The Real Danger In Miers

Well this is pathetic. Don't much care for this, either.

Frankly, as a more than right-leaning independent who voted for our President twice - in my opinion, the most harmful thing for the conservative cause right now as regards the Miers nomination isn't Harriet Miers - it's the self-proclaimed conservative media icons who are doing everything they can to tear this nomination down.

I made my statement on the matter here and have nothing substantive to add to it.

However, the self-appointed media leaders of conservatism - who've never been so much as elected dog catcher by me, or anyone else, are such a turn off, they may be undermining their ability to beat the conservative drum in the future for someone like me. And I'm one who always at least tries to listen.

They're looking much worse to me these days than a President I and a great many others actually elected to make this choice. I would suggest they stop and think before they go on - but they're really only talkers and not listeners.

And that's why they'll never get elected to any high office - and also why they are tearing down a nomination which a majority of average voters would be more than happy to support.

Ironic that when talking heads wind up talking too much, they always wind up talking out of their a$$.

Comments

[bizman]

I dont think too many people care one way or another.Not worth worrying over.

[TheAlamo]

It is pretty simple really. Roberts appeases his constituency, Meiers appeases those who control him....and, of course insures that the court will stay on its present un-consitituional course.
Not a surprise at all.

[Sluggo]

I'm with you, Dan. He's very likely to get one more slot to fill. You're going to have to look back in a decade to see how his picks did, but for now, I voted for him to make these decisions. She's a smart, capable woman and he feels he knows her. The fact that David Brooks doesn't like her is of less than no consequence.

[Gary]

"Ironic that when talking heads wind up talking too much, they always wind up talking out of their a$$."

Irony, indeed. Why would you knock conservatives for standing against obvious, admitted cronyism? For that matter-- why back President Bush (twice, mind you) over McCain?

There's a mad need right now in both parties for people to 'support the cause' above their common sense. It doesn't take much to look at where we come in the past eight years objectively, look at the directions our President took us, and recognize mistakes.

Miers may have real value to offer the Supreme Court, so I am not against her nomination-- I'm just against the concept of pressure to vote in support of the President without first fact-checking and looking honestly at where we were and where we are.

[Not a Hand Wringer]

As for the thoughts of average voters on Miers...I certainly can't say.

But, an NBC News poll just releasded, that polled on the Miers question reveals this:

________________________

‘Huge question mark’ on Miers

The Miers nomination, however, has disappointed some of the president’s conservative supporters, because they say she lacks judicial experience and a clear conservative record on social issues. According to the poll, 29 percent say she’s qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she’s unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don’t know enough about her.

"There is nothing to suggest that people have turned on her," Hart said. "But there is just a huge question mark behind her at this stage. She has to establish her own bona fides."

____________________________

I think the biggest problem for Bush with Miers as a nominee is that is reinforces the Bush/Crony-ism connection criticism.

The second problem is that Miers just may be out of her league, when it comes to the task of being on the Supreme Court.

That said...it appears that many have not made up their mind on her yet.

[Dan]

"Why would you knock conservatives for standing against obvious, admitted cronyism? For that matter-- why back President Bush (twice, mind you) over McCain?"

First, I would back almost anyone against John McCain. Second, like it or not, there is a constitutional process in place for this. The Senate has the authority to advise and consent. If Miers doesn't make it through that formal process - where we will ALL get a better picture of her, btw - then she fails. But out process worked.

Efforts by pundits to derail a nomination selected by any President are extra-constituional by definition and are not necessary. There is no reason for any President, right or left, not to enjoy his constitutionally defined privilege of having his nomination proceed it's course. That does not mean every one will always be confirmed, now does it?

Street politics and political pressure are great. I support and participate in that. However, we've no business supplanting constitutional process with the passions of the moment as expressed through some small portion of the press.

[okoj]

They have the house, the senate, the white house, and the court. What have they done with them??
I just sit back nowdays and watch them feed on themselves. They need more liberals to kick around so this does not happen again. Maybe that is the reason for Miers.

Voted for Bush twice? A great american president said during an election we should ask ourselves if we are better off today than we were four years ago. I don't think many americans used that standard the last two elections. I also want to see a return of the misery index!