I hope the left sees how concerned the right is over the appearance of cronyism with the Miers nomination.
The main complaints cited at the Norquist and Weyrich sessions yesterday, according to several accounts, centered on Miers's lack of track record and the charge of cronyism. "It was very tough and people were very unhappy," said one person who attended. Another said much of the anger resulted from the fact that "everyone prepared to go to the mat" to support a strong, controversial nominee and Miers was a letdown. As a result, a third attendee observed, Gillespie and Mehlman came in for rough treatment: "They got pummeled. I've never seen anything like it."
What will be interesting to see is if the left supports Miers because, despite the appearance of cronyism, she isn't as far right as the nominee conservatives were hoping for.
The 90-minute Norquist session, where Gillespie appeared before 100 activists, was the more fiery encounter, according to participants. Among those speaking out was Jessica Echard, executive director of the Eagle Forum, founded by Phyllis Schlafly. Although she declined to give a full account later because of the meeting ground rules, Echard said in an interview that her group could not for now support Miers: "We feel this is a disappointment in President Bush. If it's going to be a woman, we expected an equal heavyweight to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her liberal stance, and we did not get that in Miss Miers."
I think the President screwed this one up, and I wouldn't be surprised if the White House is now looking for an excuse to withdraw the nomination. Assuming they vetted Miss Miers properly, they know all the dirt in her background and they may not hesitate to reveal something if they need to create an out and she won't step back on her own.
I have yet to hear evidence that the president "screwed this up". I'll wait for the hearings to make a that decision - you know, the chance the nominee gets to speak for herself.
You've already made up your mind however, so I assume won't be paying attention to them.
DM: It depends on what you mean by "made up your mind". I think the nomination should be withdrawn, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I don't put a lot of faith in the Senate hearings. I myself and certainly not qualified to be on the Supreme Court, but from watching the Roberts hearings and spending a few weeks studying I'm pretty confident that I could give a good showing.
I'll reserve the right to change my mind at the hearings, but it is one of the few things I have to go by. Until then I trust the President over any blogger when it comes to vetting judicial appointees. He has done this over a 100 times already, after all, while everyone who has complained has done it: NEVER. Yet these people think they know more than the President. Go figure.