A Bit Late – Opposing The Miers Nomination, Or: I AM The Base, Jive Turkey!

Well, I had a really lovely piece cooking on the Miers nomination but it looks like it won’t be necessary now.
Thanks to an IM from Brad, I was alerted to Miers’ withdrawal. I skipped over to CNN.com and was greeted with this alert:
CNNs duh moment
“Reluctantly” – I’ll bet. Hooray for the conservative side of the aisle, boo for my poor timing. Things are going to get awfully interesting over the next few hours and days.
Fortunately, the news of the withdrawal has brought Patterico back off the window ledge, while Scott Ott notes the lighter side of the whole affair.
Here’s the beginnings of my opposition piece, retained for posterity’s sake:

Firstly, in order to fulfill N.Z. Bear’s requirements for his Miers nomination blog poll, let me state this in as unequivocal a fashion as possible: I oppose the Miers nomination.
Secondly, let’s establish my conservative bona fides so that you, the reader, can better know where I’m coming from. I come from what has always been an extremely doctrinaire Republican household. My father was quite a liberal in his earlier days, or so says the word on the street. Through a series of experiences in his post-college days, including a stint in the Navy and work aboard a North Sea oil rig, as well as the influence of my mother, he became a Christian and significantly altered his political leanings as well. He felt God’s calling to full-time ministry and attended seminary shortly after my birth. The net effect of this series of transformative experiences was a home that was extremely conservative in its very foundations – socially, politically and religiously. Back in the early 80’s, in those heady days of the Reagan Revolution, this meant there was only one place for our family to be, politically: the Republican party.
I vaguely remember Reagan’s ’84 victory over Mondale, primarily because my parents were so happy at the result, although they kept rather quiet about it in social circles since we lived in Minnesota at that time. I recall “rooting” for the Republican candidate in each and every election thereafter – I was crushed at Clinton’s victory in ’92, I was elated at the GOP sweep of the House in ’94 and I dutifully pulled the lever for Dole-Kemp in the first Presidential election I was eligible for. Rush Limbaugh’s statements were well-nigh unassailable in my youth, as were Chuck Colson’s and James Dobson’s. This is not to say that I was consciously brainwashed by my parents, although some might try to make that case. There simply was a way to think about things that made sense and therefore, nothing else could genuinely be seriously considered if it didn’t fit into that sense morally, intellectually or spiritually.
I greatly cherish that conservative upbringing, as it has served me well.

New Scandal Looms On Horizon For Embattled Whitehouse: Staffers Accused Of “Astroturfing” Miers Nomination

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) — A new wrinkle has emerged in the growing battle over President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, sending an already troubled White House reeling. White House staffers stand accused of attempting to “astroturf” an online poll showing massive opposition to the Miers nomination.
Blogger N.Z. Bear, who has been soliciting endorsements and non-endorsements of Miers by other bloggers, noticed something amiss late Monday night. “Reactions to [the Miers nomination] had largely been negative up to that point,” said Bear. “We had roughly 230 bloggers opposing the nomination and around 45 supporting it, so I thought it particularly odd that those supporting the nomination would have jumped to around 138,000 by Monday night.”
Conservative opponents to the nomination were quick to level charges of fraud against the White House itself, claiming that the Bush administration was using “splogs” to falsely inflate the numbers of supporters in an effort to deflect criticism.
Scott McClellan, White House spokesman, categorically denied any involvement by the Bush administration. “Why would we need to fake such a thing? This enormous, sudden groundswell of support just goes to show how pleased the small business community is with the nomination of Harriet Miers. The President is pleased that so many vendors of natural male enhancement products, XBOX360’s and PlayStation3’s and small-scale online gambling outfits have seen fit to endorse Ms. Miers in such a strong fashion. He is particularly heartened by the support of the leagues of Texas Hold ‘Em sites and is planning on having several of them attend a press conference in which they will vouch for Ms. Miers’ pro-business stances.”
Reaction from conservative bloggers of all stripes has been swift and vicious. “The White House has been caught red-handed trying to force Harriet Miers down the throats of the American people,” said well-known conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. “More here, here and here,” she continued, pointing first to her head, then to her posterior, then her foot. “Sorry, sometimes I just get in a groove.” Conservative lawyer Patterico, an outspoken critic of the Miers nomination, was unable to be interviewed due to an ongoing suicide watch, while Jeff Goldstein, former English professor and all-around raconteur issued a profanity-laden statement unfit for print and then proceeded to perform a puppet show rendition of Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas, substituting George Bush for Hunter S. Thompson and Harriet Miers for his lawyer using a dirty table napkin and a shaker of salt.
Conservative supporters of the Miers nomination, however, were quick to try to put a good spin on the White House’s tactic. “The President is using a tactic to highlight the immense public support for Ms. Miers that, to this point, has been largely silent,” said Hugh Hewitt, conservative talk radio host and noted author. “In fact, his highly legitimate course of action is providing me with the impetus to write my new book, Splogs: Changing the Face of Online Politics Hundreds (of Thousands) of Sites at a Time.” One Houston-area blogger William Dyer, who goes by the name of “Beldar” on his blog, emphatically endorsed the White House’s tactic as “well within the bounds of proper political moves. The critics of this [tactic] simply don’t understand the inner workings of a White House staff and should therefore hold their fire until the [Senate] Judiciary Committee hearings.”
Liberal reaction has largely been muted. Jeralynn Meritt of TalkLeft chuckled softly and then declined to comment, noting that “[I]t’s best to stand out of the way when one’s enemies are making complete fools of themselves”, while the outspoken Oliver Willis was unavailable for comment, having fallen into a fit of laughter upon hearing the news of the Bush administration’s misstep.

More Conservative Miers Reax

The conservative reactions to the President’s pick of Harriet Miers for Assoicate Justice continue to roll in, prime among which is George Will’s acerbic column from this morning, which began thusly:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

Ouch. However, contra Will’s reaction we have Orin Kerr and Instapunk, the latter of whom takes Will to the proverbial rhetorical woodshed.
Funniest to my mind, though, is Patterico’s solicitation of questions from Miers supporters which, and I’m just spitballing here, will likely be the one and only time “Harriet Miers”, “David Hasselhoff” and “abundant chest hair” appear in the same article.

Positive Miers Reax

While I’ve certainly been down on the President’s selection of Harriet Miers to be the next Supreme Court Justice, there have been those on the right who are willing to view the whole affair in a more positive light. Beldar, in particular, has been verbose on the issue, rebutting the cronyism claims, spanking National Review Online commenters for their “uninformed” positions, and breaking down the Roberts v. Miers comparison. Patrick Ruffini makes the case for Miers being a true conservative while the Powerline guys come to her defense on several of the charges being leveled by conservatives in the last two days.
I remain unconvinced of her merits, though, particularly in light of the revelation of Mier’s job application. Also, dig Patterico’s roundup of further links. Plus, she shilled for Microsoft, which is always a black mark in my book.

Someone Stole My President And Replaced Him With An Alien Clone Intent On Destroying The Republican Base

Or, at the very least, that’s what I think has to have happened for him to nominate Harriet Miers to the SCoTUS. Reactions have been mixed with a decidedly negative tone, from profound disappointment to saying the White House is stuck on stupid to calling it a rope-a-dope to a real diversity play to outright anger. However, I think Patterico best sums up my initial reactions:

Is This Really The Best They Can Do?
[I]t’s based entirely on “well, Bush knows her better than we do.” Sorry, that doesn’t fly. Bush thought that Vladimir Putin had a good soul. Bush loves Vicente Fox. And on and on. I have zero trust in the President’s evaluation of the character of others, and even less in his ability to understand or evaluate the jurisprudence of candidates.
The final one is Hugh Hewitt. Full disclosure: I hate Hugh Hewitt, because he’s managed to be a bigger tool of the “Bush is Reagan Part Two!!!” crowd of the Republican Party than even such icons of that group like Sean Hannity.
His post, too, rests on the “I trust the President” foundation. I’m sorry, Hugh, but the Bush family, and Republicans in general, have shown that we cannot take them at their word when Supreme Court nominations are in play.
No thanks.

(Italics mine.)
I was thinking the exact same thing today. Utterly disappointing.