Word has it that White House Chief of Staff Andrew
Card is unhappy with the reporting on the vetting process
of SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. The focus of his frustration would
appear to be The American Spectator, the WSJ
OnlineJournal.com’s John Fund, as well as Time and CNN, which all reported the same
thing: that Mr. Card was the “driving force” behind the
nomination.
Conservatives inside the White House who have had a rocky
relationship with Mr. Card — but who say that Mr. Card has
consistently served the President and his interests first and
foremost, and has overall been receptive to conservatives and their
causes — have been ticked off enough about the vetting process to
begin talking. In fact for several weeks, conservatives inside and
outside the White House were complaining that they did not believe
their views were being considered in the selection and vetting
process for the O’Connor seat. Paul Weyrich has
complained, Manuel Miranda has complained, and
conservative staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee have
complained.
In short, there has been a lot of complaining. But we here at
The American Spectator have probably been as fair with the
Miers’s nomination as anyone. We’re on record as saying the
President deserves to make his nominations, that the elitism
arguments are silly and unbecoming of a national party seeking to
broaden its base, and that the debate should be focused on Miers
judicial philosophy and qualifications. R. Emmett Tyrrell,
Jr. has opined
strongly that opposition to Miers has become unprincipled and could
result in Democratic gains or judicial nomination anarchy.
The focus of Mr. Card’s ire are comments reported here, made
by White House staff who claimed that Mr. Card “shouted down”
opposition to Miers in meetings prior to the nomination. Mr. Card
has strongly disputed the story, and other White House sources have
said they have never been in meetings with Card where he raised his
voice. Our sources insist that there was little to no debate
encouraged about the nomination and that the White House chief of
staff was key to driving the process in that way. Again, Mr. Card
has strongly disputed this.
There are always different takes on a story, particularly where
politics and power are concerned, and perhaps this time it has
created an unfair impression of Mr. Card, who has served this White
House selflessly for more than five years in a job that usually
chews up chiefs of staff on a bi-annual basis. Mr. Card was
certainly not the only Presidential aide to recommend and support
the nomination of Harriet Miers, though perhaps he was the highest
ranking. Egos have been bruised, and a nomination that should have
gone smoothly has not.
But at this stage of the nomination process, we feel honor-bound
to step back and to examine whether we have helped or hindered the
conservative cause and the core values that we have fought for over
the years. We feel as though the overall discourse of the debate
has not been particularly helpful in this regard. Ms. Miers
deserves fair consideration. This White House deserves fair
consideration. And that is what we will continue to provide.
You can also follow the Prowler on his rounds day and night
at the new AmSpecBlog.
