Fund On Miers: All Out of Surprises?
John Fund has distinguished himself as one of the most vocal and relentless critics of the Miers nomination. Today, there are no Texas Lottery Commission stories or surprise conference calls to reveal, but rather a summation of what went wrong with the nomination (I could put together a decent size book of nothing but ‘what went wrong columns’ covering just Katrina, Iraq, and Miers).
Fund says three approaches in particular have been disastrous: (1) intimidation and arm-twisting, (2) rewriting the history of the selection, and (3) a totally failed White House effort to build support. His conclusion:
I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated. Should that happen, it is important President Bush understand how it really happened. While he acted out of sincerity, the nomination was quickly perceived by many as merely a means to a desired end: getting another vote for his views on the court. While some conservatives backed her because they honestly believed she would rule independently with an understanding of the limited role of judges envisioned by the Founders, that message was drowned out by accusations of cronyism and mediocrity.
The president also was let down by seven senators in his own party who in May agreed to scuttle plans to end judicial filibusters blocking nominees from ever getting a vote. It wouldn’t have been unreasonable for him to think the Senate wasn’t in a position to confirm a nominee with a long paper trail.
Oh, so it’s the fault of the Gang of 14 now? Sorry, John, I may have to do a piece of my own soon on went wront wrong with THAT explanation…
I am neutral on the Miers nomination, though I probably lean closer to no than yes, and will remain so until after the hearings. I haven’t heard a deal-killer from the anti-Miers crowd, but I haven’t heard many good arguments at all from the pro-crowd. Miers herself will have to seal the deal with a a once in a life-time performance…
The main reason filibusters work is because most of the time, nobody but political junkies pay attention to them. But if you had Democrats blocking something as visible as a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a shot at a vote, I think that would rapidly start to hurt the Dems, as it would violate the sense of fair play. So no matter who was nominated, I can’t see the Democrats using the filibuster, even if there was no Gang of 14 deal.
I don’t know how this will all play out, but I’m getting the sense that it’s a dangerous game of chicken for all sides. If Miers withdraws, who does Bush promote in her place? If it’s a conservative dreamboat, you may start to see moderate senators getting nervous, an dthat person may not have the votes. If such a nomination fails, you’ll have both Bush discredited and his most combative conservative critics discredited. I don’t like where this all leads.
Sorry Mark, but I agree with Fund. IMHO, the MoU convinced the President that a lot of Senate Republicans didn’t have the stomach for a fight. And that those who did would get a knife in the back from McCain. (May he spend eternity trying to sell the devil a snowblower.)
At the risk of being a pushy link-whore, I’ve got my own take on Miers here:
http://htfdidthishappen.blogspot.com/2005/10/i-oppose-miers-nomination.html
It’ll also serve to introduce you to an online poll of the blogosphere at The Truth Laid Bear (I think it’s still running).
But fatman, if it’s the true the filibuster deal convinced the president the senate GOP didn’t have the stomach for a fight, that’s only a problem if that’s a false reading of the situation, thus making Bush more cautious than he need be.
But I’ve seen nothing to indicate the Gang of 14 deal was anything like that. The fact that the Senate was dickering about filibusters for months but not doing anything about them seems evidence enough to me that they didn’t have the stomach for the fight. You may not like that, but them’s the breaks. The Gang of 14 deal didn’t undermine anyone, but simply acknowledged a reality and was an attempt to negotiate the best possible deal under the circumstances, which I think they got.
Having said all that, NRO points to something that Bush said in a news conference that sure sounds like he might be heading for the Krauthammer option: withdraw her nomination because he can’t surrender private White House documents. http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/080518.asp
Respectfully, I disagree, Dennis. Admittedly it’s just my opinion, but if McCain and the Democrats hadn’t come up with the MoU, it would have forced the remaining six dwarves to fish or cut bait. John Warner wants to be President; Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee have to face the voters in ’06, and Susan Collins and Lindsay Graham have to face them in ’08. If Bill Frist couldn’t get at least two of them to vote for the nuclear option, when the President’s popularity was still relatively high, then he doesn’t deserve to be Senate Majority leader. (Of course, by saying that about Frist, I’m just cementing my status as the Resident Oracle of the Obvious.)