If Harriet Miers is confirmed to the Supreme Court — as is generally expected, despite the hub-bub over her credentials and lack of paper trial — it’s increasingly clear that her confirmation is going to leave some bitterness in its wake.
If anything, the controversy seems to be growing. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has a new piece in which he not only blasts Bush’s nominee and Bush’s selection, but suggests Miers’ confirmation would not be good for the country:
President Bush has told friends that he learned how to manage from three places: Harvard Business School, his experiences working in the Texas oilfields and with baseball teams, and from watching his father. In all three places he learned valuable skills: flexibility, the importance of team effort, discretion, how to delegate. The one thing he apparently didn’t learn was that you never short-circuit the standard vetting process when filling an important job, even when doing so has worked out in the past.
The vetting of Harriet Miers leaves questions that demand answers, not more spin or allegations that critics are “sexist” or “elitist.” It was so botched and riddled with conflicts of interest that it demands at a minimum an internal White House investigation to ensure it won’t happen again.
Not only did the vetting fail to anticipate skepticism about her lack of experience in constitutional law or the firestorm of criticism from conservatives, but it left the White House scrambling to provide reporters with even the most basic information about the closed-mouthed nominee. Almost every news story seemed to catch the White House off guard and unprepared.
He criticizes the vetting process, and Miers’ seemingly mysterious positions on issues, then adds the kicker:
Things have certainly worked out well for Harriet Miers. But even some of her friends wonder if her Super Glue closeness to the man who appointed her represents the best vehicle or role model to promote the advancement of women in the legal profession. Harriet Miers has taken care of herself. But what about the country?
Indeed, the controversy suggests that if she does get on the court she’ll arrive as “damaged goods” in terms of legitimacy. But some key votes — and time — could erase that problem. Or will they? Will she vote to seemingly prove something to conservatives — that she is what they think she isn’t? Or will she vote as they fear, and subsequently be the subject of ongoing attacks and recriminations?
Bottom line: this is unlike the relative love-fest for John Roberts…and it could get uglier. GOP conservatives are outraged at what they see as the White House lashing out at them and trying to define them.
But isn’t this the STYLE of this White House, ala Karl Rove…political descendant of Lee Atwater? Isn’t this how they debate (a tactic now used by some partisans, bloggers and talk show hosts on the right AND left, by the way: go after and try to discredit someone who disagrees with you personally by questioning their motives or their sincerity). So why the big surprise?
Columnist Clarence Page also dissects the Bush decision. Here’s part of it:
What, they ask, was Bush thinking? Anybody who’s been paying attention to George W’s development over the years ought to have a pretty good idea of the answer to that question by now.
Bush likes Miers because: 1) He knows her. 2) She goes to church. 3) She’s good for business.
“Cronyism,” cry the critics. But one person’s crony is another person’s trusted friend. Bush cares more about people and politics than policies. He likes Miers because he’s worked with her and thinks he understands her attitudes.
“Betrayal,” cry conservative critics. But movement politics bore Bush. The movement he cares most about appears to be organized conservative evangelicals, who largely stuck with him or remained silent after Miers’ appointment was announced.
Bush’s choice of Miers broke the No. 1 rule of smart politics: Thou shalt not divide one’s base against itself. But I expect both to recover, as soon as some respectable Democratic opposition appears during the coming confirmation process. Nothing unifies Republicans like seeing one of their own under attack, as long as the attack is coming from Democrats.
Page is probably right:
- Bush is not going to forget who stuck by him on this one and who battled him. Some folks are not going to be happy with GWB, no matter how this vote goes, because in most likelihood “he’s making a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who’s naughty and nice…”
- The Democrats are barely making a peep so far but once the hearings begin some Democratic politicos are bound to upset Republicans. Never underestimate the foot-in-mouth potential of some Democrats. So some GOPers will put aside their opposition to Miers in anger. You better believe the White House is counting on this kind of partisan reaction and polarization.
But is this a different case? Will it work this time?
Do some GOPers simply feel the administration has gone too far over the line on this one — particularly in light of Laura Bush suggesting those who oppose Miers are sexist and GWB saying religion was a factor in selecting Miers?
Are we seeing a fight over the Miers nomination — or a larger happening, the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency and the inklings of the end of Bush control over the party’s machinery?
Tune in next week (or tomorrow, the way things are going……)