The Daily Queeg-Mier at politburo diktat 2.0

The Daily Queeg-Mier

Let’s start with Captain Ed, writing about Laura Bush’s “possible sexism” comment (or mis-quote, if you prefer).

Given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. … This kind of argument we expect from the Barbara Boxers and the Ted Kennedys, not from a Republican White House. It’s enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.

That’s not some RINO-ish Commie writing that. That is Captain Ed, a loyal “Dogface” if there ever was one. Does anyone at the White House read his blog? Someone should.

NYTimes: In what used to be known as the ‘real world,’ i.e, outside the blogosphere, GOP lawyers & staffers on the Judiciary Committee are not happy:

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.

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

I may be way out of my depth here, but doesn’t it seem likely that the safest way for a GOP Senator to send a message to the White House (on a matter like this) wouldbe to let a staffer speak off-the-record to the Times. There are a lot of kabuki dances in these things. I just don’t see why else half a dozen GOP staffers would suddenly be bitching & moaning to a Times reporter.

Paul Deignan is polling bloggers on the Miers’ nomination.

Rich Lowry on “Hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions”

Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand. The White House and its allies have long argued that it is wrong to bring a judicial nominee’s faith into the discussion about his merits, and any attempt to do so amounts to religious bigotry. When it was suggested that John Roberts’s Catholic faith might be an area for inquiry in his confirmation, White House allies recoiled in horror.

Hubris at INDC summarizes Dobson’s distinction without a difference.

Leopold Stotch at OTB:

Now we have the nomination of Harriet Miers, a woman who by any account has no credentials to sit on the highest court in the land. And what are we told? “Trust me.” We conservatives, libertarians, and populists have been assured that this is a woman of faith who will vote correctly on abortion, a conservative who will vote correctly on issues of marriage and family, and a woman of tradition who will vote correctly on issues broadly defined as values issues. In other words, her judicial philosophy is an outcome-based philosophy, under which she will use her correct and superior values, and decide cases in the right way. Funny, but this used to be called judicial activism — something conservatives have been railing against for at least 50 years. Yet the “party of ideas” is now all about judicial activism, because they think it has turned in their favor.

The ship has just run over its tow line, while the Captain dresses down one of the crew.