Miers Meltdown? Or a Big Nothing?
Polipundit, a former Miers supporter, now opposes her nomination:
Harriet Miers is Alberto Gonzales in a dress. I would not support the confirmation of Gonzales; so why should I support the confirmation of Miers?
Tom Maguire said today, I believe for the first time, that he is against Miers:
For myself, my support foundered on the cronyism question. If Hillary nominated her best friend from college, I would not care what her qualifications were, and I feel the same way about Miers. I don’t want a merely a reliable vote – I want a solid conservative judge who can articulate the issues and do us proud.
Bostonian, a frequent commenter on the blogs, has decided to oppose Miers:
Over the weekend, I’ve decided that I don’t support the Miers choice. It sounds like she hides her own opinions and tries to get along with everyone. We don’t need a baby-splitter on the Supreme Court.
I found this especially important because Bostonian is 1) a fierce Bush supporter who still believes his nomination was well-intentioned; 2) a former liberal — often those are the staunchest of conservatives; and 3) not a blogger, but rather an reader — a genuine member of the informed public, and the type of person we are trying to reach. She is not someone with a distrust of Bush to begin with, and I think her change of opinion is significant.
It’s a limited sample. It’s an unrepresentative sample. But is it reflective of something bigger? Perhaps.
At the Corner, John Podhoretz says:
It’s getting worse. The White House needs to know this. Really. It’s getting worse. Trust me.
And Instapundit wonders about a “Miers meltdown.”
It will be interesting to see the polls in the coming days, to see whether there is really something going on out there, or not. One factor: whether the possible problems described by John Fund in this interview will be seen as meaningful.
I still have a hard time believing that the nomination will be withdrawn or defeated. But we can hope.
UPDATE: Add Dinocrat to the list, and I am more pleased than I can say that Dinocrat has credited an argument of mine with changing his mind. That’s how you do it, folks: one person at a time. That fact alone makes my 35 36 posts on the issue seem worthwhile.
Now, if I could just convince a Senator . . .
UPDATE x2: Also, there is this news that 27 Republican Senators either “have publicly expressed specific doubts about Miss Miers or said they must withhold any support whatsoever for her nomination until after the hearings.”
I’m looking for official non/endorsements (like Patterico’s) to collect in a central site to keep track of the movement of the debate/meltdown.
Would you please, if you are a blogger, send these links to here
Thanks!
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/10/2005 @ 9:36 pmHow about this from Sunday’s NYTimes?
“Behind the scenes, Republican allies of the White House said they were trying to put together a public relations strategy to combat the mounting criticism over the Miers nomination. […] They said the White House was working to assemble a dossier that would back up its case about Ms. Miers’ record of accomplishment, her legal qualifications and her conservative credentials.”
They’re “working to assemble a dossier” on Miers now?
They don’t already have one? They didn’t have full research and background on her before she was appointed……..?
What the f*&%. I mean what the F*&%ing F*&%.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/11/2005 @ 3:34 amThey’re “working to assemble a dossier” on Miers now?
They don’t already have one? They didn’t have full research and background on her before she was appointed……..?
Yeah, I complained about that the other day, here.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/11/2005 @ 6:30 amIsn’t the “27 senators” report something of a “Judge, jurors decide to withhold verdict until close of evidence” headline? Very similar tallies were made and reported before the Roberts hearing.
Beldar (0979a8) — 10/11/2005 @ 7:02 amI’ll bet you didn’t know that she’s blogging now!
Tom (eb6b88) — 10/11/2005 @ 7:08 amIsn’t the “27 senators” report something of a “Judge, jurors decide to withhold verdict until close of evidence” headline? Very similar tallies were made and reported before the Roberts hearing.
As to the withholding judgment part, yes. As to the expressing specific doubts part, I don’t recall Republicans doing that with Roberts. No idea how many fall into the former group, and how many fall into the latter. The story should have told us.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/11/2005 @ 7:14 amHelp me Rhonda,
This is a no-brainer folks. Come on. Belly up to the bar and tell it like it is. The Harriet Miers nomination is laughable. All she’s got going for her is a wink and a nod from GWB, and her gender. That’s it. Pow. Bang. Poowie.
Now, we find she’s been giving cash donations to Hillary, in addition to AlGore and Tanker Dukakis. Seems when she was in Texas, she supported Lefty candidates and causes. Miers was a reliable liberal. Then, all of a sudden, when she goes to work for GWB a really marvelous and reliably spontaneous transformation occurs. Shazzam, lightning strikes.
Guess what, Harriet Miers gets religion, drops her Catholicism and becomes an evangelical, then flip flops on nearly every position previously held, and now becomes a reliable conservative. Give me a break.
Gee Whiz, what do you make of all that? Seems like old habits die hard. Or, dare we say she’s wishy washy? Or call her an opportunist? One can only speculate on her uniquely evolving political affiliations if say George Soros, or Barbara Strisand, or Ted Kennedy were to plunk down a fat retainer and invite her and her boyfriend for the weekend. And, don’t forget she made Harry Reid’s short list.
No, our Miss Harriet is a first class quick-change artist. Why, the dramatic possibilities boggle the mind. Who can know what potentially troubling form of nuance might lurk in the heart of Miss Harriet? All we really know about her core beliefs is that they are in the habit of changing quite suddenly. And, that’s about all we need to know.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/11/2005 @ 7:38 amBlack Jack, the “cash donations to Hillary” thing is pretty unfair. She gave money ($415, I think) to a general PAC that, in turn, sent along some cash to Clinton. It wasn’t a direct donation, and it’s doubtful she had control over it.
And, remember, you know I hate Miers and want her defeated 99-0.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/11/2005 @ 7:57 amClam,
You make a fair point, and I accept your criticism. But recall, this info wasn’t revealed along with the other donations. It was held back.
The lack of forthrightness also has to be factored into the equation, and it gives rise to the possibility there may be more such contributions yet to be revealed.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/11/2005 @ 8:29 amI’m not famous like Polipundit or a frequent commenter like the Bostonian, but Patterico and the Clam have convinced me. I was initially swayed by Beldar’s arguments, but I’m just too unnerved by the past examples of Justices (Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, etc.) whom we were asked to accept solely on the word of he who nominated, and the lack of anything in Harriet’s past to give me a clue about her judicial philosophy. I voted for President Bush, but this (and his big government proclivity) are wearing my patience thin.
Bench (7df803) — 10/11/2005 @ 5:10 pm