October 12, 2005
MOMMY, KARL HIT ME:
Bush stands by nominee's credentials (Bill Sammon and Ralph Z. Hallow, 10/11/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
Conservative activists expressed distress over the White House tactic of questioning their motives.
"I have heard people say it's a slap in the face of conservatives, but the consensus -- and certainly my view -- is that it is sad and disappointing," said Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"We've seen the White House and now the president and the first lady repeating things that their lieutenants have said that are the fall-back arguments of the left -- the questioning of conservatives' motives when conservatives are, in fact, questioning the nominee's qualifications," Mr. Horner said.
No one likes having their spades called. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 12, 2005 10:14 AM
Most conservatives like and appreciate Bush's tenacity - so now they want him to dance? I don't think so.
Posted by: ratbert at October 12, 2005 10:37 AMDavid Frum's at it again this morning over at NRO, wailing about Laura Bush and the Rev. Dobson. But if you take a look at the transcript of the interview of Frum by Hugh Hewitt, he absoultely refuses to entertain the idea that six or more Republicans might balk at going against one of the punditocracy's favored nominess. In fact, he's more certain that Bush can't get 55 GOP votes for Harriet Miers.
Bush may not get 55 votes, but Frum seems to think he can simply will the GO-14's Republicans, along with others like Spector, into his corner and there's no need to even debate the question, despite evidence to the contrary that created the GO-14 in the first place and forced Bush to recess appoint John Bolton.
Posted by: John at October 12, 2005 11:01 AMTalk about ideological blinders. Do any of these people seriously believe that after the Bolton fiasco and the filibuster for nominees remaining in place that the White House did not carefully sound out the Senate on who would likely get through?
Note to Mr. Frum, et al.: Wishing Doesn't Make It So.
PS: Mr. Frum, there may be a reason why you don't work in the White House any more.
Posted by: Mikey at October 12, 2005 11:05 AMDoes he think the Democrats will vote against Harriet Souter so the President can get a second chance to name a Scalia?
Posted by: oj at October 12, 2005 11:36 AMMr. Judd,
Essentially... yes. Along with the much upset republican senate staffers.
Posted by: mc at October 12, 2005 11:54 AMOj: Not you too. It's Harriet Thomas.
Posted by: Bob at October 12, 2005 12:10 PMPerhaps he'll have a private talk with any Repub senators who plan to vote against Miers. And mention that his fallback nominee is not Janice Brown but is somebody who won't get filibustered by the Dems. Rather, it's somebody favored by Ted Kennedy, Hillary, and Chuck Shumer. Perhaps Rose Bird?
Posted by: fred at October 12, 2005 1:41 PMFred:
Nice thought, but he'd have to resurrect Rose Bird.
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at October 12, 2005 2:21 PMWell, since the dead vote (at least in Dem controlled jurisdictions) the Hruska Rule demands that they require representation on the Supreme Court, too.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 12, 2005 2:58 PMSpeaking of Frum -
(1) Am I the only who thinks that he is more than half way to becoming a joke because of his opposition to Miers?
(2) Am I the only one who becomes more dubious about his real motives the more he says?
Posted by: Jim Miller at October 12, 2005 4:23 PMJim:
Did you read his book? He's been a laughingstock since. The bit about 9-11 saving a presidency adrift comes from a guy who will never grasp the difference between a theocon party and his neocon elite.
Posted by: oj at October 12, 2005 4:33 PMSee, OJ is doing it now. She is Harriet Souter.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 13, 2005 12:49 AM