Centerfield

This is a non-story.

In 1989 Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

This is the policy of the entire Republican party. There is no debate or controversy within the republican party about denying gays (or any grouping of citizens at all) the civil rights which every American enjoys. Substitute the word "vegetarians" or "car racing fans" for gays and Miers would have answered exactly the same way.

Creating special, new rights for gays is controversial, but that is not the question Miers addressed.

Interestingly, Time didn't report that in the same 1989 Survey, Mier's stated her opposition to repealing Texas sodomy laws. I guess the reporters at Time didn't feel this was relevant to the idea they put forward that she was in favor of gay rights.

Here's some more from an AP Article:

Asked whether qualified candidates should be denied city employment because they are gay or lesbian, she said, "I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors."

She said Dallas had a responsibility in AIDS education and treatment and that she favored more money being spent in that area "assuming need and resources. I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious total community problem." She underlined "total."

Thanks for the additional info, Susan. I guess we don't want to get into a debate her about gay rights as we are all more than aware of what your stance is here. But, I can't help but make a comment...

I find it curious when language such as "special, new rights" enter the debate. That usually means the individual opposing those "special, new rights" is okay with gays as long as no one knows. Kind of a civilian "Don't ask, don't tell." But, god forbid an employer find out and decide to fire an employee simply because she/he is gay. I suppose opposition to a firing based simply on sexual orientation would fall under those "special, new rights." Right?

Quick question, is it "special, new rights" if I protest my employer firing me because they find out I'm heterosexual? If sexual orientation is not a firing offense for one, why is it for the other?

Susan, those are very good points. It's far from a smoking gun, as you say. But the real question here is, will they stop the "Miers is too liberal" train from leaving the station?

What do you think? We know she's an ex-democrat, which in many peoples minds is going to translate as an ex-liberal, and in the same minds, that dissonates with "once a liberal, always a liberal."

Personally, I take it as a good sign of both heart and sense when someone was liberal in younger days and subsquently had one's views tempered by experience. But does this prevent her from being classed an apostate? IOW, will the facts get in the way of a good story?

I'm not aware of Susan's stance on gay rights. What is it, Susan?

"We know she's an ex-democrat, which in many peoples minds is going to translate as an ex-liberal."

Remember, this is Texas. A lot of right-of-center folks were Democrats in the 80s; Phil Gramm didn't cross the aisle until '81 and one right-of-center Blue Dog, Ralph Hall, finally crossed over last year.

Some folks would like to start a both-ends-against- the-middle movement on Meirs. With Dobson on board, gay-baiting isn't going to hunt. It might get a few hard-core conservatives mad, but it won't translate into no votes from conservative Senators.

I'm a conservative on gay-rights stuff, and I don't have a problem with how she answered the questionaire. The question becomes how we define "equal rights."

With the exception of a faith-based-employer job, where someone could get axed (or not hired) for not following church teachings, I don't see a reason to allow someone to get canned for their sexual preference. Neither did Meirs, who was going to a rather theologically conservative church at the time.

I'm a bit confused about this thread. Are "we" upset that a fight might occur within the Republican Party? Are we upset that GW has nominated someone who is not a right wing idealogue? Is it hard for centrists to accept that there are members of the Republican Party who want to fight the culture wars to the extreme? Isn't that what parties are all about? Likewise, some Democrats will always fight the class wars. I can handle it (and I bet both parties can too)

I can only answer "we" questions after many drinks. My own answers:

No. No. No. Yep. Concensus requires conflict, otherwise it's just steering the cattle to the pen.

Wait a sec...didn't Roberts do some pro bono work for a gay rights group? If so, how is that worse than what Miers did?

Worse? Is that a value judgement I hear? ;-)

Hey, I'm trying to think like a anti-gay rights reactionary here--i.e. with a total lack of logic. ;-)

Maybe Roberts gets a pass because he's a white guy, while Miers is a) a woman who works outside the home and b) a former Dem, which means there are already two strikes against her; this is just the third. At least, that's the closest I can figure it.

Your problem is the word "think." Anti's of any stripe don't think, they react. I'd try to analyze the reaction, but I don't want to crawl into their minds. It's all dark in there, and full of spiderwebs.

Ewwww--you make it sound even scarier than it already is.

Yeah, Tully is good at making the world look so much darker...

The thing is, Miers is going to go through. I think she's going to be more conservative than a lot of people are figuring on this one too. As was already pointed out, she was a Texas Democrat, and then made the big switch. Apparently she's a bit of a "born-again" (I hate that phrase) which is what pushed her farther to the right. I think that she'll be like Scalia was - she'll pass with relatively few protests and she'll move further and further to the right as time passes.

Of course, I'm basing all my judgments on what I've been able to find on her, which, admittedly, isn't as much as I'd like.

I can only answer "we" questions after many drinks.

Don't have too many, otherwise the only answer to the "we" questions will be "whee!"

Woah, sorry, I got off topic on that...

Back to the initial post on gay rights...

I think Susan summed things up nicely, except I'll disagree slightly on a few points.

Not all senators and members of all parties feel that gays should be treated as equals in rights. Those people are in the minority, but they do exist.

Personally, I feel that the biggest conflict on gay marriage is the wording used. When the topic first arose, I said I was in support of gay marriage - I've always associated marriage with the union of two people and it being recognized by the government. I have an ex-girlfriend who was greatly opposed to the idea. Only through our discussions did I realize her reasoning. She was against gay marriage because she saw that as forcing the church to recognize gay unions. I don't know how many other people have similar views in the Republican party, but the polls that I've read state that most Americans support gay civil unions. The wording on this is very amusing to me. Marriage - civil union. Same end result, only one is conducted by a religious head and the other by a judge, but it's enough to really get under someone's skin.

(Yes, I know I made generalizations in this, but I also rambled so... too bad?)

Just trying to get the holiday theme started early, Wes!

(And it's a blatant steal from Chevy Chase's SNL Spock skit...)

She was against gay marriage because she saw that as forcing the church to recognize gay unions.

That's why the best solution, and the one that'll never happen, is that the state only acknowledge the civil contractual component of marriage via civil unions for all. Then each church can have its own set of rules for the things it will and won't sanctify.

The government really shouldn't be in the sanctifying business anyway.

That's the argument I've been trying to make for a while now, BK. Glad someone else saw things the same way I did. It either means that there's hope, or that we both need some serious psychological help...

I can't speak to the psychological help...lol...but my guess is that's the direction you will see the US eventually go. It certainly won't be overnight, but it will be a gradual, unavoidable shift.

I found these remarks by Tony Perkins--the former campaign manager for ex-KKK member David Duke turned head of the Family Research Council--rather interesting. Mr. Perkins declined again on Tuesday to express his support for Ms. Meirs. Ms. Meirs, according to Perkins, supported gays who wanted to serve on public commissions. My, oh my! Involved citizens! We can't let that happen in America! Next thing you know those gays might want to vote.

all this is just a head fake from the right, to make her look more moderate.

Bush is delivering to the base as she's a long term christian evangelist -- her internship with Mel Belli in the 60's probably had something to do with that.

Have you ever tried to get three people to pull a convincing head fake, much less an entire party wing? Any head fakes are coming from the White House, not the wings.

LOL. Yeah, Abel, next thing you know those folks are gonna want to sit at the lunch counter and drink from the same water fountain and everything! Hee hee.

all this is just a head fake from the right, to make her look more moderate.

This hypothesis goes against my personal principle: never attribute to malice or conspiracy that which can be attributed to stupidity. In this case, I think the unhappiness coming from the farther right can be attributed quite simply to the lack of a documented, gold-plated guarantee of complete ideological fealty. Like I said, what was desired was an up-in-the-liberal's-grills, f__k-you, prominent, documented, hardcore, rock-ribbed conservative.

And don't forget the schism between the social conservatives and the pro-business laissez faire (who tend towards true originalism). The former would be well-pleased by someone who spoke well of the constitution but had a record of finding ways to favor social conservatism, especially letting the government sleep with religious groups and views. But the latter are likely to notice the difference between an originalist and someone willing to rule actively to favor socially conservative views.

Miers lack of a bench-sitting track record has BOTH of these groups worried. The polls I have seen cite that the difference in public opinion between Roberts and Miers comes just about exclusively from the right. Liberals have very similar approval numbers for both Roberts and Miers. Conservatives are much more disconcerted by Miers. The numbers bear it out. This is no conspiratorial head fake. The concerns are there on a broad basis across conservatism, as borne out immediately in polls done on Monday and Tuesday. Of course, this doesn't mean the fears of either group will be borne out. Really, this is all about doubt in the absence of the most relevant track record, judicial experience.

Those on the left are of course free to oppose her if their hearts dictate, as long as they keep themselves aware that they lack a senatorial majority. If democrats begin serious opposition to Miers on the basis of a lack of record and forthcomingness, it's likely the GOP will begin floating the specter of a real rock-ribber with a substantial conservative track record. One who would be able to expose the Democrats true basis for opposition, which is ideology. Not that there is anything wrong with that, IMO. I find the notion that this isn't or shouldn't be about ideology mostly pretense.

All the arguments pro and con end up being about which ideology is appropriate. Originalism is an ideology too. Some might say "yabbut its a legal ideology, not a political ideoogy." To which I'd say, "believe that if it makes you feel better. But I have a hard time thinking that an ideology that dictates how the scotus should behave is not a political ideology."

Like I said, what was desired was an up-in-the-liberal's-grills, f__k-you, prominent, documented, hardcore, rock-ribbed conservative.

Yep. All true wingers want in-your-face juvenile triumphalism alla time. I think it's programmed in during the winger initiation rituals, at the same time they disconnect the frontal lobes.

It's not a desire for "in-your-face juvenile triumphalism". It's a desire to get what you voted for and were promised would be delivered.

Republican Presidents, even ones named Bush, have had a bad track record of appointing SCOTUS Justices who were supposed to be "Conservatives" and turned into liberal icons once they got on the bench. THIS President Bush ran on the promise that he would appoint people in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the high bench....it's not jouvenile to expect him to hold to that promise.

He's saying, TRUST ME, she's really the kind of Justice you will want. We're saying.... We've been told that before and look how well that turned out? After Souter and Stevens, there is little tolerance for appointing Justices who's ideology isn't well known.

If that causes a drag out fight, it's unfortunate but worth it. The Dems NEVER hestiate going to the mats over what they want.....why should the GOP. I can understand avoiding a fight over something unimportant or when it's unwinnable....but this is a SCOTUS appointment and the GOP holds both Houses of Congress and the Presidency...if they aren't willing to stand up and fight now....when exactly will they be?

It's not a desire for "in-your-face juvenile triumphalism". It's a desire to get what you voted for and were promised would be delivered.

C'mon now. Be honest. Are you telling me you didn't know what you voted for when you re-elected Bush? It was douche v. turd sandwich. You know what YOU hoped for and wanted, which differs somewhat from what each other person hoped for. (you want an originalist not a socially conservative activist, right?)You're right that there's reason to worry about the performance of stealth nominees, but the past should have taught you to know this was likely to happen again. Not being President, you have the luxury of being all kinds of fired up for a divisive fight over a a well documented staunchly originalist judge. And you as much as admit that you feel you deserve it, that you're entitled to it.

Well, the guy you elected doesn't think that's the way to go, in the face of his judgement of how it would affect his public spport as he tries to further his goals on a variety of issues. Now you don't have to agree with this judgement, or like accepting it. But what else are you going to do? You pretty much have to just take it and tough crap, unless you honestly think Miers being defeated by the right is a good thing.

Please notice that I'm not including all conservatives among those pining for the "f__k-you moment." Since I point this out, you've really got to admit there is a subset of conservatives that dream of a guy like mullah Roy Moore getting appointed, followed by a divisive fight won by conservatives, followed by joyous nose-rubbing. The farther left would do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, of course.

Shhh, guys, you're giving the game away!

Good grief, you don't really think the powers-that-be in the GOP want Roe V. Wade overturned, do you? It's the best recruiting tool out there! If it's gone, what reason do the loyal rank and file have to vote for the elephant? More tax breaks for the upper 1%? Not bloody likely, Toots. ;-)

"But what else are you going to do? You pretty much have to just take it and tough crap, unless you honestly think Miers being defeated by the right is a good thing."

Bk,

It may indeed be douche v. turd sandwich but thinking I have no option but to put up with it is short term thinking. What I (and people like me) can do is stay home next election cycle or vote for a minor party candidate..... yes this will hand a short term victory to the opposition (the greater of 2 evils) but it will also teach our own party an object lesson that it cannot take our support for granted and cannot ignore the agenda we want if it wants to win.

It's like employees threatening to go on strike. In the short term, striking hurts the employee (it hands more business to the competitors of the company that employs you) but it can be the only way to force an employer to take the employees demands seriously. If the employer doesn't actualy believe a strike will ever happen it has no incentive to make any concessions.....if the employer actualy sees a strike happen, they know they've got to do more then just pay lip service to the employees if they want to stay in business.
Right now, it seems the GOP doesn't believe it has to do anything more then pay lip service to a large portion of the people who vote for it....it needs to be disabused of that notion.

But what else are you going to do? You pretty much have to just take it and tough crap, unless you honestly think Miers being defeated by the right is a good thing.

It is quite conceivable for a candidate to be defeated by a combination of the right and the left.

Voters are not helpless, they don't have to "take it". They can contact the president, and ask their senators to support or not support a candidate. A sizable group of regular contributors could even boycott senate campaign funds, it has happened before, that certainly gets their attention.

They can contact the president and ask him to pull the nomination, and substitute another candidate. This has happened in history, it's quick and easy to yank one candidate and throw in another. It is not "juvenile" for voters to expect a president to nominate the type of justice he said would during the campaigns. Perhaps the president didn't anticipate the reaction he got, and may reconsider. Not likely perhaps, but not impossible.

Is it really short-term thinking versus long-term thinking, or is it more like the prisoner's dilemma? The whole point of South Park's douche v. turd sandwich episode is the enduring necessity or holding your noise and voting.

I dunno what the GOP chieftains think about the likelihood that you and your tribe, whoever they may be, will sit out a Presidential election because of Harriet Miers. Or even over a troubling trend of which Miers is only the latest event.

But I put it darn near zero. If an election is forecast to be close, you'll be there, clothespin over nose, not to elect George Bush or Jeb, or whoever, but to stop the other guy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you feel so strongly that you'd just sit aside and let everyone else elect Al Gore, or John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards or Walter Mondale or Mike Dukakis. Maybe you're NOT addicted to the necessity of making the marginally less bad choice. The major parties have been betting on this and winning for some time. They seem to be on to something.Give the grumpy a nod, a smile, and a pat on the rump during the primaries. And they come flying back like the moth to the flame.

"The major parties have been betting on this and winning for some time. They seem to be on to something.Give the grumpy a nod, a smile, and a pat on the rump during the primaries. And they come flying back like the moth to the flame."

BK, true....and they'll keep on betting on it until we the voters decide to do something different. IF they loose the next election cycle because they have a low turnout from the base you can bet that they WILL stand up and take notice.
It's very easly within our power (as voters) to cause that to happen.

I'm willing to live through 4 years of Hillary or Kerry or whatever monstrosity the Dem's put up... if it'll force the GOP to stop taking thier consituancy for granted.

It's only as much of a trap as we allow it to be. Granted, it takes quite a bit of baiting the tiger before the tiger decides to bite. But make no mistake, there IS a line past which if they try to push they'll get punished for it. Miers may just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I'm willing to live through 4 years of Hillary or Kerry or whatever monstrosity the Dem's put up... if it'll force the GOP to stop taking thier consituancy for granted.

Of course you are! And if the eventual outcome you describe were certain, it would be any easy call. But the further this desired outcome slides from certainty.... . IOW, it's all about that giant If... and that's what the parties can bank on.

But make no mistake, there IS a line past which if they try to push they'll get punished for it. Miers may just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I agree on the first point. On the 2nd I have my doubts. mainly because the nature of the conservative objections to Miers are not that she's a known liberal, but that she's insufficiently documented as a conservative. In theory, a "last straw" can be of any additional weight. But my feeling is that in practice, any act that pushes one group from the party will be something more overt. For example, Bush Sr. signing a tax hike, which was a clear heresy.

Voters are not helpless, they don't have to "take it". They can contact the president, and ask their senators to support or not support a candidate. A sizable group of regular contributors could even boycott senate campaign funds, it has happened before, that certainly gets their attention.

Fine Susan, you caught me being glib. Well done. Of course voters can do someting. The question is, will they be sufficiently agitated to do it here? Maybe you're advocating for it, not sure, but if so perhaps because you want something done?If so, your right and your prerogative. Good luck. My guess, and my point, for whoever is missing it, is that I think that Bush has thrown a change-up when everyone was looking for a fastball. My strong suspicion is that this change-up is going to come to rest safely in the catcher's mitt.

I just don't see this nomination as an act sufficiently heretical to galvanize the faithful. Feels more like scattered grumbling to me, YMMV. So when I say "take it," I'm talking about accepting the fact that it's very unlikely that the troops will rally round the cause. I may well be wrong. Perhaps, as you say, Bush is regretting his choice now, and looking for a way out. We'll know soon enough.