Will The Real Harriet Miers Please Stand Up?
By Ron Marr (10/05/05)
In the blue corner were the Democrats. Utterly bereft
of issues, the old guard of the party had been usurped
by the likes of Michael Moore, Geroge Soros, Cindy
Sheehan and Howard Dean. All they could do was whine
and complain, their every move contributing further to
a reputation of stagnation, false posturing and utter
wuss-hood.
In the red corner were the Republicans. They didn’t
look as fit as they had a few years previous, a
visible paunch and a few bruises were evident, but for
the most part the oddsmakers bet 100 to 1 that the
right cross would render the left hook impotent. All
that George Bush had to do was to nominate a proven
warrior for Supreme Court Justice. We just knew he
would honor his promise to provide us with a cultural
commando in the mold of Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas.
He wouldn’t dare roll the dice or abandon a working
strategy. He would never take a dive.
Like most people whose feet are firmly planted on the
right side of fence, I wanted a fight. It seemed we
had the liberals on the ropes, and this was to be the
battle for the crown. We wanted to see Biden,
Feinstein and Kennedy brutalized and bloodied. We
wanted a knockout. We wanted to burn their ideological
cities and sow the ground with tequila salt.
Instead, George did the unthinkable. he didn’t take a
dive, but with the surprise nomination of his personal
lawyer Harriet Miers, he might have done something far
worse. In socio-pugilistic terminology, it appeared
that Bush “took a Souter.”
Or did he? I’ve been thinking about this in the days
since the nomination, and suspect there might be a
grand plan behind Bush’s pick. Perhaps it’s wishful
thinking on my part, but I’m beginning to think that
the President adopted a very devious “strategery” to
make the left look like fools, to force them to hang
themselves with their own rope.
In the immediate aftermath of the nomination,
Democrats were thrilled. Unable to contain themselves,
they ran to the ever-supportive network cameras. They
gave Miers praise - Harry Reid acted like he was ready
to marry the nominee he himself had suggested. They
puffed their chests over the fact that they’d made
Bush back down and select a nominee of the wishy-washy
O’Conner genre. They believed that low approval polls,
two hurricanes, an ongoing war and non-stop media
propaganda had forced Bush to comply with their
wishes.
Not being a far-seeing bunch, the Democrats perceived
Miers as a moderate. They saw here as someone who was
once a Democrat, that had given $1,000 bucks to Al
Gore. They saw her as someone who could be swayed by
the leftist pressures of Washington DC, who would
eventually crumple under the pressure and side more
and more often with the liberal members of the court.
At this moment the likes of Reid and Feinstein are
wishing they could take back their initial gloating.
The press, eager to help the left, trumpeted the news
that Miers is moderate. The general public now
believes it. What the Dems didn’t know, and didn’t
bother to check out, is that it’s becoming clear that
Miers is extremely anti-abortion.
Liberals have but one true issue. That being, their
support for the pro-choice movement. They’re obsessed
with the topic. Armed with this fact, and again, I’m
hoping this hypothesis is correct, Bush may have
painted a master stroke.
If Miers is as strongly pro-life as reported, what are
the Democratic members of the judicial committee to
do? They already given her praise, and the press has
already convinced America she is a moderate. If the
Democrats approve her, allowing an up or down vote,
they will have abandoned their pet issue and will
suffer at the hands of disgruntled lefties in the 2006
Congressional elections. If they don’t approve Miers,
fearful of antagonizing their base by disregarding
their most cherished talking point, they will be
painted as the ultimate obstructionists.
Remember, thanks to the left’s own words and massive
media support, America now sees this woman as a
moderate. If she is forbidden a fair vote on the basis
of a single issue, the public will feel Democrats
truly have no mission in life but to disagree with
Bush. This will galvanize the Republican base (and
more importantly, the always disgruntled and fickle
independents) to vote against Democrats in 2006.
Had Bush nominated a hard-core conservative judge, say
a Michael Luttig or and Edith Jones, the fight would
have indeed been to the death. The all-important swing
voters, the independents, would have been convinced by
the media that the nasty Republicans were attempting
an ideological coup. The 2006 swing vote would go to
the left. While I’ve not yet determined if Bush is
brilliant or a bumbler, I am intrigued by the
impending fireworks
If the President is truly attempting this strategy, it
is a bold gamble. If he is, and if it works, he will
KO the Democrats without ever throwing a punch.
Many of us would have preferred a fight. We wanted to
give the left a black eye, to see them lying on the
canvas beaten and destroyed. We wanted to win the
battle.
But maybe, just maybe, George Bush is looking to win
the war.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
