All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Reporters looking to take the temperature of various power centers for the upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are going to have a pretty easy day today. Unlike the topsy-turvy aftermath of Harriet Miers’ initial announcement – when Democratic leader Harry Reid praised the nomination and some conservative quarters balked immediately – this morning’s announcement was rolled out and received in a much more predictable manner.



Already a flood of reaction has poured into our inboxes from the usual suspects. Planned Parenthood “Opposes Nomination of Judge Alito.” Concerned Women for America “expressed its wholehearted support.” People For the American Way says “President Bush put the demands of his far-right political base above Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections by nominating” Alito.



The President and Alito both spoke early this morning, ensuring coverage on the morning shows and all day today on cable news channels, talk radio and the blogosphere. By noon, we’re likely to have a photo-op of the nominee with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and pictures of them paying tribute to the late Civil Rights legend Rosa Parks, who’s casket sits in the Capitol Rotunda today. You can almost write the evening news stories, chart the talk show circuit and read tomorrow’s headlines already.



It’s all part of the constant campaign, which author Lewis Gould smartly wrote about in a Washington Post “Outlook” essay yesterday:

“There is an old theatrical adage that tragedy is easy, comedy is hard. For politicians, that could be reformulated as: Campaigning is easy, governing is hard. The Bush administration, long disdainful of governance as an exercise for wimps and Democrats, now finds its political and legal troubles mounting while its time-tested campaign mode falters.”

This morning’s Alito rollout suggests the campaign continues.


UPDATED: Blogs react to Alito nomination.

Read full post…

With all the flack President Bush has gotten from conservative pundits on Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court, the Republican National Committee is calling on the blogosphere, where many have made their views known, to generate support for Miers. RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is getting quite a bit of attention from conservative bloggers after holding a conference call on the nomination with them yesterday. ProfessorBainbridge.com blogged the call live, and Hotline On Call’s Marc Ambinder featured his own “instantaneous transcription,” of the call.


While some felt the content of the call was less than satisfying, they were glad to see that the RNC was “clearly tipping his hat to the surging strength of right-of-center blogs,” as Ankle Biting Pundits put it.

Read full post…

Complaints and criticism about the October 2nd edition of “Face the Nation” continue to hit our inbox despite some of our efforts to answer them. So after yesterday’s broadcast, I expected more coming in. Grand total of e-mails thus far – zip.



Here’s why I'm puzzled. What outraged many about last week’s show was the fact that three Republican members of Congress were invited on to discuss problems their party is dealing with, including the indictment of their House leader, Tom DeLay. Host Bob Schieffer’s explanation – he wanted to discuss the “Republican problem” – sent some into spasms of indignation. DeLay’s indictment is, they argued, much more than a “Republican problem,” it’s a national problem.



What upset them most was the lack of someone with an “opposing” viewpoint. It seems the idea that each show must have a “Republican” view and a “Democratic” view has become so embedded as to be a de facto programming law. That’s why the lack of criticism for yesterday’s show is confusing.

Read full post…

While it’s an interesting exercise to try and make a psychological diagnosis of an 11-year old boy speaking Spanish (try to top that, Dr. Frist), it didn’t stop a bunch of bloggers from trying in the wake of yesterday’s “60 Minutes” interview with Elian Gonzalez. You’re free to assign whatever motives you want to Gonzalez or “60 Minutes” correspondent Bob Simon. But you can’t really say the interview isn’t newsworthy.



MSNBC’s David Shuster has some tough words to level at former employer Fox News (Tip: Romenesko).



You know the White House is getting nervous about conservative support when Vice President Cheney shows up on Rush. They may have reason for more jitters after Limbaugh asked questions like this: “The question is: Why do we need to wait ten years? There are people that he could have nominated that we would know about now. Is there is a desire in this White House because of current poll numbers or this Katrina response that just doesn’t want the fight with the Senate Democrats at this time?” (Transcript).



Did anyone really “break” the Harriet Miers news today? Does anyone really care who breaks what is essentially a press release?



Blogger (and frequent PE commenter) Ron Mwangaguhunga (humorously) deconstructs Miers’ beauty secrets.

Read full post…

The reaction continues to pour in from the blogosphere to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, with most of the interesting action and voices coming from the right. At the Weekly Standard, there are a couple different takes.



Bill Kristol says:

I’m disappointed, depressed and demoralized.

… What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?

But fellow Standard scribe Fred Barnes says give the president a chance, reporting that Bush and adviser Karl Rove watched Miers guide the process that produced now-Chief Justice John Roberts. Barnes writes:

The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.



Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.
… Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet.



They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.

Read full post…

President Bush’s nomination of WH Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has received some mixed reaction from the blogosphere. Here’s a brief glimpse of the early takes:



Conservative reaction is not uniform.



NRO’s Bench Memos has a range of conservative reaction, some supportive some cautious.



Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit looks at the mixed conservative reaction to the nomination, adding his take:

Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed.

Captain’s Quarters is confused:

Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor's Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created?



Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

Powerline is more down:

I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.

Read full post…