John Fund and Harriet Miers Innuendo
By Buckland Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Reading the transcript of the Hugh Hewitt Show I was struck over the weekend by John Fund's line of attack on Harriet Miers. He made the statement that she had not been properly vetted before being offered nomination to the Supreme Court and that there would be "6 or 7" surprises coming out because of the improper vetting.
I was struck by the precision of the number. Not "a few", not more than 4, but "6 or 7". That's an interesting estimate of the number of surprises. If she hasn't been vetted properly, how does somebody arrive at such a number? If what will come out is unknown, why 6 or 7? Why not 2 surprises? or 17?In today's Wall Street Journal Fund attempts to justify the comments about lack of vetting, but to me it looks like he begins by talking about what opponents are doing and ends by wading into the fever swamps of dark conspiracies.
The first part of the article spends considerable ink describing how the vetting process failed to anticipate various groups objecting to Miers. His logical construct is that many oppose her therefore she's a bad candidate. I'm not sure I agree with that. Some were going to oppose any nominee for the bench, especially since the initial nominee got such an easy ride. Fund makes a lot of the fact that a group or 2 in Texas may oppose her. Is that one of the 6 or 7 surprises? Texas is a big place.
The real problem is that Fund is mixing the idea of vetting with decision making. The vetting process is there to find out if there are any skeletons that should be known before hand and to get a very general idea on how different groups will react to a nomination. I'm convinced that the political people in the administration knew what the reaction would be. However the decision was made that rivers of angst from the "movement conservatives" would be a reasonable price. Maybe that's the problem, Fund doesn't think getting his feelings hurt constitutes a reasonable price.
Fund then tries to deliver on the surprises. First he mutters darkly about some lady that was fined when both she and Miers were connected to the Texas Lottery. Then he worries about Miers' aide that did part of the vetting -- was it a bad vetting because the aide stood to be promoted? Oh yes, also it was Andy Card's fault, he pushed so hard for Miers that the president couldn't resist.
The final surprises were that both the Vice President Cheney's office and Attorney General Gonzales' office were opposed to the nomination.
I guess overall I was surprised at how poorly this story was done. Maybe I'm letting my prejudices show, because I've made no secret of the fact that I think it's a good nomination. However this story just seemed to be a series of gossip pieces that Fund had picked up here or there -- dark happenings in TX, poor staff work, conspiracy to move Miers past an unintelligent or uncaring president, failure to heed seasoned pros like Cheney and Gonzales (Note: Fund doesn't say that Cheney or Gonzales were opposed, only he heard a rumor that someone in their office opposed).
Fund's conclusion is that the nomination is "increasingly untenable". That's an opinion that's thrown out there with no support. To my knowledge no senator has come out against her, and with both the business community and evangelical leaders behind her mass defection of Republican Senators is increasingly unlikely.
Only 2 pieces of fact can be gleaned from the story: Some people are ticked off that Bush nominated Miers, and the Wall Street Journal is willing to publish rumors and innuendo when they don't like somebody.
There's an old story (truth unknown) that New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael was completely baffled about how Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern: "Nobody I know voted for Nixon". I don't doubt that nobody that John Fund knows is happy about the Miers nomination. Also I don't doubt that the Washington telephones are ablaze with rumors about everything from her law practice to her work the administration to the nomination process to various aspects of her private life. However that doesn't justify his attempt package unfounded gossip as political reporting.
I don't know, Mark I, if at this point the pressure on Miers gets any greater with one more or less editorial. Short of producing a 21st century equivalent of the Federalist Papers, is there anything she could do to convince her detractors in the questionaire answers that she's qualified?
It seems to me that the whole situation has devolved into one side insisting the glass is half full and the other that it's half empty and the problem is that from a given perspective, they're both right and so feel no need to back down or compromise.
But I agree, good post.
I appreciate your skepticism and criticism of Mr. Fund's reporting and arguments. That said, nothing in his article seems factually untrue or false. Shaded, certainly; based on rumor or anonymity, surely; lies or falsehoods - not really. All in all, probably a wash.
BUT - you also comment, "I'm convinced that the political people in the administration knew what the reaction would be."
Really? I've wondered whether that was the case, and would be impressed if they are thinking along lines which are so complicated and dangerous. I just cannot convince myself that is the case. How do you get around the built-in conflicts of the vetting process when the vetter ends up as the selection?
One end point of vetting is to maintain a certain independent aloofness and arguable ability to claim that all aspects were considered. That's lost when the vetting tries to include itself, and results in being the source of the lameness in the "trust him" argument. Independent vetting buttresses the trust. It's absent here.
There had been a considerable number of threats when Alberto Gonzales was mentioned as a candidate. So they had to know that the same groups would go ballistic if his protege (with less judicial experience) was named.
But under this theory this has helped defang the left on this issue. The Ralph Neas groups haven't been heard from since the announcement. It's called acceptable loss.
Maybe, but even so it's hard to believe they figured it would be this bad. Considering the Gonzalez and Clement trial balloons, and a few very light hints about Miers, maybe they just figured there'd be a day or two of surprise and gasping and then we'd all move along.
It's hard to credit them with anticipating both this much venting AND such silence from the left. One or the other, yes, but both is getting into heavy second-guessing.
Then again, it's all set up to make some great lemonade for the hearings.
Maybe she and Bush were lovers. That has to be it.
No? Improperly paid housekeeping staff?
There's gotta be somethin'.
I'm waiting for the Photoshopped pictures...
I linked to this article as well in my diary. My reading of it was not as skeptical as yours. However, you have made some very good arguments here and are helping to keep me in the pro-Miers camp.
I do think, however, that articles such as these increase the pressure on the nominee to demonstrate her capabilities at the hearings and in her answers to the questionnaire.