Ms. Miers and the Seven Dwarves

Monday, October 10, 2005
Skymusings (via Instapundit) provides some very astute (that means I agree with him) observations concerning the Miers nomination. I tried to leave the following comment at Instapundit:

Some of the anger being directed at the President might be better directed at Dopey McCain and the other six dwarves - Graham, DeWine, Warner, Chafee, Collins and Snowe plus notable Rino's such as Voinovich. They all share the same trait of steering by weathervane rather than compass and none of them are trustworthy in a real political fight.

Remember: "I fought for Bork and wound up with Kennedy" is how the last battle came out. Put a torch on Dopey if you are rooting for a Luttig/McConnell type pick. The President isn't noted for trying to force a weak hand - and nothing could be weaker than the McCain/Graham fearful duo.


terrye said...


I am sure there are a lot of things going on we don't know about.

Such as did the other people even want the job? We assume they did, but how do we really know? Maybe they don't want the headache or the media circus. There was a time when a nomination like this was handled with some dignity, well those days are gone.

But I also think that Bush might have wanted someone he trusted.

Today I heard the pissy pundits crying how the court has been messed up for 30 years but this lady is not qualified if you judge her by the legal scholar standards of the last 30 years.

I thought: Think about what you just said..if the way you have been doing things for 30 years are not working, maybe it is time for a change.

I am very disappointed with certain members of the right piling on this poor woman. And I am tired of hearing them complain about how they always get stung in the court..well is that Bush's fault?

So now we are hearing how Bush split the base. That means of course that the purists are pissed.

If Bush had come up with someone centrists like like did not really like we would have sucked it up and figured that went with the territory.

So when we hear the base is split we just know who is pouting.

Like I said, I would not be surprised if there was not something funny going on with the Senate. But then again there is no recess appointment for Supreme Court and if Bush and co. dragged the country through weeks of partisan bickering and then could not get a confirmation that would not help Bush's numbers either.

It is what we used to call a rock and hard place.

I hear these people who demanded a fair hearing for Bush's nominees and an up or down vote who are now demanding that Miers be withdrawn. I think that is outrageous.

I am sick of listening to them whine myself.

You would think she was the anti Christ.

JB said...

Party split blogosphere hype?

joe citizen said...

Your comment did go through, I read it there.
So called "cronyism". What a joke.
Politicians appoint their friends to political offices. It's called the real world. They need people they trust, wherever the appointment.
The wailing sounds like pre-schoolers who didnt get their way.

chuck said...

Tough to make a nomination these days, no? If you put the names out there for discussion the loyal opposition will spend its time preparing a smear campaign. If you put names out to the 'base', the name will be leaked and the will be a pissing contest. If you keep the name close to the vest, everyone bitches that they weren't consulted. OK, then maybe Bush could have nominated someone he didn't know to avoid the charge of cronyism, but then 'base' would cry Souter.

It's not as if there are the solid 2/3 of those voting and present that are needed for cloture. Do we really want months of filibuster?

terrye said...


Look at Washington. These people live in a small world and if Miers were more proficient at sucking up to the vain pompous talking heads on the coast she would be a shoe in.

How is that differenct from cronyism?

terrye said...


I don't think that the guys like Krauthammer realize how much damage their huge egos may have done them.

Their only hope is that this woman either speaks in tongues at the confirmation hearing or it is proven that she performs illegal abortions in her free time.

They are such paranoid snobs.

Is she conservative enough? Is she qualified to sit atop Mount Olympus with the Gods of the Supreme Court?

Ruth Ginzburg, the ACLU lawyer can get 97 votes and yet Harriet Miers has to prove that she is really truly qualified.

What do they want? Someone who will claim the New Deal is unConstitutional?


Syl said...

Yes, there's residual snit at the 'seven dwarves'. I don't care much for McCain myself, but, damn, I do like Graham (so sue me). But this firestorm is more than that.

My comment at Instapundit didn't get posted either, though I like Terry's here much much better.


I've been absolutely stunned by the negative reaction to Meirs. And disgusted by its uncivil expression.

The vehemence of the reaction says to me that some people want their own activist on the court and they're hiding behind criticism such as 'not a constitutional expert', 'not a judge', 'no record', 'not on our list', 'cronyism' before they've heard her utter even one word.

I guess we can add another Derangement Syndrome virus to our vocabulary. How about MDS? :)

Seriously, I think they should all wait for the hearings. How about an up or down vote? What a concept.

mrp said...

The NRO, Michelle Malkin, etc. are members of the Ben Wade-Thaddeus Stevens wing of the Republican Party.

No imagination, insight, or practicality. One would think those 'wonks' might actually have some political acumen, but this episode just put paid to that wistful dream.

Krauthammer, Will, and Kristol are all charter members of the McCain 2000 club. I've long wondered whether George Will despised the Bushes more than Bill Safire. Probably a toss-up.

None of these so-called pundits would have a chance of winning a council seat in a major city, a city as big as, say, Dallas. Vicious lightweights.

George Bush and Harriet Meirs live in a real world. They are leaders and risk-takers who have made tough decisions. They are also winners.

You'd think someone like Harriet Meirs might be admired for her personal character, her professional accomplishments, and her devotion to God, family, and country.

Nope. Not good enough. She's not a wonk who scribbles for a living. She doesn't live in an ivory academic tower. She hasn't earned academic credentials that would satisfy a snob like Kate O'Beirne, although Meirs is 100 times the lawyer O'Beirne could ever hope to be.

I just shake my head.

terrye said...

Some in the base are hoping she won't be confirmed. Some are sure she won't be.

Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes say she will be.

I don't know, but if these snobs ruin this woman they will end up no better off.

It looks like a vandetta.

Rick Ballard said...

"Someone who will claim the New Deal is unConstitutional?"

Be still my heart...

jb - That's a good link and a very fair example of where the true 'base' is.

Joe C. - Thanks for pointing that out - his comments apparatus has been totally overwhelmed - the comment as published there was one I had in Preview - the one above here is what I finally arrived at but could not publish.

Chuck - I don't think that is a correct statement of the rule - the way you state it would require a vote of 62 in favor if there were 96 present. I think that stating that a vote of 41 or more against cloture results in a filibuster is closer.

mrp - brava

Rick Ballard said...


I actually liked Graham a lot when he was a House manager during the impeachment. I think that deciding to play Sancho Panza to Dopey Quixote was a very bad political move - and I think that he now realizes and regrets it. A bit too little and a bit too late.

vnjagvet said...

I am surprised by the lack of political savvy exhibited by the more vehement anti-Miers advocates.

Most concentrate on the influence of "the base" but fail to tie the influence of "the base" on individual Senators. The disconnect is staggering, and akin to ignoring the electoral college in Presidential politics.

Earth to "the base". You do not control 60 Senators. Or even 50. If you did, GWB likely would have made a different nomination.

Syl said...


"Most concentrate on the influence of "the base" but fail to tie the influence of "the base" on individual Senators."

Nor do they see that they are a minority among the Republican public.

I saw recent poll figures on Britt Hume. About 20% of Reps have dropped out of Bush's favorables.

terrye said...


And that 20% would prefer Pat Bushanan or Ann Coulter as president.

fat chance.

They can say Bush did not cut spending but I work with a lot of poor people and this year there has been a pinch in medicaid spending. People out there can not see it, they just see numbers rise and rise but to those of us who see the people get cut back and or lose benefits we do see a change.

I think we need more cuts really but people doing the complaining have to realize that this is not just bridges to nowhere, it is real life for people.

And everything from cuts in social programs to base closings effects the politics in a region.

Once again I just think Miers is not one of the anointed and as such is to be cast out.

David Thomson said...

Harriet Miers is not my first choice. Nonetheless, President Bush has a right to make this decision---and I can only hope for the best. We can never be sure of any candidate until they have actually served on the bench for a few years.

A number of conservatives must stop acting like the philosophical descendants of Frederick Nietzsche. We cannot abandon the GOP out of spite and bitterness. The Democrats are generally far worse especially on the most important issue of our age: the War on Terror. Allowing the Democrats to win in next year’s elections in order to allegedly purify the Republican ranks is ludicrous. Does anyone feel a desire to throw something against the wall? If so, please feel free to do so. You must get the anger out of your system. Afterwards, you can then once again act like a mature adult.