Conservative columnist Robert Novak is predicting that the hearings on Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination will be ugly, indeed — and he blasts the White House for “incompetence,” predicting in the end she might not be confirmed.
First, a word about Novak. He is generally acknowledged to have good sources among conservatives so if he writes about their continued dissatisfaction and grumbling over Miers, it’s reflecting some informed opinion. And what he’s saying in his latest column is: get ready for a battle royal.
George W. Bush’s agents have convinced conservative Republican senators who were heartsick over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency. But that does not guarantee her confirmation. Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.
Note that first sentence again. GOPers are being asked to confirm Miers on the basis of (a) trust me (and we believe they can trust Bush on Miers) that her rulings will make you smile, (b) if you vote against her, you destroy the Bush presidency.
The subtext of this whole argument is the one we’ve noted repeatedly: it’s “where else can these guys go? They’ve got to support us in the end on this and in 2006 and 2008.” Will they this time? And:
Will the Judiciary Committee Democrats insist on putting under oath two Texas judges who are alleged to have guaranteed during a conference call of Christian conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will the Democrats dig into Miers’s alleged interference nine years ago as Texas Lottery Commission chairman intended to save then Gov. Bush from political embarrassment?
So: now that this is being raised publically, the stage is set for this issue to come up. AND:
Officials charged with winning Miers’s confirmation told me neither of these issues is troublesome, but in fact they suggest incompetence and neglect by the White House. To permit a conference call with scores of participants hearing close associates of the nominee predict her vote on abortion is incompetent. To nominate somebody implicated in a state lottery dispute in the past without carefully considering the consequences goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect.
Do you detect some weariness here on Novak’s part, echoed by some conservatives? It’s called “the days of the totally free pass for the White House from us are over.” What else (if any) will this extend to?
President Bush was not originally prepared for the negative reaction from the Republican base when he nominated White House Counsel Miers, his longtime personal attorney. Former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, leading the confirmation campaign, over two weeks convinced skeptics that Miers is conservative enough. Whatever her qualifications, dubious Republican senators after hearing from Gillespie decided they could not deny his chosen court nominee to a president on the ropes. Bush has solidified Republican support not because he is strong but because he looks weak.
So we see one more tipoff that this presidency seems to be on the wane. What kinds of things can Bush do to reverse the perception of political weakness, which is hard to obscure with poll numbers seemingly stuck on “down?”
Miers remains so shaky, however, that she may not be able to survive confirmation hearings that go beyond sparring over how much of her judicial philosophy she will reveal. That is why John Fund’s column in Monday’s Wall Street Journal chilled the president’s backers. He reported a conference call with religious conservatives Oct. 3rd, the day the nomination was announced.
Fund wrote that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, on the call, flatly predicted that their friend Miers would rule against Roe vs. Wade. Although the two jurists deny that, I checked with two sources on the conference call who confirmed Fund’s version. That raises the possibility of bringing two judges under oath before the Senate committee.
What do you see above? Yet ANOTHER matter involving this administration that has credibility problems. Novak checks with sources and finds that Fund’s reporting was, in fact, accurate — a contention at variance with what the judges suggested.
Take it all together and what do you have? A President who could call in all his political chips and get his loyal lawyer a seat on the Supreme Court but will wind up with a big debit in his political capital account in terms of clout and respect within his own party. And, if certain things get out of his control, could possibly even lose this one.
UPDATE: More signs of how the Miers nomination is not going down well…with almost anybody…from the AP, which notes that the White House is trying to put out two contradictory messages about her — and it’s not working:
So far, the strategy seems to have made neither side happy. Social conservatives remain skeptical of her credentials and judicial philosophy, and Democrats are finding more reason to oppose her.
That the president seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth escapes nobody.
“They try to reassure conservatives that she’s pro-life. Then two hours later McClellan gets out and says this doesn’t say anything about how she would rule. I don’t think that was very effective,” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
“If anything, it makes you stop and think, Wait a second,” said Kristol. “The case for this woman depends on a one-page, yes-or-no questionnaire from 1989? Isn’t this kind of a ridiculous basis on which to make a judgment on someone for the Supreme Court?”
Democrats were saying much the same thing but from the other side of the political spectrum. “We know less about this nominee than we knew about any previous nominee and her questionnaire shines no light on what would be the most illuminating experience – her service in the White House,” Rep. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.