Check out John Hawkins’ poll of conservative bloggers on the Miers nomination. Negative sentiment and uncertainty predominate.

Compare with the Washington Times’ survey of Republican senators–nearly half of whom say they, too, remain unconvinced that Harriet Miers is worthy of being confirmed to the Supreme Court.

And read John Fund (go ahead, White House, call him an “elite“) who writes in “Miers Remorse:”

I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary that “while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself.”

But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now–and loudly–because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself…

Another former Miers supporter has changed his mind. This just in from PoliPundit:

Since her nomination was announced, I’ve said that Harriet Miers should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, despite her unexciting qualifications, because she’s a conservative. Information that has come out over the last week has caused me to believe she is not a conservative. So I’m changing my position: Harriet Miers should not be confirmed by the Senate…

…Miers is a documented supporter of “diversity,” a codeword for racial discrimination. She seems to have helped create the White House’s split-the-baby position on this issue in the University of Michigan cases in 2003, that helped keep affirmative action legal.

Harriet Miers is Alberto Gonzales in a dress. I would not support the confirmation of Gonzales; so why should I support the confirmation of Miers?

Some of my fellow contributors at polipundit.com will disagree with me, as is their right. Our disagreements reflect the free-spiritedness of the modern conservative movement.

But those conservatives who disagree with me need to prove that Harriet Miers has demonstrated the sort of prickly independence that keeps, say, a Justice Clarence Thomas, squarely in the conservative camp despite years of liberal pressure. Everything I’ve read and heard about Miers tells me that she does not possess anything like the ability to resist the inevitable pressure to move towards O’Connorism once she’s installed on the Court.

Some will argue that defeating Miers in the Senate would be politically damaging to the GOP. But it would be worse for Miers to be confirmed and become another O’Connor. Miers’ confirmation would be terribly demoralizing to conservatives like me, who donate thousands of hard-earned dollars to Republican candidates every year. We did not help elect a Republican president, and 55 Republican senators, so that we could get another O’Connor on the Court.

Read the whole thing.

***
More non-elite feedback:

From reader Paul Adomshick…

There are some claiming that those of us opposing the Miers nomination are elitists. Not only is the claim simply wrong, it shows that those using the claim aginst us have no good arguments in favor of the nomination and are resorting to name calling. You know your opponents have lost the argument when the best they can do is call you names.

I was one of the grass roots volunteers working my butt off for the President’s reelection. Among those I worked with on the campaign, there was no issue that was more important than appointing the absolute best people to the Supreme Court. Never once did I hear a list of elitist qualifications or anything of the sort. The discussions always centered on picking candidates in whom we could have confidence and fight for.

It feels like I’ve gotten kicked in the teeth, and the guy who kicked me, along with his best buddies, are telling me I’m a jerk for not enjoying it. What’s worse is that I think they actually believe I am a jerk for not enjoying it.

From reader Greg McNinch in Tulsa, OK…

Just imagine the following people being nominated for the Supreme Court:

Lloyd Cutler
David Kendall
Bruce Lindsey
Cheryl Mills
Charles Ruff
Gregory Craig
Lanny Bruer

All of these people are probably as well if not better qualified than Harriett Miers to sit on the court yet Bill Clinton never nominated any of them because there would have been hell to pay over the completely transparent cronyism of nominating one of these people. Now George Bush has nominated his own Charles Ruff with a little David Kendall mixed in, as she is White House Counsel as well as his former personal lawyer. Qualified or not I think this woman is too close to Bush. This would be wrong with any other president and we certainly shouldn’t allow one of our own to get away with it even if we are on the same team. How can we ever argue against Democratic cronyism in the future while this woman is sitting on the court for possible 20 years?

Another issue that has only been mentioned (that I have seen) by Charles Krauthammer is the recusal issue. He believes that she will need to recuse herself from many future questions of interest to the war on terror because of her work on these specific issues while in the executive branch. How many other thorny issues are there that she will need to duck? Seems like Bush wants to put a justice on the bench who has been handicapped by her previous work in the White House. Not too smart in my opinion.

Reader Michael Yore…

Because of the vitriol coming from the Miers supporters aimed at those such as myself who are disappointed with the President’s nomination of Miers, I have decided that I am no longer going to be involved in politics. I was never involved in politics prior to 9/11 because I believed it was a bunch of people who didn’t care about principle, only cared about getting votes and getting elected and getting power. President Bush changed my mind about that in the way he handled 9/11 and the War on Terror. However, over the past few years, after watching the Senate Republicans back down from fights, seeing the President not be more aggressive with domestic issues and hearing Republican/Bush supporters always fall back to the “if you don’t support the Republicans, you will give back power to the Democrats” excuse, I have realized that I was right about politics before.

Politics is not about doing what is best for the country or for the people. It is simply doing what is best for the Party or the politician in order for them to have the power to put forth their ideology … whether it is best for the country or not. This Miers nomination is simply politics.

As a Conservative, I live my life by principle, not by playing politics. If the Miers supporters want me (and other Conservatives like me) back in their camp, they better start to realize this fast.

comments (0)   trackbacks (27)