On a day when all of Washington was waiting to see if indictments were forthcoming in the Plame Game investigation, Harriet Miers has stolen the headlines, withdrawing from consideration for a position on the Supreme Court.
The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.
There's that fixation on the death toll again, this time showing up in a report on the Supreme Court nomination. The "far left" was quick to pounce, accusing Bush of deferring to ... what else? ... the "extreme right."
Harriet Miers’ withdrawal from her Supreme Court nomination demonstrates that ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court sharply to the right that they pounded their own president’s nominee into submission, and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials, said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way.
“It’s an astonishing spectacle. The unelected power-brokers of the far right have forced the withdrawal of President Bush’s own Supreme Court nominee, before a confirmation hearing has even been held. President Bush’s complete capitulation to the far-right interest groups is astounding. The ultra-right wing dominance of Republican Party politics is complete, and they have dealt a terrible blow to an already weakened President and his administration,” said Neas. “Right-wingers are openly saying they elected Bush to put a battle-ready ultraconservative on the court to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, and they’re demanding a new choice – bipartisanship, moderation and mainstream Americans be damned.”
I wonder if you have to practice in front of a mirror to jam so many loaded epithets into a few sentences. Trent Lott feels it's best to move on, and within a few weeks all will be forgotten.
"Let's move on," said Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. "In a month, who will remember the name Harriet Miers?"
I'll agree with that. Her name will be remembered, but in a neutral "Oh yeah, she pulled out" kind of way. I had written earlier that I was neutral on the Miers nomination. I could see the arguments of the conservatives who had their hopes up for a rock solid judicial conservative (sorry Ralph, not ultraconservative) in the mold of Scalia. They would have settled for a brilliant and conservative justice in the mold of John Roberts. They were not happy with a blank slate candidate who showed signs in the past of being a lot less conservative than they would have liked. While seeing those arguments I also felt that a president is entitled to his choice, provided that he or she is qualified. Roger Clegg in yesterday's Bench Memos at NRO produced a reasonable argument that she was not.
More from ABC News:
Democrats urged Bush to nominate a moderate. "The president has an opportunity now to unite the country. In appointing the next nominee, he must listen to all Americans, not just the far right," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The problem, Senator, is that there's a big difference between what you consider moderate and what the President considers moderate. Senator Kennedy's moderate is most likely someone who thinks and votes like him. But that's liberal. Very liberal.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers' nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: "I don't believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked."
Yeah, Senator, it was sexism. Not. Just watch what happens if Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown is the next nominee.
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had recommended Miers to the president. "They want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals."
"Skewed goals?" Now there's a new one. I'll bet we see that phrase in a lot of Sen. Reid's upcoming statements. It'll be right up there with "tax cuts for the wealthy" and "help for working families."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Miers came to the decision on her own. The administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the nomination, said it was clear to everybody in the White House that Bush could not afford the fight.
Polls show Bush is at the weakest point of his presidency with growing numbers of voters disapproving of his job performance and his policies on Iraq.
Mark this down: his job performance ratings and approval numbers will go up slightly after this, particularly if a solid credible second choice is made. Much of his drop in approval was from his conservative base. After all, how much less could Democrats think of the man than they already do?
Given Miers problems you can cross Alberto Gonzalez off the list. Another Bush insider with sketchy conservative credentials? Please. I suspect we won't see a white male candidate, though a Luttig would certainly please Bush's irritated base.
10/27/05 1600: Mark at Decision '08 has a huge roundup of blog (and other) commentary on this event, so there's no need to reproduce it here.
10/28/05 1805: Linked at Stop The ACLU Miers trackback fest.
