Pushing Back
By Leon H Wolf Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Hey, we appreciate the traffic. We appreciate all of the commentary from folks on both sides of Harriet Miers. I think it is fair to say that in addition to being the position of the Directors, the overwhelming consensus among the editors is that Harriet Miers is a HUGE disappointment as a SCOTUS nominee.
Now, you could spend all day on RedState feeding your ulcer. In addition to that, however, you could also help create a grassroots groundswell that will let the party know exactly what they need to do to keep your vote. In that regard, I'd like to humbly offer some help.
Oh, and I normally wouldn't do this, but recommendations are appreciated.
A couple of pointers about political activism. Generally, phone calls are more effective than emails, because they create real-time pressure. Also, you are more likely to get a frank response on the phone than you are via email, which usually just produces a canned response. Also, it's important to share the results of your activism with others. So, whenever you receive feedback of any kind, be sure to come back here and report what you received (return e-mail, comments via staffers on the phone) so that others who are involved can determine where pressure points and swing votes may lie.
You could start by calling the White House switchboard, at (202) 456-1414. Alternately, you could also email them if you are unable to get through on the phone.
As a follow-up, I'd send GOP chair Ken Mehlman an email, or a call at (202) 863-8500. Let him know what effect this disappointing nomination will have on the national party apparatus. If you have contributed in the past, include a link to your FEC report for emphasis. If you need help finding this, send one of us an email.
The key players at this point, however, are the Senators. The capitol switchboard number is (202) 224-3121, and they will direct you to your Senator's office number. If you have GOP Senators, lean on them especially hard. You may also fill out a form emailing your Senator, which you can find here, but I'm wagering that they're dealing with about a week-long backlog right now, and the chance of getting a personal response is rather weak. Phone calls, as usual, are the preferred thing. Having been in and out of Senate offices during the filibuster fight, the telephone has the ability to at the very least harass staffers, who will pass along the message that they have been getting bombarded by GOP folks to the Senator himself. FWIW, Mark Pryor (D-AR)'s office was particularly hot before the filibuster showdown, and he was rather unexpectedly a member of the Gang of 14. You can make a difference.
Good luck, and be sure to report back if you get a response.
UPDATE: Let us suppose, just for a moment, that you are willing to drink the Bush Flavor-Aid and just automatically assume that Miers is, in fact, the second coming of Scalia. I won't drink it with you, but I respect your right to believe as you wish. I'd only point out that this is STILL a horrible nomination, because of the message it sends. The federal court system is filled with dozens and hundreds of judges, all of whom have a desire to move up in stature and pay grade, and for a judge, being on the SCOTUS is the top of the heap. You can pooh-pooh those considerations if you want, but they're real.
By passing over Luttig, Garza, JRB, and Jones, a clear signal has been sent to the lower judges that judges who rule from a strong conservative perspective will not be nominated to the SCOTUS. It goes without saying that such a test is not applied to liberals.
You tell me what kind of incentive that creates for federal court judges at the appellate and trial levels - considering that they hear thousands more cases a year than the SCOTUS does.
Hmmmm.
No objection from me. But any dissent by then might be too late. What happens if the Democrats don't dissent and they go for a quick vote?
Any dissent would then be after the fact, and a new Supreme would be benched with no possibility of removal.
Leon,
Your passion and commitment on the abortion issue is as obvious as it is commendable. As you are among the folks whose moral compass tells them that abortion is murder, I can't imagine how you could feel otherwise. But it sort of makes you a reactionary in the same way Planned Parenthood and NARAL are reactionaries on the other side. That is, if you don't know for sure, your passion seems to drive you to assume, or perhaps dread, that a candidate's views are inconsistent with your own.
But what if the underlying politics aren't what they seem? What if there are a dozen or so Republicans who have sent back-channel messages to the White House that they couldn't support an "obvious" pro-life conservative like Luttig?
Maybe there isn't a solid majority of pro-lifers in the senate. At least not enough of a majority who feel "safe" running after an openly pro-life/anti-Roe vote on the SCOTUS. If this is the case, then a Miers-type pick might have been the only way Bush could get a true pro-lifer into the O'Connor spot.
I'd be curious on your thoughts as to why this isn't at least a possible explanation for the pick.
Explanation for the pick.
It's just as good of an explanation for why I'm wondering about all the hours I've dedicated to Republican activism.
Only Democrats truly believe that all Republicans "want to take away a woman's right to choose".
I think stopping or even slowing abortion in America will always be an uphill battle. Expecting a particular political party to stop it is pretty optimistic.
But still, I'd wait and see. Bush seems pretty pro-life to me. I doubt he'd be cavalier on the issue.
just so you know, you can't say anything about Flavor-Aid or Kool-Aid drinking on this site or someone will accuse you of being a writer for the New York Times like they did me this morning...lol. Nicely done though!
I would gander to say Mr. Bush is pro life, all right. At least for those considered worthy of it. The rest are condemned in this life and the next, with no hope of salvation, so dang the consequences. It's only worth it to save those you feel may be on your side or support your point of view. Those who oppose are a threat and they don't qualify as a life form and thus are worthy to be eradicated in the same fashion as those in the way of tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan today. If only they would shut up and accept our forced will upon them, and let us dictate to them our policies through the puppet rulers we control from across the Atlantic. That's democracy, I'll tell ya. If they oppose, well they aren't life forms either.
Uh-huh. How about focussing on all life and not just trying to control who lives or dies in other women? What about the unborn babies of Christian women in Iraq that are being killed right now? What about Christians in Iraq being killed? Why don't people focus on defending those living people? Isn't it more about control or power over others than it is about morals? Islam is also pro-life. They believe that you are free to not cause harm, so abortion is definitely a no-no. They are free to live in a way that does not cause harm or sin, which covers quite a bit. Why not defend these pro-lifers? There are many faiths in Iraq, some Catholic, some Protestant, some Hindu, many Islam, many more.
What about the soldiers from our coalition who are dying? What about the innocent civilians who are dying? What about that life?
It has to be all the way around, not just your accepted views of lives worthy of salvation
Do your actions allow the continuation of more death on both sides abroad?
Undecided. Will wait until after the hearings. A possible target for phone calls.