|
|
October 3, 2005Miers: Anchoress Knows-all-Sees-allIt’s just too funny! A week ago John Hawkins over at Right Wing News asked some bloggers who they thought Bush would nominate for the O’ Connor seat on the SCOTUS. Now my email is overflowing with folks saying, “how did you know Bush would pick Miers?” And the other emails are saying, “how DARE Bush nominate Miers!” Okay, here’s the truth. I knew Bush would pick Miers because he is the master of the rope-a-dope. AND…(and here I know I am going to be very unpopular) I disagree with the hysterics coming from the right, today. But I understand that they are a necessary part of his roping and doping. People who think they know how W plays assumed that Miers’ name was thrown out there as a bit of misdirection, to keep folks from figuring out if Janice Rogers Brown and Alberto Gonzales were actually duking it out in the WH garage. But anyone who really watches W knew that he put Miers name out there because despite all of the nonsense in the press about how unforthcoming, sneaky, underhanded and skullduggerish the Bushies are, he actually - quite frequently - hides in plain sight. When I saw her name being floated - she who has no record on the bench, who, in 1988, contributed to some Democrats (ahem - just as I and many others did - good lord half of the conservative blogosphere are former Democrats), who is a winner of the Sandra Day O’ Connor award for Excellence in Lawyering, or whatever that award is…my first thougth was - she’s an ardently pro-life churchgoer who is going to confound the Democrats, who will really want to hate her but will find themselves unable to credibly do that. And she’ll outrage the right (until they begin to start thinking) which will help her get past the Senate Judiciary Committee. Miers is the classic Bush head-fake, but he’s got some rotten luck in wanting to play it when the press is doing its “cronyism-is-scandalous” hand-wringing. Apparently George W. Bush invented cronyism and it never existed before Hurricane Katrina. (Did I just say that? How in heaven’s name did Michael Brown manage 4 big Florida hurricanes last year! He’s a CRONY!) The press will - without a doubt - begin to seque into step two of their “crony-dance” and do all they can to help the Dems find reasons to defeat Miers. And allow me to make a prediction - based on nothing but my own “insider knowledge” of how the left works, since I lived over there for so long - this woman is unmarried? Never been married? Norah O’ Donnell calls her “physical?” Expect that the left will immediately begin suggesting that she is a lesbian and that…somehow…that means something. Because the left is absolutely obsessed with this idea that somehow, homosexuality within conservative ranks is “bad” and must be whispered about and jeered at, while homosexuality within liberal ranks is “good,” and should be promoted and celebrated. This is why we had to hear John Kerry and John Edwards talk about Mary Cheney (she’s a LESBIAN! A LESBIAN…not that there’s anything wrong with that…but SHE’S A LESBIAN!) And we had to watch the Kozkidz suggest that John Roberts is gay, (He was Peppermint Patty! He wore checkered pants in the 1970’s! He’s Gay! He’s GAY!…not that there’s anything wrong with that…”) This is why we will - should Condi Rice ever run for president - have to endure the same nonsense again. It’s sort of like the idea that an African American who studies and achieves and speaks proper English is “not really black,” which is the crap you hear about Condi Rice and pretty much any other black conservative. Actually, what it is, is adolescent and intellectually dishonest, but there you go. I think if the left plays that card, they will bomb, bigtime. And that may well be part of Bush’s whole rope-a-dope, too. [UPDATE 10:44 AM: According to Conservative Yankee, the lesbian theme is already being suggested! That didn't take long. Do note, however that the Exodus Ministries to which Miers belongs is about re-habilitation of convicts, not about "re-habilitating gays." Gay Patriot has some predictions.] See…here’s the thing…I have no idea what the woman’s sexuality is. I don’t care. I never cared about that stuff. The question that matters about Harriet Miers is a simple one: Does she have the smarts and integrity to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States and opine based on the US Constitution - not on foreign court rulings, not on the trend of the month, but on that precious document. THAT is all that matters. Ms. Miers took her undergrad degree in mathematics, which suggests that she is a logical sort of person. Kay Baily Hutchinson and others from Texas seem to think very highly of her. Since she has worked closely with Bush, there is every reason to believe that he has a good sense of who she is, what she stands for and whether or not she believes that judges should not legislate fromt he bench. My own prediction: She may not make it to the Supreme Court. Bush may not even intend for her to get there. She may be, rather than the “misdirection,” many expected, an out-and-out decoy, floated to allow both the liberals and the conservatives to blast her out of the water so that Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right - after having behaved very badly over Miers - will not dare to behave badly over, again. Or…she could make it to the court and be the “pit-bull in size 6 shoes” that Governor Bush described ten years or so, ago. I think this immediate and unquestioning gloom on the right is coming on ‘way too fast. Many of the folks already denouncing Miers have no real sense of her beyond the fact that almost 20 years ago she made donations to Democrats (back when they were positioning themselves as rather moderate and centrist sorts of Democrats - back when Al Gore was “pro-life.”) I checked out one of the forums and found folks denouncing Bush to the Lord…let’s get a grip, okay? Beldar seems to like this choice. Lorie at Polipundit has links I haven’t seen everywhere else and they’re very good. Jason is sort of agreeing with me. Michelle Malkin has a terrific round-up of mostly negative assessments. Mary Katharine Ham has some positive reactions. Hewitt says OK by him. The Evangelical World Magazine is positive. (H/T) Polipundit. And here is my last word (for today) on Miers and why today’s hysteria on the right may well come back to bite them.. WELCOME: Instapundit and Polipundit readers! While you’re here, please look around - today we’re also talking about my theory that Harriet Miers might just be Derek Jeter in drag. We’re also looking at a testy little feud going on between CBS’s new blog and the blogosphere, another cool discovery in Jerusalem and we’re having fun making book recommendations for Christmas! http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/03/miers-anchoress-knows-all-sees-all/trackback/ 27 Responses to “Miers: Anchoress Knows-all-Sees-all” |
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:49 am
The self hating lesbian is a shrewd observation.
That alone will provide the excuse for gay/lesbian organizations to put ‘their dog in the fight’- and not support her nomination.
Those organizations may have sat out the Roberts nomination (taking a quiet role), but you can be sure they won’t this time around.
I like the call.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:51 am
I might still be convinced, but I am not happy with the Miers pick right now.
And that is not because she contributed to the Democrats once upon a time. It is because other than being loyal to Bush she doesn’t seem to have any really strong credentials for the job.
Everyone quickly acknowledged how competant and intellectually powerful Roberts was. Reading on Miers, while I am sure she is not stupid, the word that seems to keep coming up is how loyal she is.
Loyalty is a great trait, but not something I particularly want on the Supreme Court. I don’t want the most ‘loyal’ judge, I want the best judge. Roberts convinced me that he was. Miers has a long way to go for me to think that.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:52 am
Card: Bush mulling ‘lots of options’ for high court vacancy
President Bush is still working on his decision to pick a successor to retiring Supreme Court Justic
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Anchoress, I have been laughing to myself about how quickly the lesbian thing popped up. I think we should just announce that the entire Republican party is completely composed of homosexual people with more conservative opinions and leave it at that.
To me, the only thing that matters is whether she does believe in the Constitution as law and believe that the text of the Constitution trumps her opinion of what the the text of the Constitution should say.
The undergraduate degree in mathematics is a strong point in her favor to me. I, of course, don’t count.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:14 pm
I like the call, too. Knowing someone well, knowing how they think and what they thought during previous Court deliberations trumps “credentials” in my book. That’s why the President always knows he can always count on Condi, by the way. If she’s not confirmed for the stated reason of “lack of experience,” doesn’t it smooth the way for a second, more-experienced choice?
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Those knocking Miers reflexively, are proof that the ‘agendistas’ can be found on both sides of the aisle.
Until we know more about her capacity and capabilities, we are all woefully unprepared to ‘know’ what’s best.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
[...] The Anchoress believes there’s more at work than meets the eye, and disagrees with “the hysterics coming from the right, today.” [...]
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:00 pm
How can anyone know how a judge is going to rule on anything until he/she rules? If she was one who helped pick and shepherd Roberts and doesn’t believe in making law from the bench or importing law from Liberia or someplace I have no problem with her. Just rule according to the constitution. I hope she gets confirmed and surprises all the fools who are wringing their hands now.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I agree with you on this one. Complete rope-a-dope.
Once the left (and the right) spend all their indignation points, they’ll be roped when Bush takes Miers off the table and someone even more dispicable to the left (and possibly the right).
sm
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I whole-heartedly agree with your analysis, and I have trust in George W. (I do not have faith in him, I reserve that for Someone Else), but I am disappointed and disheartened at the prospect of, yet again, having to hold my breath and cross my fingers and pray, pray, pray that this stealth nominee will be who we hope that she is. And I’m tired of hoping and hoping and praying and praying.
.
I thought last week that she might be sent up as a sacrificial lamb, to allow the libs to savage her so that George W. could then send up someone like Janice Rogers Brown, but now I learn that that strategy might backfire because, given the comments I’ve heard from Reid, et al., the libs and Dems might accept her after all — in which case she damn well better be on the right side.
.
We already had one Souter. We don’t need another one.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:55 pm
I only hope that George W., like those in the conclave, prayed for and received the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making this decision.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:57 pm
So it’s called Rope-a-Dope? Hmmmm, cool. Or, as my 14 yr old daughter says:*kewl*.
*
What I don’t understand is the whole lesbian thing. She’s private and not flaunting anything. That’s fine w/me. That’s deserving of respect and equality.
*
Isn’t that called *Live and let Live*?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:11 pm
[...] UPDATE: The Anchoress things she knows what’s going on. [...]
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers: Reactions
So far, I’m not impressed with the choice of Harriet Miers. She has never been a judge, has worked only in political capacities for most of her career, seems much less qualifed than Judge Roberts. Is she the best we can do? Maybe. We’ll know soon eno…
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:32 pm
I note that Miers has the support of the American Center for Law and Justice, which has argued many, if not most of the pro-life cases before the Court.
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1911
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:44 pm
[...] Read this. I knew Bush would pick Miers because he is the master of the rope-a-dope. AND…(and here I know I am going to be very unpopular) I disagree with the hysterics coming from the right, today. But I understand that they are a necessary part of his roping and doping. [...]
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Hey, it’s not just politicals who will point out that someone may be gay. I’m a 51-year-old woman who has never been married and feels absolutely no call in that direction. I also happen to live with a 53-year-old woman in the exact same situation. I have lost count of how many times we have been accused of being gay. (I dislike the term “lesbian” for some reason I cannot explain, because I don’t even know.) And being “physical” doesn’t have to mean anything sexual at all. It can simply mean leading an active lifestyle. I’m a shepherd, and that’s a very physical job at times. Go ahead, say I’m physical, and pile on all the innuendo you want. I’ve got medical records that prove my persistent virginity.
Nowadays, if a woman doesn’t want to sleep with a guy to whom she is not married, she must be gay. It’s the same for guys. My own brother was set up with a woman whom he eventually married, a marriage that turned out to be a disaster. Turned out that, because he had never slept with a woman, some of his so-called friends decided he must be gay and set out to prove it. The girl they set him up with was known by guys who *did* sleep around as a low-key prostitute. If she couldn’t seduce him, he *must* be gay. There was even a bet surrounding the matter! Well, he married her, then, some years later, found out that she had kept up her “business” the whole time. Needless to say, the Church granted an annulment, especially upon hearing of the “bet.” Grounds? The woman obviously had never had any intention of keeping her vow, and very possibly was incapable of it (there were some psych problems involved, too.)
So, when someone starts hyping that some public figure they dislike is gay, I ignore it. It’s nothing more than spite. Polls be…darned; it’s the conservatives who won this last election, so they obviously outnumber the liberals. It’s also the conservatives who are most likely to find a gay of either sex offensive, so of *course* they’re going to spout this line.
Ignore it. It’s meaningless.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:04 pm
How many of the “squawkers” out there really supported Sutter as a good choice? (Be honest…We can look it up!) He did have the “right” credentials, didn’t he? Bush41 didn’t really know Sutter, and Bush43 really does know Meirs–see the difference? By the way, I spoke out against Sutter on the record. What’s the worst thing that can happen? She becomes another SDO’C, Sutter, or Breyers? We lived through those, didn’t we? The world didn’t end. Let’s all be happy and see where the future takes us. You might be pleasantly surprised! Leave doomsday to the Left-they own it afterall.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:13 pm
From NRO –
According to Kyleen Wright at Texans for Life, Harriet Miers gave $150 to the organization — then known as Texans United for Life — in 1989. Miers was a bronze patron for their annual dinner in which Henry Hyde was the keynote speaker. She was listed in the program as a bronze sponsor.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/078379.asp
October 4th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Stealthily, we roll along…
President Bush has just nominated Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Sandra Day O’Connor.Glenn has a great roundup of initial thoughts over at Instapundit. But I think this bit of political activity may make more t…
October 4th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
[...] What’s more than a little troubling is that bloggers that I admire, i.e., (The Anchoress, Lori Byrd, Greg at What Attitude Problem?, Beldar, etc.) are suggesting a passive or even supportive reaction to Miers. [...]
October 9th, 2005 at 1:36 am
[...] That said…the day President Bush named Miers as his nominee, I (with a grin) said it was a rope-a-dope. [...]
October 18th, 2005 at 12:50 am
[...] I’m only kidding here, so don’t get all smirky at me, but waaaaaay back when Harriet Miers was revealed as Bush’s new SCOTUS pick, I said the whole thing was a rope-a-dope or a head fake. [...]
October 21st, 2005 at 12:30 pm
[...] Ed Morrissey says there is a face-saving way for the WH to withdraw the Miers nomination. At this point, I’m so sick of it all, I wish they would. The president has the right to his nominee - I believe that and have more than suggested that the instantaneous rejection of Miers by many on the right amounted to an almost hypocritical bludgeoning by the same folks who also had said that he’s entitled to his nominee - when the nominee was John Roberts. I suggested on the first day of her nomination the possibility that the Miers nomination was more strategery than anything else…and maybe that’s still true…but quite honestly, although she is certainly an admirable and accomplished woman, she hasn’t yet shown me anything that indicates she is worth the beating W is taking over her. I am trying to understand it. [...]
October 27th, 2005 at 10:05 am
Looks like you’re right, Anchoress!
October 27th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
[...] UPDATE: Someone just emailed me asking me if my day-one “rope-a-dope” theory - that the President submitted Harriet as a rebuke to GOP Senators who had said they would not fight for a Janice Rogers Brown, and daring them not to fight for the next one - still holds? Eh. Whatever. The President is not a stupid man or a reckless one. There WAS a reason for the Miers nomination. It was not made in a vacuum, and when people sneer, “he nominated her because Laura wanted a woman,” they don’t sound much different from the lefty wingnuts who sneer, “we only went back to Iraq so he could finish his father’s war.” [...]
April 21st, 2006 at 12:09 pm
[...] I guess it could be worse. We could all be sitting here discussing John Kerry’s second Supreme Court nomination… Update: Planned Parenthood is “concerned about the nomination“. This makes me feel a little better about her, although I’m sure this is a standard template they planned on using for any nominee Bush named. Others: The Anchoress says, “Miers is the classic Bush head-fake, but he�s got some rotten luck in wanting to play it when the press is doing its �cronyism-is-scandalous� hand-wringing.” I agree. Posted 9:19 am No Comments » [...]