Constitutionalist Yes, Sadist No

I've been reading some of the post mortem writings of the pro-Miers crowd and am struck by the fact that so many of them thought it a good idea to proceed with the process and put this poor woman on the stand in front of the judiciary committee. With all the information that had come out during her brief period in the spotlight, it was pretty clear that she wasn't up to the task, and you'd have to be a sadist to think that allowing her to be shredded by the committee on national TV would have been an appropriate course of action.

This process certainly damaged the president, but how much more damage would have been done had she performed poorly in front of the committee and then been unceremoniously voted down by the Dems and many members of her own party? Even if she'd survived the judiciary committee (which in my view is doubtful), I don't think she could possibly have been confirmed by the entire Senate. There were too many strikes against her.

I've read that if I was a true Constitutionalist, I should have wanted the process to continue to its eventual crushing defeat, as though that would be preferable to withdrawing a bad nomination before things got any worse. That's nonsense. Being a constitutionalist does not mean you're required to follow a stupid path just because the "process" demands it. You don't allow a tumor to continue to grow just because that's the "process"...you cut it out.

Howard Kurtz, looking at this whole mess from a media perspective, has this to say about what went wrong:

But Miers's 24 days in the searing spotlight demonstrated many things. One, that the conservative punditocracy is a powerful force, and never more so than when it decides to break with a Republican president. Two, that the normally disciplined White House can look amateurish when it makes as many mistakes as it did on this nomination. Three, that a Supreme Court candidate may be able to survive a thin resume, but not also a bungled questionnaire, unimpressive meetings with senators, an attempt to sell her on religious grounds, gushing letters to her boss and no trace of ever trying to seriously address constitutional issues. Four, that nominating cronies is risky business. Five, that the party seems divided (former senator Jack Danforth told CNN that the activists' attacks were "mean" and "outrageous," though they simply used the power of their words to undermine a shaky nominee). Six, that presidents really do seem snakebitten in their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-contra, Lewinsky).

Kurtz also addresses some of the conservative media figures who played prominent roles in the collapse of the Miers nomination:

Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn't sink the Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the debate and provided the passion that undermined her case.

It was Krauthammer who offered the White House last Friday what he called "the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum" by using a refusal to turn over Miers's internal memos as a fig leaf for withdrawing her Supreme Court bid -- which is precisely what she did.

"I guess she reads my column," the Washington Post and Fox News commentator said yesterday. "All that was missing was the footnote."

I will admit that in the beginning I was fairly agnostic about this nomination, and wasn't really sure just what the president was up to. On Oct. 6th I predicted the failure of the nomination based on my own political radar, but the real tipping point for me was when Charles Krauthammer made the following statement in an Oct. 7th column:

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

I think that pretty well sums it up, and I'm glad it came to an end before the hearings. Putting an ill-prepared nominee in the spotlight would not only have damaged the nominee, but would have done lasting damage to the president who nominated her. At least now Bush has a chance to redeem himself with those of us who didn't like this nomination, and knew there were better candidates that should have gotten the nod.

My recommendations to the president are found here. I hope you'll make your voice heard as well.


Harriet Miers; Miers; SCOTUS; Miers Withdraws; Supreme Court