If the RWers are pissed, Miers' nomination must be OK

[question everything]

From the WSJ:

Columnist David Frum at the National Review sounded what is becoming a common complaint from the right: Why couldn't Mr. Bush pick someone with crystal clear conservative stripes? "I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or -- and more importantly -- that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. ... We are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant."

Raising early hackles among conservatives are Ms. Miers's campaign-contribution records (the Red State blog has a list) showing donations to Al Gore's first presidential run in 1988 and to former Texas Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in 1987. "Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment," one poster to Red State writes.


(snip)

John Hawkins of Right Wing News isn't merely disappointed with the choice. "This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush's entire presidency so far," he writes. "Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal…You want a candidate who has 'Souter' written all over her? You want a candidate who can't be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers."

Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog predicts Ms. Miers will be rejected by the Senate. The right wing of the Republican party is disappointed and may hope the nomination is rejected in favor of a more conservative choice, while moderates have little incentive to support the nominee, he says. "Nor does Miers have a built in 'fan base' of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren't truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President."

(snip)

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112835192385358534.html (subscription)

[bluestateguy]

1. They are not all pissed

Dobson signed off on it. The Traditional Values Coalition said OK and the Christian Coaliton also said yes.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. That one is a trojan horse.

[daveinchi]

3. I think it's a ruse . . .

. . . and I've bothered to notice that ABC's "Nightline" focused exclusively on conservative disappointment with the nominee. That seems to be the dominant storyline in our conservative mainstream media, that Miers is a big disappointment to conservatives.

I don't really buy it. We'll see. I'll bet the Republicans coalesce around her within 5 days, and then Bush uses the $1000 to the Gore campaign in '88 to railroad her through, in the PR game at least. The Democrats are de-energized and indecisive, with 20 probably agreeing to vote for her. Then she sails through, only to find out that she's 100% Scalia/Thomas.

This is a stealth candidate, I think.

[Alizaryn]

4. If the RWers are pissed, Miers' nomination must be OK

Thats what they are saying about us (but reversed) too ....clever huh?

[jfern]

5. She's a terrible pick

And we can not let the right wing determine how we feel. We are more intellectual than that, and don't believe in that illogical "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap.

That being said, she's a terrible nominee.