|
|
October 21, 2005Blogger/RNC call w/ Judge EnochI just finished participating in an RNC/blogger conference, hosted by Patrick Ruffini, during which the affable Judge Craig Enoch, Harriet Miers’ strongest supporter, took questions. This interview was characterized by the same problem that has existed with this nomination from the start - lots of personal assurances, with not much behind them. However, Judge Enoch did answer one question substantially. When asked by Paul Mirengoff of Powerline about Harriet’s “support for affirmative action,” Judge Enoch related that he was recently asked by a female attorney why Miers had not joined in a class action suit meant to bring more women into a particular law firm. His response was that Harriet did not join the suit because she believed that one does not achieve by bringing suit but by working hard for what one wants. A good answer. Secondly, Enoch pointed out that Miers, as head of the Texas ABA staunchly resisted a move by some to strongly identify the Association with pro-abortion politics. “She felt that such a stand was inappropriate to the role of the ABA, which should be officially neutral on that and other issues.” I thought that too was a good answer. Still, as the judge himself said (in temperate and good-natured response to my rather cheeky question) “words are cheap, actions are what matter.” By two actions, we see a little bit more clearly what Miers may be about, and I feel a little reassured that her principles are soundly conservative. This will not satisfy any of her critics - it won’t come close to satisfying them. But it moves me to keep the “wait and see” attitude floating a little longer. I doubt that keeping a sympathetic blogger from bolting was precisely the effect the RNC was looking for, though. As to the attendees - I have no idea how many were listening in, but only a handful asked questions. Ian at The Political Teen has the breakdown. Tim Chapman, who participated, will have the full transcript posted later so check over there. Mark from Decision ‘08 has an excellent breakdown, and he agrees with me that the Mirengoff question and answer was the most substantial and informative. More is more at Blogs for Bush My question: (I don’t remember it all because I’s a bit nervous) I think you said on Monday that Ms. Miers “will be a legend on that court before her career is finished.” Some of us who have up to now urged others to “wait and see” are becoming concerned, and we’re feeling it’s not enough to simply say “she’ll be legendary.” Aside from your personal opinion, on what basis can you make that claim and reassure us that Ms. Miers will end up being legendary like the Ford Model T, and not legendary like the Ford Edsel? Well, I AM not feeling well, after all! The judge laughed, but when a Texan laughs, who knows whether that means they’re amused or their a little teed off? I’ve known some Texans in my time…I should know better than to mess with ‘em! UPDATE: Ankle Biting Pundits took some exception to Judge Enoch stating that Miers’ critics were, in their rush to criticize her, “acting out of ignorance and not out of knowledge.” I think I am inclined to agree with Lorie at Polipundit, who is thinking the word was not meant maliciously. Having heard the remark, the tone of voice and the context, I don’t think it was meant maliciously, either. I think it just meant, “they didn’t really know her.” The problem is, for many, that they still don’t. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/21/bloggerrnc-call-w-judge-enoch/trackback/ 13 Responses to “Blogger/RNC call w/ Judge Enoch” |
October 21st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
You cannot be serious that you’d think of bolting now?!! I may be too under-educated to understand the bias, I guess. She’s got to be smart, she’s where she is today, and I doubt she slept her way there!!!
+
Patience, people. Patience. Let W have his due.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:12 pm
I find it inconceivable that her critics are more interested in style, rather than substance.
As I have noted before, JP Stevens and David Souter were both conservative nominees to the SCOTUS. They may have had the right credentials- but as time as shown, they have a less than stellar conservative voting records.
You are right to take note of her positions at the ABA and re Affirmative Action speak volumes.
Beliefs must stand on merit, and not based on PC ideologies. By her previous actions, Ms Miers has shown her stripes.
That Mr Bush knows her well, and considers that more important than her ‘credentials,’ also speaks volumes.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:15 pm
As I wrote earlier this morning, my patience is getting a little used up. I want very much to trust W on this nomination, but little I have seen makes clear to me why he is willing to take such a beating for her. Bushes are famously loyal, even when their loyalty proves detrimental to them, but I need to see MORE from this lady that she’s worth what my president is being put through. As I said, this conference call did help me, a little.
October 21st, 2005 at 3:43 pm
Blogger Conference Call on Harriet Miers
About 45 minutes ago I participated in a blogger conference call with former Texas Supreme Court Justice Craig Enoch and White House communications advisor Jim Dyke. Justice Enoch and Mr. Dyke discussed why Harriet Miers is highly qualified to serve…
October 21st, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Buy Harriet
Just home from the second pro-Harriet Miers blogger conference call. Before I mention that lemme just say that I love Der Kommissar at Politburo Diktat, the esteemed leader of the Ragin’ RINOs. But he is full of waxed beans on this Miers thing. He pos…
October 21st, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Miers performace with her questionaire to the Senators doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. She better do a lot better in the hearings if she wants to be confirmed.
I am starting to lean from having some concerns about Miers to the not ready for prime time camp. I’ll listen to the hearings, but she had better do well.
October 21st, 2005 at 6:12 pm
little I have seen makes clear to me why he is willing to take such a beating for her.
Because W is a man of principle. Its easy for some (the NRO crowd) to say they have principles when there is no need for them, when they are not tested, but these are the times when principle comes into play, when you find out if he means what he says and says what he means. If people see that he is willing to chuck an old lady over the side of the ship into the ocean for any reason, they will see that he is willing to abandon those he has said he would stand by. That will have an adverse effect not only in domestic politics, but it will encourage the Islamists to continue the insurgency in Iraq, thinking that if they push just hard enough, Bush will cave in.
.
He won’t pull her nomination, and if she asks to withdraw, he will refuse that too. No, we have gone too far on this. If they want to get rid of her, they are going to have to stick the knife in her themselves.
.
And the NRO crowd is fooling itself if it thinks that, after all this mess is over, we will all just kiss and make up. Instead, it will be more like Cheney’s response to Leahy on the Senate floor. The bloodthirsty anti-Miers (and more and more anti-Bush) crowd are a bunch of fools. They do not realize that the blood on their shirts and on their mouths is their own. They are damaging themselves because we will not forget their malice.
October 21st, 2005 at 7:45 pm
I agree with Bender — it’s too late to withdraw Miers now without repercussions worse than those that came with nominating Miers in the first place, and it’s also too late for the anti-Miers types to pretend they don’t want to humiliate Miers — they were all but ready to hang her from a tree before they knew anything at all about her, and they’ve been spending the past few weeks looking for things that will make their opposition EVEN TO MIERS GETTING A SENATE HEARING AT ALL not look petty and unfair.
.
I’d also like to point out that Miers was supposed to be a stealth candidate, and therefore the White House probably isn’t going to be terribly forthcoming about Miers anyway, except to try vainly to reassure the already-decided that savvy and serious people who have worked with Miers in the past have found her to be more than competent and professional.
.
Another thing: I’m trying to avoid listening to what others (except for certain people) are saying about Miers, her qualifications, her responses to Senate inquiries, etc., because this brouhaha has gotten so emotional, and you can sort of tell that people are digging their heels in and only looking for whatever information will help bolster their position, and not really looking for clarification and weighing things the way an impartial observer would. I’m still looking to BeldarBlog (
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/) for a lawyer’s detailed analysis of Miers’ past work and what this means for her “qualifications” to sit on the Court (Beldar is pro-Miers, by the way), and the guys at PowerLine seem to be turning around — they still think it was a mistake to nominate Miers, but they’re starting to notice the peculiar double standard that some conservative pundits are applying to Miers, beginning with the discarding of the idea that a President’s nominees deserve an up-or-down vote, and a strange new respect for the views of Senators Specter and Leahy, at least when it comes to Miers. (As I said, some people seem to be grasping at whatever they can find that will justify their positions, rather than waiting to see how Miers will do in the hearings.)
.
By the way, I read that the Senate hearings for Miers begin on November 7. Given that this woman was a corporate lawyer for thirty years and is said to have a way with juries (and assuming that corporate law is just a bit more involved than Constitutional law), I suspect that she’ll do reasonably well — assuming the Senators haven’t also already made up their minds about her.
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:27 am
Bender nailed it. W is a man of principle. They said that President Bush would not get involved in the Terri Schlindler Schiavo matter, either. Then they said he was just playing to his base, even though a lot of that base ran and hid. If you asked him today if he would do it again, I know he would answer “in a heartbeat!” I bet he would tell you what he would do differently, too. Let the process run its course on Miers.
October 22nd, 2005 at 3:29 am
This is really not a surprise — that story that Miers was a former Catholic (which some have used as yet another reason to bash her) never did add up –
.
Contrary to reports, Harriet Miers was not raised as a Catholic
WASHINGTON (CNS) — Harriet Miers was not raised as a Catholic.
Catholic Church records and the White House both refute what has become a boilerplate part of discussions about Miers, the White House general counsel and nominee for the Supreme Court. . . .
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506006.htm
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Bender, once again, you did great! Thank you!
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm
I take the “wait and see” approach. Nothing will say more than the moment or the days when she does or does not make her case. Remember John Roberts? People said all kinds of things about him. But he made his case during the confirmation hearings.
‘
If she makes her case, she gets in. If she doesn’t, she doesn’t. It’s that simple.
October 22nd, 2005 at 7:56 pm
[...] I am neutral on the Miers nomination Jeanette and Newton have an exclusive! Varifrank makes Plame connections The single greatest play, ever A Smart Breakdown on Chavez Blogger/RNC call w/ Judge Enoch Andrea Mitchell’s hair: Do Over! Sick White Chick Sittin’ Around, Thinkin’ Jeanette asking for prayers We’ll take a longer, harder look, Patty Light blogging today GA Voter ID Law Barred What exactly is being spun, here? Hurricane Wars? More pics of joyful, free Iraqis A Visit to Dachau I love Halloween! Carnivals and Cotillions! Meet the glum press… Remember that rope-a-dope theory? [...]