To the DINOcrat Leadership

A Blank Slate And A Crony
(posted Oct. 3 11:30 PM ET)

Bush, concluding that a right-wing nominee must have hidden views to get on the Supreme Court, followed the Roberts Model and put up Harriet Miers.

Yet the first 24 hours of the Miers nomination didn’t go as smoothly as the Roberts nomination, as elements of the conservative base expressed disappointment.

Does it mean that Miers isn’t as conservative as Roberts? Does it mean liberals should get behind Miers?

No, and No.

With Roberts, you had a nominee that was part of the Reagan Administration and was well known in the Beltway GOP Establishment – and yet, the Bushies still had to stroke the social conservatives far in advance of the nomination to ensure a smooth roll-out.

With Miers, they apparently tried to do similar advance outreach, putting her name out as a trial balloon.

But the base was eager to get an out-of-the-closet conservative, so they pushed hard for someone else.

Part of it is a lack of trust. They want to know for sure that the next judge won’t disappoint them like David Souter did.

The other part is they want to win on the merits. They want to win because the person has a right-wing judicial philosophy, not despite of it.

Because that will grease the path for the next generation of right-wing judges. They don’t want the best and brightest to feel obliged to refrain from writing down their views in order to succeed.

Bush obviously concluded differently, that going for an overt right-winger wasn’t a politically feasible option.

But he had a dearth of candidates like Roberts that lacked a paper trail and were pre-accepted by the base (despite Bush’s best efforts to stroke).

Of course, picking a real moderate judge does not serve the Bush/Rove vision.

They are thinking long-term GOP majority, and they have longed believe they need a strong base to get it.

Kicking the base in the teeth on its number one issue doesn’t help the cause.

Temporary agita? That's more palatable than a serious kick. The base's whining will fade once the judge starts voting on cases.

So he had no choice but to pick a conservative that lacked a paper trail. Miers was one of the few options available that fit the profile.

That just requires some post-nomination stroking so things don’t get totally out of hand.

(The stroking is in full effect, and is starting to work. During Fox News’ 6 PM show, Dr. James Dobson said “The more we know about her and find out about her, the more we are impressed with her” including “things I’m not prepared to talk about here.”)

And that’s why “disappointed base” does not equal “moderate judge.”

And should not equal “Dem support.”

Amazingly, the initial spasm of conservative consternation did to Miers what was not done not to Roberts, give her a bad first 24 hours.

Dems never got their footing against Roberts because they stood down during that critical period, while GOPers spun hard how “brilliant” Roberts was.

With Miers, both sides stood down on the spin war, and the line on Miers is “blank slate” and “crony.”

That “blank slate” frame is exactly what you need to defeat a stealth pick. The “crony” tag helps to drive home the importance of nominees with stellar records, not more of the Bush practice of picking political pals with no experience.

Dems and liberal activists got all that without even trying, despite just confirming a guy who was pretty much a blank slate.

But will they realize the gift that conservatives just gave them?

Doesn’t look like it.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid signaled his support for Miers in advance, for reasons that are not adequately explained.

And some liberals are already assuming that anything that right-wingers whine about must be good for us.

Without leadership at the top, and without energy from the grassroots, we will likely have the same floundering, ineffectual opposition that we saw in the Roberts process – if we have any opposition at all.

Some may say, so what? Miers is probably the best we can do. If we defeat Miers, whoever comes next would have to be worse.

This is faulty, short-sighted logic.

If there’s enough criticism coming from the left and right to sink the nominee (a coalition David Corn suggests putting together), Bush ends up in his weakest political position ever.

If he then feels compelled to pick an overt right-winger to rehab his base, then that pick can be beat with a unified Democratic party backed by public opinion, completely boxing Bush in – unable to get a stealth pick or a overt right-wing pick.

Dems then would have the political leverage to force a real moderate pick.

Of course, it is highly doubtful that there will be enough conservative opposition in the Senate, despite the whining from parts of the base, to block Miers in the first place.

The point is simply that a Miers defeat does not strengthen Bush’s ability to confirm an overt right-winger, so it is not dangerous to make that an ideal goal.

And there is a larger strategic goal as well.

To articulate to the public why this nomination is so important; how our workplaces, our environment and our privacy will be impacted by this one vote; and how Democrats and liberals would do a better job in shaping our judiciary and protecting our rights.

To stand down on Miers, as was done on Roberts, is to fail in explaining to the public what Democrats and liberals stand for.