It seems that very few in the Republican Party care for her one whit, which surprises me to no end. Bush must be beside himself. His last nomination, that of John Roberts, played to such good reviews, he must have thought a follow through hit was guaranteed to be a success. After all, how can anyone legitimately criticize a woman who was HIS-George W. Bush's- White House counsel, and had been associated with him for a number of years before that. A woman who had been the first woman to head the Texas branch of the American Bar Asociation, an organization which she, as well, encouraged to not support "abortion rights". A woman who would be easily asummed to be a staunch conservative, with not only a conservative view of the Constitution, but one who, as a former attorney, could easily become a "conservative activist" when it was deemed appropriate.
If that sounds contradictory, all you have to do is remember that conservative activism generally hides behind an illussion, a facade if you will, of "States Rights" (Federalism), and even more importantly in the case of the hard core social conservatives, "Traditional Values" (Judaeo Christian values, in other words). But they would insist that it is never, ever, "activist". After all, how can it be "activist" to simply go back to the way things are supposed to be. Get it?
But they are genuinely upset, and to a large degree are even questioning Ms. Miers's conservative credentials. Something I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams, even after an ounce of pot with a brand new shiny deck of tarot cards. What is going on here? Rush Limbaugh complained bitterly over the appointment, which he opined seemed to have been made "from weakness". Even more unbelievably, Vice-President Dick Cheney called in to Limbaugh's program to defent the nomination.
Also to my amazement, most Democrats seem to actually be happy with the nomination. Why? Do they know something, some people have openly wondered? Some have made hay over the fact that Ms. Miers donated money to the Al Gore campaign in 1988. Okay, that is an eyebrow raiser, for sure, but remember, Al Gore in 1988 was a far cry from the Al Gore of the Clinton Presidency, from the Presidential 2000 race. Gore was considered a moderate, maybe even a conservative to an extent, and his wife Tipper had made headlines by encouraging some degree of what many critics regarded as censorship of television, movies, and music. Al Gore may even have taken a Pro-Gun, Anti-Abortion stance at this time. (He certainly did at some point up before the time in question).
It is worth noting that Al Gore, of course, did not receive the 1988 Democratic Presidential nomination, nor is there any record of Ms. Meirs's donating money or campaigning in any way for eventual nominee Michael DuKakis-or for any other Democrat past that point.
Other Republicans and Conservatives have started a litany of complaints due to her suppossed support of other "liberal" causes-support for women in combat, for gay adoption, etc. But is this true, or is it simply a pack of lies meant to derail the nomination, meant to force Bush to make another appointment, of a better known conservative judge, one with unimpeachable credentials.
The Democrats might be right to be happy with this appointment, to be sure. But I can't see it. Certainly Bush has taken the time to get to know this woman and is at least reasonably sure as to not only her judicial philosophy and view of the constitution and the interpretaiton of laws-one would strongly suspect he would be well aware of her views on a variety of subjects, most particularly on the matter of abortion rights.
I would be willing to bet that Bush has nominated, in both Roberts and Meirs, two people who will indeed be in time regarded as judicial activists of the conservative variety. I would be more certain of Ms. Meirs in this regard than I would be of recently confirmed Chief Justice Roberts. Maybe not. Certainly, I could be wrong, that would hardly be a first. But the question becomes, why should the Democrats be so content. And why should the Republican Conservatives be so stridently oppossed-so bitterly dissappointed?
And it suddenly occurred to me what might-just might, mind you-be the problem. It's not the Republican faithful as a whole. They pretty much, like the Democratic faithful, believe what they are told, and act accordingly. So who is it, besides Limbaugh, and other pundits, who are beating this drum against Meirs. And why?
And it all comes down to money. With a Miquel Estrada, or an Edith Jones, or any of a number of other known conservative judges, they know there would be a fight. They know the Democrats would balk. And that is exactly what they want, a fight. They don't really care, in my view, whether they lose that fight or not. It's the fight that is important. Why? Because that is what brings in the money, the contributions, and gets the base out and active and excited.
Face it, the Republican base has had very little these days to feel good about. A conservative activist judge would be the one thing that could conceivably renew their spirits, and help them to overcome the doldrums, the malaise, that has come about as a result of the horrible state of affairs in Iraq, or the meagre response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, especially in New Orleans, and the tragic consequences attendant with that. With the staggerringly high cost of gasoline prices, with home heating fuel price concerns looming in the very near future.
Bush has taken the one thing from them they most need to revive their sagging spirits-a good fight, for the cause they most believe in, that which to them is the most noble cause of all, the fight for conservative family traditional values that takes a special kind of judicial nominee to inspire. But that would require a paper trail, the very thing Bush at this moment of weakness in his Presidency, at this time of greatest vulnerability, fears the most.
