.A. Times readers undoubtedly were.
But Hugh also should not underestimate the significance of Brownback’s statement. The fact that Brownback is willing to publicly acknowledge his reservations about the Miers nomination — and to say that his opposition could hold even in the face of a personal appeal from Bush — is significant. It shows that he is seriously considering voting against her — an indication that this nomination will be in trouble if the Administration does not provide solid information to assuage the concerns of conservatives like Brownback.
If Brownback does vote no, she dies in committee- I don’t see him voting no and Sessions voting yes, and I know that the Dems would love to see blood.
For those of you who think they want to see the GOP fighting over her after she gets on the Court, imagine how much more they’ll like the Bush Administration pissed at the voters and the Senate GOP because they shot down his toady.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/7/2005 @ 6:32 amSince we know the reliability of the LA Pravda, you might want to check out what heitt has to say or this trnascript of his interview with Brownback: http://www.radioblogger.com/#001047
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:05 amThe fact he’s willing to state it publicly on the record is still extremely significant.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:10 amYou can hear the audio of the Brownback interview on NPR
Gabriel (76de11) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:30 amhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4948400
I give the LA Times story a B+.
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/7/2005 @ 9:21 am“For those of you who think they want to see the GOP fighting over her after she gets on the Court, imagine how much more they’ll like the Bush Administration pissed at the voters and the Senate GOP because they shot down his toady.”
That’ll pass when Dubya atones by nominating a true winger. Better she is on the court and the right keeps on seething.
actus (c9e62e) — 10/7/2005 @ 9:28 am“— an indication that this nomination will be in trouble if the Administration does not provide solid information to assuage the concerns of conservatives like Brownback.”
This nomination is already in trouble. Administration apologists are busy trying to put out fires, but it isn’t working and their efforts will only serve to open and expand the debate. Soon the uneasy feeling will swell to solid opposition, because there is no “solid information to assuage the concerns…” No such information exists, and therefore conservatives can’t be assuaged, only insulted and outraged.
The simple and unhappy truth is that Harriet Miers doesn’t have the professional qualifications for the Supreme Court. Her nomination is a farce, a slap in the face to conservatives who were promised a solid nominee like Scalia or Thomas. Miers ain’t it, and all the happy talk and appeals to loyalty won’t make her acceptable. She should save herself, and her boss, and step down, before she gets smacked down.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:57 amSometimes a senator will publicly hedge like this in order to extract a political favor from the President in exchange for his support. The current circumstances are perfect for this type of horse-trading: a large, visible split in the majority party, thus one vote carries a lot of weight. This happens a lot more than you realize. The question is, what is Brownback holding out for? We’ll probably never know.
Bill Schumm (7df33f) — 10/7/2005 @ 11:40 amClam,
With respect, the question “are you willing to vote no” could easily by rephrased as “are you willing to vote yes” or “are you keeping an open mind till all the facts are in”. All three phrasings amount to the same thing.
Of course the Senator is “willing.” Not all the facts are in yet, not at all. So his answer essentially means that he is undecided. For a relatively unknown nominee, his was really the only sensible answer possible, but it means no more than it means.
ras (f9de13) — 10/7/2005 @ 12:36 pmI have to agree with Black Jack. Harriet Miers may be a good lawyer, a loyal friend, a sincere Christian and a nice person, but that doesn’t mean she is qualified for the Supreme Court. Her qualifications look particularly thin coming so soon after Roberts. Why, oh why, couldn’t Bush have nominated someone so stunningly intellectual as to make opposition look petty and partisan? Instead, I’m left hoping she gets shot down and Bush has to come back with a TRULY qualified nominee.
sharon (614ccf) — 10/7/2005 @ 1:51 pmHewitt also pointed out something significant today. All but a few Republicans in the Senate voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If you were a Republican senator, would you like to go before, say, an evangelical group group and explain why you had voted for Ginsburg (or Breyer) and against Miers?
(Don’t know if Brownback could be in that group. He took over Dole’s seat in 1996, and I can’t recall when Ginsburg and Breyer were confirmed.)
Jim Miller (c36650) — 10/7/2005 @ 5:35 pmGinsburg was voted in in 1993 by a margin of 96-3. Smith (R-NH), Helms (R-NC), and Nickles (R-OK) voted against Ginsburg, and Riegle (D-MI) didn’t vote.
Breyer was voted in in 1994 by a margin of 87-9. Burns (R-MT), Coats (R-IN), Coverdell (R-GA), Helms (R-NC), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Nickles (R-OK), and Smith (R-NH) voted against Breyer. Durenberger (R-MN), Graham (D-FL), Pell (D-RI), and Wallop (R-WY) didn’t vote.
How many of those Republicans are still in the Senate?
Leigh (3af625) — 10/7/2005 @ 7:50 pmWow, I am feeling much better about myself after reading that Brownback might vote against Miers. Maybe they will allow him into the Gang or join Lott’s bitch? I only pouted and raged ONE day before common sense took over.
Good thing there are still some of the unwashed masses. Your toilet stopped up, do you want the architect, the best plumber or any plumber you can beg to come NOW? You stuck in the Superdome, had you rather wait for the air conditioned Greyhound or hitch a ride with a unlicensed school bus driver?
Your argument seems to be that Miers is just not smart enough. Might help if you could figure out the right target for your anger. Try wimpy Senators that just happen to control the whole chitty-chi-bang. Then try to turn your inner common sense loose, and you might try to erase the damage you have inflicted upon the only party available. Think of it as the only hot bus leaving the Dome.
owl (bc1d8d) — 10/7/2005 @ 8:12 pmYour argument seems to be that Miers is just not smart enough. Might help if you could figure out the right target for your anger. Try wimpy Senators that just happen to control the whole chitty-chi-bang.
Yeah, luckily I have directed no anger at those Senators.
Owl, you obviously haven’t been reading this blog long — or even very carefully over the past two days. But before you get all sarcastic with me, you might try asking someone who has read me for a while how I feel about the turncoat Gang of 14.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/7/2005 @ 9:03 pmApology offered. Actually I do read here enough to know we share views on the Gang. My point was that half of our good senators are responsible, not just the 14.
Also, I fail to understand what you hope to accomplish. What is the benefit of this now? You want to stop her? You sending a message to W? Is a Mier Smear going to whip W into line, or trounce those Democrats? Maybe if confirmed, she will like us more? Sorry, there I go again. I just can’t figure out your game plan.
owl (9cfd16) — 10/7/2005 @ 10:16 pm