And the more Rushbo and Ingrahm and Levin rail against McCain the stronger he grows! I am beginning to understand that it is not McCain who turned the GOP on its head, he is the beneficiary of those who did turn the GOP on its head – The Amnesty Hypochondriacs. That is my affectionate, tongue-in-cheek label for those who would lose all to deport all long term, law abiding (excepting their lack of work permits, which is misdemeanor) illegals. And it seems they have succeeded – in losing all they had and hold dear. I cannot help but notice McCain’s support keeps growing as the hyper-partisan talking heads ramble on and on about how liberal he his. It’s as if the electorate is trying to find the most annoying candidate for all those who belittled those they disagreed with and now have destroyed conservative coalition.

Rush and others hint they may sit home this election, and that seems to spurn even more support for McCain. It seems America wants the Mary Poppins conservatives to sit home this election and measure themselves against their purity measuring tapes, self absorbed with their inherent purity and perfection in all things conservative. They seem to be pushing with all their might, through their support of McCain, to call the bluff or threat of the hyper-partisans.

I made a critical and basic error in my predictions of the 2006 race – I seriously underestimated the dislike of the GOP. I was not happy with them, but I had not realized I would be one of the last conservative independents to give up and try the Dems. I thought there was a little political collateral left to save the GOP for one more try. Part of that is due to the fact I don’t shift positions radically or with the wind. Thus why I never budged on Iraq, Harriet Miers, low taxes, Dubai Ports, the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell research, comprehensive immigration. I mix to be sure – but I have seen no reason to move on any of these issues. I don’t switch positions very dramatically. So I was not ready to dismiss the GOP too easily. Well, that is me – not America.

This year I am not going to be so blind. Dem turnout is just overwhelming GOP turnout in the primaries (see addendum below). And one of the most liberal GOP senators, one even I would not want to support because he is too left of me on too many issues, is leading the pack for the GOP nomination. The purity wars of the GOP clearly did more damage than I thought. McCain is strong on defense and spending, but he is also strong – in the supposedly wrong way – on immigration. That was supposed to be his Achille’s Heel, the one thing that would bring him down. It is not working out that way. The one issue I thought would stop McCain (and surprisingly the one we agree on!) is not doing what I expected. It is not slowing him down and may be propelling him forward.

Now I am wondering if there is a correlation between McCain’s growing support and the growing rants from the far right. Is this not the real reason why things are all upside down in the GOP? We know the GOP has been hurt by the stubborn purists, but maybe we have underestimated the damage they have done. The GOP is losing statewide elections in once red states like VA, and it lost 6 Senate seats in 2006, and is experiencing a wave of retirements from the 1994 wave when the GOP took over Congress. And I think those retirements are another sign that people who wanted to change America for the better are walking away from a party now over run by people who want a party in their own narrow images. They came to change Washington DC and found too many of their colleagues were changed by DC. Good decent people turned into heckling echoes of Begala and Carville instead of leaders of a new era. As Huckabee so aptly said in the FL debate: non-republicans.

I have no delusions, my views on policies are my own. I don’t believe they are “practically perfect in every way” – as the Mary Poppins conservatives crow – or, more importantly, perfect in every situation. I don’t try to impose my views, I share them and look for like minded people to follow a path of common ground, knowing there are areas all around us where we disagree and may end up opponents. I don’t hate people because one day we agree on one thing and the next we oppose each other. But the hyper-partisan hot-heads have no similar self confidence or self control. And the result is stunning.

I am pretty sure there is a backlash against the Mary Poppins Conservatives in the nation. The more they fight for their purity views the more greater America responds in the opposite direction. The more Fred Thompson haunted conservative talk radio the further down his numbers went. The more Rush and Hannity go after McCain the stronger McCain gets. The more the far right rails against the impure the larger the democrat crowds get.

When the purity wars erupted over Miers I could see the train wreck coming, and here is what I said back then:

The anti-Miers crowd won a pyrrhic victory today. The extreme right’s confidence and tolerance was tested, and found wanting. Instead of debating the merits of Miers, and allowing her to get to the confirmation hearings – too many in that crowd demeaned Miers and those, like me, who wanted to know who she was before rising in opposition. Their confidence was a charade as they panicked and lashed out in a way I thought republicans had outgrown and only liberals still did.

It is clear now that us impure conservatives cannot be allowed to participate in any meaningful or leading roles. We are not pure bloods with clear lineage to the far right cause.

…

The message from the Miers fiasco is clear. Only purebloods can be offered for positions of responsibility. If you are not a pureblood, then there is no depth the purebloods will go to knock you down as a mudblood.

…

And that is what is left of the conservative movement. We now have two factions who will never trust each other, and where name calling skirmishes will break out more and more often. It has already started. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in now.

I was sadly correct in where this would lead. When Dubai Ports erupted from the same panicky group I and many others saw the next phase in the unavoidable implosion of the GOP governing coalition. The final straw, all around, was immigration reform – which knocked the GOP out of control of Congress. Here is one of my many posts sampling the out of control anger of the amnesty hypochondriacs:

Post the list of traitors.
We’ll pull together the list of their corporate sponsors (because I can’t think of who else pushed them to vote for it) and start a boycott.
…
get the roll call.
Let’s crack some heads.
…
And with that, I leave the GOP.
Goodbye, guys.
…
This Is Fargin’ War!
…
Can you say United States of Mexico! Courtesy of our RINOS and RATS! I saw the soccer game between the USA and Mexico from Chicago and the stadium was filled with folk loyal to the RED, WHITE and GREEN…chants for Mexico drowned the USA chants…imagine that in our own land….USM!
…
Treason.
…
Prez. Bush needs horse-whipping.

After all this is anyone is surprised there has been a backlash against conservatism? If not I can’t help them. Bush was respectful and a compassionate conservative who refused to get in the gutter. And for that decorum he was pilloried by those who seem to have trouble getting out of gutter politics. I heard Hannity ask a liberal caller from MD Friday what happened to her, did her parents beat or abuse her? It was a sick and disrespectful joke. It was another immature and insecure stab at someone who simply disagrees. It ranks right up there with Michelle and others going after the Baltimore family for speaking positively about S-CHIP.

I was wrong. I underestimated the damage the hyper-partisans have done to the GOP. It sounds like America is ready to destroy the party Rush holds dear and are inviting him to sit out 2008. McCain is a poke in the eye to the far right and America seems hell bent on poking that eye. Heck, he is the pick of the NY Times! I did not expect this. I feel good about McCain on national defense, pork spending and immigration. Some might expect me to be happy about his rise, but he is not really my top choice (or second or third). No, I am not happy to see how utterly destroyed the party is because of some hot-heads without self control and dignity and honor.

In the end I don’t think this matters much, because if Obama wins the dem nomination he will steam roll McCain. But it is interesting to see how much success the Amnesty hypochondriacs have had in 2008. Not only have their standard bearers all been forced out of the race, their nemesis is leading the pack to the nomination. Now that I did not expect, but then again I underestimated how much rejection the hypochondriacs where able to build up amongst their one time allies. I did not expect it or want it, but it is here.

Addendum: In case people missed all the news regarding the tsunami of democrat voter turnout I have posts on the matter from SC Dem and SC GOP (where the dems had enormous increases to record highs), New Hampshire and Iowa.

Given the early voting numbers in FL, where Dems are competing with the GOP numbers though their primary supposedly doesn’t count, I would say this trend is continuing. If the FL turnout numbers continue to show this kind of massive turnout differential favoring the dems all the GOP is doing is re-arranging deck chairs on their Titanic.

Update: National Review still thinks immigration works for them and against McCain. Boy, are they in for a shock.

I will not base my opinion on information provided by people who jump to conclusions from a fear of the unknown. I do not care what their political leanings are. I will not use information from those who feel demeaning someone personally is a form of political debate. I prefer more reliable and reasoned sources.

The rightwing will have to push this one all on their own. They destroyed my confidence in them as leaders, so now I am not a follower. Besides, adding another man to the court is a really, really bad move. The GOP will never convince women to support them if they cannot find one qualified woman to fill O’Connor’s seat. But then again, after the callous and immature way Miers was treated, I am sure all the qualified women said no thanks.

As a lot of women will be. There is no need to push the Miers debacle under the rug and pretend the ugliness never happened. It happened. And it is in the hands of the right wing anti-Mier’s crowd to fix it.

I have been getting comments that illustrate that I may have left the wrong impression. I am not talking about people who had doubts about Miers, but would allow her an opportunity to be heard and make her case. And there may be some gray areas between that group and those I am most concerned about. I can give a specific example of what I mean: George Will determining Bush did not have the intellect to make the proper selection. That is the kind of violation of the 11th commandment I am talking about.

I also find the examples of her ‘liberalness’ offered up to be unpersuasive, and in many cases they could be interpreted many different ways. Who is not for self determination vs being told how to act? All the while those who argued these supposed clear examples ignored her survey answers on abortion. Something absolutely clear.

If people feel I have insulted them, my apologies. But at the same time, the anger and vehomence launched at Miers before she could make her case (which by tradition she will not do publically until the hearings) was telling to those of us who find some minor faults with some of the conservative positions. Calling into question Bush and his motives and his intellect was an insult to those of us who stood by him. We were not blind or incapable of understanding the fears of those who opposed Miers. He is not stupid and we are not stupid to support someone stupid. Goerge Will needs to focus on baseball from here on, where he can do no harm.

People feared the unknown. It was how that fear was handled which was disturbing. Am I upset? No. Do I see serious problems for the GOP out of this? You betcha. Sorry folks, I just am going to find it real hard to support people who insulted Bush because they feared what Miers might be. I don’t think people can blame me for being taken aback by the most outrageous comments and actions we saw over Miers. And I am a hard core conservative. If you have folks like me, The Anchoress and others struck by these acts then maybe there is something to it? What worries me are the moderates who are not solid conservatives who need to be persuaded their voice and views are welcomed. It is harder to make the case now.

I liked this quote from Senator Warner – VA

“In effect, she was denied due process by members of her own party,” said Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican.

END UPDATE

The anti-Miers crowd won a pyrrhic victory today. The extreme right’s confidence and tolerance was tested, and found wanting. Instead of debating the merits of Miers, and allowing her to get to the confirmation hearings – too many in that crowd demeaned Miers and those, like me, who wanted to know who she was before rising in opposition. Their confidence was a charade as they panicked and lashed out in a way I thought republicans had outgrown and only liberals still did.

It is clear now that us impure conservatives cannot be allowed to participate in any meaningful or leading roles. We are not pure bloods with clear lineage to the far right cause. If Ronald Reagan had been nominated he too would have been pilloried for tolerating people who were not for making abortions illegal, or tolerating gays openly, or hoping for diversity in the workplace. Harriet Miers was in many ways a version of Ronald Reagan. She is a convert to what was supposed to be a broader cause.

Now we have Danforth and Scowcroft and other moderate (way too moderate for my blood) conservatives attacking the religious right for being intolerant to non-believers. The civil war did not end with Miers withdrawal. Unfortunately it just went into a cold war position. I am mudblood conservative. I was raised a democrat since my grandfather was a democrat Congressman back when being a democrat was obviously an honorable position. But I am not pure enough for the anti-Miers crowd. When I warned the anti-Miers crowd they were acting like zealots and fanatics (definitions that aptly apply) I was called a moron and an idiot (trust me when I say those words do not apply).

When the anti-Miers crowd dove down near the gutter with elitist comments which had no basis in fact – but were simply meant for character assassination – the Republican party left me where I prefer to be. In the independent camp waiting for adults to bring civility and honor back to politics. Miers deserved the respect to be heard – not to be ridiculed. I deserved the opportunity to learn where she stood before making up my mind – and not being left with a withdrawal and no clear indication what kind of judge she would have been. We all deserved less Carville/Begala imitations from the punditry – armchair experts in everything on the planet it seems.

And the great John Roberts just made a terrible decision to allow a challenge to the Blackberry company for patent rights to halt Blackberry service and all those who rely on it. Harriet Miers, I would guess given her real world backgound, might have argued that the patent debate could go on and be decided without punishing all the users of the technology. This is why theorist judges like Roberts pass things like Kelo.

The message from the Miers fiasco is clear. Only purebloods can be offered for positions of responsibility. If you are not a pureblood, then there is no depth the purebloods will go to knock you down as a mudblood.

I am against abortion – but do not think making them illegal is the answer or will stop the majority of abortions. I am for controlling our borders – but not for ripping people out of their homes and away from their jobs and dumping them over the border jobless and homeless because their paperwork is not in order.

I am for diversity and against quotas and set asides, and against racism. I am for civil unions for same sex couples, but against marriage for them, while I support their right to do what they want in private, as long as they keep in private and away from my kids.

I am a mudblood conservative. And if I am not careful, I now know the purebloods will stop at nothing to take me down if I were to put their ideology at risk. It happened already at Redstate – where I was called a moron and idiot before being banned for not following their rules on name calling!

And that is what is left of the conservative movement. We now have two factions who will never trust each other, and where name calling skirmishes will break out more and more often. It has already started. The genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back in now.

Make sure to check out this post at Decision ’08 which covers a lot of the reactions from those of us who are not gloating right now. I especially like DJ Drummond’s response. The Anchoress has a good post out too. Our side left a bad taste in my mouth I will not soon get over.

DJ Drummon at Polipundit has been a sound and measured voice in all this, and today he posts a very interesting perspective that is similar to my own. And since I am briefly mentioned in the post, I want to extend a sincere thanks to DJ for considering my views worthy of mention.

The important thing to remember is Bush backs this nominee and the base outside DC backs Bush.

UPDATE:

DJ points out what I have been saying for sometime: the anti-Miers crowd called for a conservatice civil war without anything but wild stories and no evidence. This has resulted in Bush digging in and the base rallying to Bush and Miers. Well, to compound their mistakes the anti-Miers crowd are planning to attack Bush and Miers over the air waves. Well, it’s their political suicide I guess.

David Frum is leading this charge, and I think it is about time he is called to answer about his motives. He needs to address the real possibility he is on some personal vendetta against Ms. Miers because he had some ‘issues’ with her when he was at the White House. So David – come clean. What was your relationship to Miers and did you ever have a confrontational run in with her because she was editing your speeches?

I am not saying he is – but his own words make it hard to make the case he is not. He too deserves to have his say and some benefit of the doubt. But given what he has said in the past, the conservative base deserves some answers before we go into battle with our fellow conservatives.

The anti-Miers crowd may now be seated, and please try and behave from here on. All of us who did not lurch into immediate fits of anger and panic simply asked for proof that Miers would be a closet liberal- but all you gave us were Vulcan mind tricks.

Now we find out you called us to civil war, and to rise up against our President, on false, not just flimsy but false, information. The base has never been behind you, and you have embarrassed all of us in your emotional tirades and lashing out at Bush and those who dared disagree with you. Thanks, but I personally think you have done enough damage for one month.

Latest Survey USA poll shows a Con/Rep breakdowns on the order 44% support and 12% against, with around another 44% undecided.

That means the rabid anti-Miers crowd is marginalizing themselves to an extent very rarely seen in politics. 88% ain’t buying what the Frum’s are selling. 4 to 1 against is really pretty bad (support vs oppose). But 8 – 1 is a disaster.

Now the anti-Miers crowd are losing other conservative factions because they called for a civil war with nothing but scary fairytales to back up their claims.

Hat Tip: RealClearPolitics

I won’t attmept to translate or synthesize it for you, I suggest you read it yourself. I did send Leon an email on how this must have been a tough adjustment to make after all the days of emotion.

I also want to point out one thing regarding his post

For now, I’m done taking up my sword against my fellow Republicans and against the President. However, if she turns out to be the kind of justice that I very much fear she will, I am prepared to walk away for good.

If she turns out to be what you fear, you will not have to leave anything Leon. Becuase a lot of us will then be at your side.

Here is another post by Erik along the same lines.

I had read about the Mathew Cully Op-Ed on many blogs, but the one thing that just struck me when I finally got around to reading it was the opening paragraphs. See, Cully is a speechwriter too like Frum. But he understands the positives in constructive criticism. Most people don’t. They don’t like criticism and critiquing of their work, especially from someone they do not respect or is in a position they think is inferior. Read this and cogitate on it for moment:

WHITE House speechwriters first learned the name Harriet Miers in January 2001, when drafts started reappearing full of corrections, instructions and particularly annoying requests for factual substantiation. In the campaign, life had been simpler, the editing and fact-checking a little more casual. Now the old ways wouldn’t do anymore because “Harriet said” this or “Harriet said” that. Who was this woman, and could the staff secretary please confine herself to secretarial duties?

We had a few things to learn about the job of the staff secretary – the person who controls all paper passing through the Oval Office – and above all about the caliber of the woman behind the editing. And now that fellow conservatives in Washington are asking variations of the same question about President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court – Who is this “crony,” “cipher,” “hack,” “functionary” or, as my former speechwriting colleague David Frum has called her, this “petty bureaucrat”? – I think I can help with the answer.

I am going back to my own personal experiences here to give a different view on this whole mess – at least for Frum. Some people react very angrily to criticism. I see it all the time. I admire it, it means someone took the time to provide me some tips. I see it as an honor. Most do not.

I never understood why Frum left the White House after only a year or so (2001 – 2002). There was some issue with his resignation 13 months into a brand new presidency. In fact, it is probably not fair to associate Frum as an unabashed Bush backer. His recent book highlights a lot of negatives about Bush, which could possibly be illustrating how prickly Frum is to high standard organizations.

How much you want to bet Frum’s high strung anger at Miers is driven by his unwillingness to respect her position and her role over the speechwriting process in the WH. I see the tell tales of an inner office war which Frum lost, because Miers was not going to be going anywhere given her position with Bush. He himself clearly indicates how he felt at the WH:

With the exception of chief political aide Karl Rove, Frum views Bush as surrounded by genial lieutenants–few of whom impressed the author with their intellectual power.

He says Bush is often glib. He also often uses quirky language, for instance referring to environmentalists as “green-green-lima-beans.” Frum also describes Bush as “often uncurious and as a result ill-informed” on some matters that Frum does not specify.
…
Frum was not impressed with most of Bush’s staff.

“One seldom heard an unexpected thought in the Bush White House or met someone who possessed unusual knowledge. Aside from the witty and ingenious Mitch Daniels at the Office of Management and Budget and, of course, Karl Rove, who played the unusual dual role of political guru and leading intellectual, conspicuous intelligence seemed actively unwelcome in the Bush White House,” he writes.

As a workplace, the Bush White House is formal–strictly blue and gray suits for men, few bright colors for women. Language is clean–even a mild “damn” is frowned on.

Frum, a self-described “not especially observant Jew,” found himself working in “the culture of modern Evangelicalism” that prevails.

He added:

“The television show The West Wing might as well have been set aboard a Klingon starship for all it resembled life inside the Bush White House.”

Folks, has NRO been plagued by a personal vendetta? Is Frum trying to get back at someone he was at odds with in the WH? I am not claiming this is fact – unlike the anti-Miers crowd, I note when I am speculating. But the evidence is there to indicate this is a possibility.

Et tu Brutus?

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a copy of sworn testimony given by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1990 in which she said that she “wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society” – a conservative and libertarian lawyers’ organization – because it was “politically charged.”
…
But Bush’s Supreme Court nominee did not include in that category the NAACP and other liberal groups, the transcript reveals!

1990! You know what. I would guess that back then in the old media days before the internet (I have my first web browser Mosaic, the first one out, in 1991) that would have been a reasonable and widely held view. The NAACP began to lose its way during those times – and being a conservative was considered to be quite out there back then.

I mean really folks – is this what we have to back up the mind reading abiltities of the Anti-Miers crowd? 15 year old statements??

Miers testified in a voting rights lawsuit claiming the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members.

Maybe it did. To point out an elected delegation is not representative of the population does not mean defacto liberalism. I come from the only state in the union which elected a African American Governor. The Governors of this country obviously do not and have not represented the make of this great country. Another case of hyperventilating and code words.

Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.”

Her answer: “No, I don’t.”

In 1987, the NAACP launched a campaign to defeat the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; In 1989, the group organized the Silent March; over 100,000 protested U.S. Supreme Court decisions the group claimed “reversed many of the gains made against discrimination.”

So? 1987 and 1989? Bork! Are we simply holding grudges so we can get vengeance? Count me out of this game. I want to fix the problems facing the country, I am not into a replay of the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Everybody knows she was a democrat until sometime in the 1990′s when she switched. This is news??

Is this the kind of media smear campaign we conservatives want to hold up to exemplify why we are more serious about issues than the liberals? When did we decide to use the KOS and Michael Moore playbooks against our own?

This is the garbage being touted by right wing zealots to damage Bush???

Thank the Lord I am still a conservative independent! I can honestly say I had nothing to do with this mud slinging whatsoever.

And is NRO close to following? I would say yes. NRO claims these statements to be true:

• “a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy”;

• “a person of unquestioned personal and political independence”;

• “someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues”; nor

• “a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.”

Their minding reading powers have obviously evolved beyond those of the normal Vulcans! Wait for the hearings before you go all premature on Bush.

Well, everyone makes mistakes – but all at once? Remember the challenge of the ‘moderates’: bring absolute proof of the pending doom by Miers’ hand if you want us to join in destroying the next three years of conservative progress. Does Noonan? Of course not. She fantasizes about the outcome:

I think I know what White House aides are thinking.

They’re thinking: This is the part of my memoir where we faced the daily pounding of our allies. They’re thinking: This is the “Churchill Alone” chapter. They’re thinking: He was like a panther in the jungle night. For five years he sat, watchful, still as marble, his eyes poised upon his prey. And then he sprang in a sudden burst of sleek-muscled focus, and when it was over his face was unchanged but for the scarlet ring of blood around his mouth. But enough about George Will. They’re thinking: That’s good, save it for later.

Can we please stop with the mind reading games folks! Of course not:

Can this marriage be saved? George W. Bush feels dissed and unappreciated…

More mind reading.

One senses that the critics will gain, as they’ve been gaining, and that the White House is on the losing side.

One would know better if one read the polls verses trying to ‘sense’…[I wonder, is this the 6th or 9th sense she is using??]

Simply going at their critics was not only destructive, it signaled an emptiness in their arsenal. If they had a case they’d have made it. “You’re a sexist snob” isn’t a case; it’s an insult, one that manages in this case to be both startling and boring.

They did make their case – you zealots did not buy it. And as I said before, there are people out there making sexist comments. No one said all the anti-Miers crows were sexist. Get a grip folks.

The Miers pick was a mistake. The best way to change the story is to change the story. Here’s one way.

Before we fisk her fantasies, there is another way: The anti-Miers crowd admit they have nothing firm or tangible therefore it is wrong for them to call on Bush to back down and the base to rise up. But fanatics cannot grasp the concept they are throwing out baseless charges, nearly all of them coming by way of strange mental powers to read minds and hearts at great distances. OK, the Noonan fantasies

The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president’s protectors throw him in the car.

Disgusting analogy. Tim McCarthy did one of the bravest things for his president. He gave his life. What are you going to give for this President Peggy? Are you going to give up on this tirade of yours?

The rest of the article is ridiculous. Peggy, you are one excellent speech writer and, by all accounts, a wonderful person. You are not President or presidential material. You are not an expert on judges anymore than I am. But at least I do not kid myself and pretend I know Miers or Bush’s rationale on selecting Miers.

I simply trust bush because I voted for him to do these things! I voted for him knowing he was going to select maybe 3 US SC justices. I trusted him then (at least over Kerry) and I trust him still to do the best he can.

Peggy, how about ending the Benedict Arnold act. Arnold felt he was doing what was right for the country and its people and had delusions of grandeur above his station. Don’t repeat that mistake. The base ain’t buying this revolt of the talking heads.

UPDATES:

BTW, I am not the only one finding the right wing punditry over the top. Here is a post on Laura Ingraham’s show from this morning at Alamo Nation. I have not been able to listen to talk radio ever since the Miers uproar. I am just not into all the fanatical tirades.

Also check out Fred Barnes today on the implosion of the con-pundits.

Finally, more polls are showing no Miers backlash, but I guarantee you there is a punditry backlash coming. You can only insult Miers and Bush backers for so long before the damage cannot be repaired.

Despite vocal opposition from many Republican activists, most Republicans across the county support the President’s selection. Fifty-four percent (54%) of the GOP faithful say the President’s nominee should be confirmed. Only 17% disagree.

Here is the poll Pew Research which shows less support at this early stage than for Roberts. OK, but it also shows the same level of opposition to Miers as for Roberts!

Opposition to Miers among conservative Republicans is not much greater than it was to Roberts in September.

The anti-Miers crowd has failed to make their case. Specifically, 6% Conservative Reps opposed Roberts, 9% Miers. 12% of Moderate-Liberal Reps opposed Roberts, 19% Miers.

While the base is more in the ‘don’t know’ category for Miers at this stage than for Roberts, it is understandable due to the call for a conservative civil war by the anti-Miers crowd. Unfortunately, until we get something beyond the mind reading from a distance as proof that Miers is the next Souter, the base will trust Bush over any pundit’s opinion.

Hat Tip: RealClearPolitics

There is also the problem of zealots and extremists, who can seriously help pull a party towards a goal, possibly beginning to get too far out front – or even frustrated with the pace of societal transition.

I again post the definitions so people are clear: these labels are not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I am a Sci-Fi fanatic and proud of it. It is when they come at you when you may not have seen that kind of dedication and fervor to a cause in yourself that you may take them as ‘insults’.

Zealot:

a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Fanatic:

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Extremist:

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

Sorry for the repetition folks, but some people need to face the fact they have become obsessed to the point of extreme with Miers. For example, we have in the NYTimes this morning, word that Senate Staffers are up in arms on this issue. Staffers being the kind of people who sometimes play Senator when the Senator is not available - nudge, nudge, know what I mean?

As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.

“Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact,” a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.

I said in a previous post that critics need to be very careful. A lot of us judge the critic to the target of the criticism to understand which way to go with these things. And some of us obviously do not have the Vulcan mind powers being employed by the anti-Miers crowd know for sure she is not ‘up to it’. Remember, these folks are staffers – not Senators or Presidents or managers of 400 person law firms.

All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.

These are obviously also the kind of people who go behind the back to stab you in the back via the press. Not a good indication these are the kinds of people we should be looking towards for guidance. The NY Times laps this GOP infighting up, so no surprise they run with this story.

Another Republican aide close to the committee said, “I don’t know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff.”

Staffers, like pundits, don’t get to vote in the Senate. But boy, when these folks try and get a deal out of the WH are they going to be learning a very hard lesson in DC politics.

UPDATE:

I posted this then checked Drudge to find this Washington Times story which covers a possibility recently being heard around – the superstars the anti-Miers crowd so wished for may have declined the opportunity to be mangled by the liberals and press.

Meanwhile yesterday, a leading Christian conservative said the White House told him that some prospective Supreme Court nominees conservatives would have preferred withdrew their names from President Bush’s “short list” before the nomination — raising the possibility that Miss Miers wasn’t Mr. Bush’s first pick.

Folks, if this is true there are going to be some really red faces on the Hill, at NRO and at Redstate. If they went out on a political lynching because their heros decided not to get pummeled – instead pummeling George and Laura plus Harriet – then those of us who were being cautious will be completely vindicated. I had heard or read somewhere the Janice Rogers Brown, my preferred nominee, had declined since she had just been through the brutal confirmation process and had no interest to drag her family through it again. I doubt she is looking kindly on the anti-Miers crowd right now.

And those staffers in the NY Times piece! Boy, are they in for a rough few years.

END UPDATE

So, we have a bunch of restless pundits and career congressional lawyers (no wonder they look down on ‘practicing’ lawyers like Miers) chomping at the bit, anxious to lame duck Bush and try to fill the power void. Classic DC power envy.

On the other side of this shrinking (or is that shrieking?) band of revolutionaries you have us dog faced, realists. We simply want some solid evidence Miers is the disaster everyone says she is beyond their personal biases, personal disappointment their hero-judge was passed up, beyond their fear that their image as an inside prognosticator will be shattered, beyond the elitism. Even for the rare folks who did make the wrong comments, beyond sexism.

We want more than some mystical mind reading from distance and across time to damage Bush and lose ground on all the other issues. We want something tangible to trump the fact Miers brings a needed experience base to the court which needs broader views.

I would say the folks at Powerline are beginning to thaw, if this post is any indication.

I liked this post over at Flopping Aces as well, because it brought in some historic background (feel free to skip over the stuff about my posts – I tracked back to it obviously).

Another post I trackbacked to is this post at Mister Snitch, which goes into the Laura Bush comment in detail and highlights the erroneous conclusions of some very major bloggers. Check out the track backs on this post.

The Anchoress has some other good links to posts from those pushing back on the fanatical anti-Miers crowd (check the definitions folks).

My compatriot in West Virginia, Don Surber, has a powerhouse post full of links to explore.

If I run into more posts, I will try and add them.

I meant to address this earlier in the main post, but a post from Michelle Malking reminded me to discuss the sexism charge commented on by Laura Bush. What I really dislike about this rabid feeding frenzy is when a legitimate comment is made about SOME of the critics, and then all of the critics act is if it is all about them! Well, not to burst your bubble Michelle, but I truly doubt the Bush’s were talking about you.

Hopefully you just overrreacted – the other explanations are not very flattering to say the least. There have been those who claimed Harriet Miers was selected because she was a woman. That is sexist and Laura is right. There are some who claim she would never have been selected except she was a women crony to Bush – that is sexist as well and demeaning in two respects.

There are those who dismiss her experiences in breaking the glass ceilings she broke. It is cold hearted, and possibly sexist, to assume women always were considered equals in every field and what she went through was trivial. The analogy would be to claim Condi’s experiences with racism when she was growing up were of no real consequence.

That these statements have been made in various forms is not in doubt. So why the insults back at Laura Michelle?

“Or does she buy into the Left’s conservative-women-are-self-loathing-traitors-to-their-gender line, too”

The Anti-Miers crowd is running on emotion – anger, and is devoid of fact – but butressed by hypotheticals. No wonder they are losing this battle.

END UPDATE

I was able to catch Rich Lowry from NRO (one of the many anti-Miers echo chambers on the net) on John Gibson’s show tonight on FOX. I had to laugh at his lame and weak attempt to belittle Miers. He had to state over and over again what I have been saying since the uproar from these fanatics began – they don’t know Miers and cannot make any firm predictions on her.

Lowry whimped out so bad I almost felt sorry for him. At the very end of all his waffling he tried to squeeze in he thought she would be worse the O’Connor. But this made him out to be the total zealot since, obviously and accorsing to himelf, he had no way of knowing!

Nothing firm, but his Vulcan mind reading powers were telling him she was a bad choice – and Bush was too stupid to see it.

When I had my fun with Redstate and challenged them on their fanatical positions, I realized they had nothing substantial either. All they really wanted was for the wole issue to go their way, or for it to go away. They are better at insulting fellow conservatives than making any reasonable case on why we should rise up and damage Bush over Miers.

For example, here is a Redstater admitting they lashed out at people they disagreed with, but of course they had an excuse – they were angry at Bush. It was not the first time -won’t be the last.

That’s what happens when you run on emotion, anger. You have no claim you are right outside your frustration. I have to keep adding these definitions so the anti-Miers extremists – the ones who want the party to rise up and defeat Bush over their fantasies – understand the terms are appropriate given this context.

Zealot:

a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Fanatic:

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Extremist:

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

These are important to remember because, while many appear to be getting all worked up, the loudest voices cave when challenged (Redstate) or put on the spot (Lowry on Foxnews). So one can guess this challenge Bush will not succeed. Rich Lowry’s own prediction on Fox says it all: It is highly likely Miers will be confirmed.

Some are beginning to realize the strangeness of this situation we find ourselves in – opposing the President over nothing. Giving Bush more trouble over Miers than Clinton got with Ginsburg.

Hugh Hewitt had a great post on Jay Nordlinger’s ‘awakening’.

Since sociology — the awful matter of class — has played a role in the Miers brouhaha, I might give you this judge’s credentials: He went to the very fanciest schools in the country (starting with prep school). He was a partner at just about the fanciest firm in the country. And he was a federal judge pretty early. In other words, he is at the top of the elite heap.

And he thinks Miers is superbly qualified — loves her background, loves what she has done. Loves what he thinks he knows about her character, and her work habits. Thinks she would be terrific on the Court.

People are beginning to come to their senses. First off, don’t call for an uprising against Bush unless you have the goods on Miers.

Interesting final note. I was mention in a hotline blogometer on Miers – Woohoo! Of course they focused on my spat with Redstate instead of all my posts on why Miers is a good choice. and of course I am painted as disrespectful for making my case but Redstate was simply ‘fisking’ me when they called me an ‘idiot’ and ‘moron’.

In case folks are interested some at Redstate did offer to let me back if I behaved. I said I would consider the option if the posted an apology for breaking the very rules they claimed I broke. Well, they were not interested. In the words of one of their very well known judicial pundits – it was a tough call whether my description of the anti-Miers call to damage Bush represented ‘extremism’ vs Thomas calling me an idiot.

Folks, if that is a tough call for them, why are you listening to them? Personally, I think every last one of us are able to make up our own minds and do not need talking heads or bloggers translate or tell us (you) what to think.

I have a lot more faith in Americans than some I guess.

Those crazy martyrs, what will they think up next?

Well, DJ Drummond at Polipundit has provided some cold, hard perspective on the zealotry and fanaticism from the anti-Miers crowd:

In 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the United States Supreme Court. Despite the clear indication that Ginsburg represented a clear shift to the Left from the Justice she replaced, the confirmation vote was 96 to 3 in Ginsberg’s favor.
…
How strange, that so many Republicans respected Bill Clinton so much more than they will George W. Bush.

How strange indeed! Of course Ginsburg was ‘more qualified’ than Myers who is graduated from [sniff] SMU! That is why she and Clinton will be treated with more respect from the fanatics on the right than Bush and Miers.

BTW, for your consideration I provide the following definitions:

Zealot:

a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Fanatic:

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Extremist:

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

First the base:

The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.
…
Eileen Melvin, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said she had just come from a meeting with state committee members in conservative Lancaster County, where she asked them what they thought of the Miers nomination. “They said we trust the president,” she said.

Note to Santorum: Are you trying to get re-elected? Note to Senators: Do you want him to get re-elected?

In Oregon, “the rank and file of the party are generally concerned that various conservatives are beating up on the president about the Miers appointment,” party Chairman Vance Day said.
…
In Washington state, party Chairman Chris Vance said he e-mailed information about Miss Miers, provided by the Republican National Committee, to a statewide list of 10,000 Republican officials and grass-roots activists. “The next day, I got less than 10 e-mails out of 10,000 from people who were upset with the nomination,” Mr. Vance said.

Remember when we once had plans to pick up a Senate seat in Washington state? Kiss those dreams good-bye.

In Alabama, a state that gave Mr. Bush 62.5 percent of its vote last year, Republican Chairman Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh said, “People respect [Mr. Bush’s] choice. A lot of people would like to know more about her, but the president has had the most personal contact with her, knows her thoughts, abilities and beliefs, and we trust him to make the right decision. Overwhelmingly, that’s what I hear people saying.”

In Vermont, Republican state Chairman Jim Barnett says he has “heard nothing but support” from the party’s base.

“From my perspective, the skepticism and criticism [from conservative groups] is an inside-the-Beltway phenomenon,” Mr. Barnett said.

Here is the piece which discusses the possibility of a Rep Senate defying Bush and throwing away the next 3 years of his second term:

Nearly half of Senate Republicans say they remain unconvinced that Harriet Miers is worthy of being confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Times.

Nearly half the GOP senate is ready to defy its base as well.

Too many had hopes that we would get a Luttig, to be another clone of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts – all fine jurists, don’t get me wrong. I would not want to lose a single one of them. But the point is we have stalwart legal scholars to make the case and write the opinions we all want to see.

What we do not have is a lot of expertise from the private sector and from the very critical realm of dealing with the War on Terror, Homeland Defense and the Patriot Act. In fact, I suspect the uproar on Miers has more to do with the latter than most are letting on. I have not done the research, but I would guess the same folks who balk at the Patriot Act from the right oppose Miers.

So let’s assume Miers is a B+ conservative scholar (doubtful, I suspect she is an A – but for the sake of argument…) and is reliable a vote as Luttig would be on pro life issues. That would give her an 85 (old school scales) for scholarly to his 100, they both get 100 on voting. With this kind of tunnel-vision-view Luttig looks like the better candidate.

We will leave Miers private sector background out of this for now.

Now we need expertise on the bench to debate and argue the legal issues revolving around the War on Terror, Homeland Defense and the Patriot Act. Each one of these areas is facing legal challenges by liberals, and there is a woeful lack of experience in these matters on the US SC.

For example, I am a fairly well known voice on Able Danger. Able Danger used sophisticated information search and processing technologies to identify possible terrorists using public information. A lot of people commenting at my site and others want to make sure this capability is used. But it has enormous legal challenges associated with it.

With Harriet Miers on the bench we have a better chance of having a proper debate regarding constitutional safe guards and gates related to this form of analysis.

The Senate just stuck its nose in how long we can detain enemy combatants before setting them free to try and kill us again. We have the entire issue of border security. All these things need to be addressed and will be challenged in court by the opposition.

Luttig scores a 40 in this key area. He is probably book and media read on the subject. I do not know – I am making a wild guess here. But Miers gets a 100 for her work beside Bush since 9-11. She has reviewed all sorts of relevant policy ideas and and probably helped framed the policy implementations to withstand constitutional muster.

Now when you compare Luttig and Miers in this broader context the score is Luttig 80 (100, 100, 40 divided by 3) and Miers 95 (100, 100, 85). Now who is ‘best qualified’?

What is worse is we have plenty of Luttig-types on the US SC bench now. It is not like the pro-life brain trust on the court is under represented or under powered. Even if Miers is every nasty thing her critics say regarding her ability to argue the pro life line (big ‘if’ here), her vote is all that is needed.

So we are witnessing the take over of the party by ideologues who place Roe V Wade over everything else – including national security. I am pro life, but I am not obsessed to this level. Especially since I know Miers will get confirmed and the pro life fanatics (as opposed to pro life stalwarts) will lose all credibility with the base for bringing us this unnecessary fight.

Critics also need to remember that those of us watching this unfold will compare the critic to the target when assessing the critique. The critics of Miers and Bush have very little standing when compared to Miers and Bush. The critics may feel they have all the logic in the world backing them up, but I would take the advise of a President over some Editor of a niche political magazine. Sorry, but on the scales of lifetime achievements, even the Senators can only barely compete with Miers – unless of course she is confirmed. Then there would be no competition in my mind.

To emphasize how unnecessary this fight is I will highlight a passage from Paul Mirengoff of Powerline, in his awkward attempt to rationalize his new support for Miers in a Weekly Standard article:

In fact, we cannot even be highly confident that Bush has nominated a reliably conservative vote, as opposed a swing vote in the O’Connor or Kennedy style.
…
They argue that Bush is in the best position to know what kind of Justice Miers will be, so that if he assures us that Miers is a judicial conservative, we have no reason to doubt his word.
…
A president usually deals with his White Counsel at a very high level. It’s not likely that Bush (a non-lawyer) and Miers have had in-depth discussions about constitutional law. Thus, while Bush might be in a position to know very generally that Miers is a conservative as opposed to a liberal or a centrist, he’s not likely to know whether she has a solid conservative judicial philosophy of constitutional adjudication, much less what she thinks about specific constitutional issues.

You can read the rest if you want to, but the point is clear. I posted The Miers Test for Pundits just for this kind of weak argument. The test asks two questions:

(1) Is the issue based on a lack of direct knowledge about Miers’ views and intellect?

(2) Does the issue rely on the distant pundit being able to discern more the President Bush, even though Bush knows this woman quite well?

Two ‘yes’ answers and you have a straw man argument. You have theory piled on top of conjecture, buttressed by speculations regarding marginal probabilities. Notice how Mr. Mirengoff has to see through walls, at distance and over time, to determine Bush has no clue to Miers detailed views on issues. Even though she has been assisting in the vetting of judicial nominees, where I am sure the subject of constitutional law came up at least once.

This is what we have folks: nothing. We are engaged in a civil war based on this kind of reasoning, by lawyers and legal experts who wouldn’t dare take this as a case to a jury! But blindly these ‘experts’ go forth calling for this debacle.

I’ll leave you with some definitions to ponder (though this is aimed more at those paragons of virtue at Redstate):

Zealot:

a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Fanatic:

A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Extremist:

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

Funny thing here, is I was excoriated at Redstate for not understanding the words I was using! Ain’t that special?

UPDATE:

Michelle Malkin has more on this schism between the base on the chattering class and Pols (via Peace Like A River, who has this post)

Ed Morrissey also has some good thoughts on the subject here.

Definitely read this Lori Byrd post on Miers and ask yourself again why are we being so hard on this person when the real problem is we simply do not know her as well as Bush?