Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

RNC Tries to Rally Bloggers Behind Miers

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman held a conference call today with a group of Republican bloggers in yet another attempt to build grassroots support for the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

Mehlman's message, put simply: Harriet Miers does not want to hang out in Georgetown.

The RNC chief repeated an appeal he (and many other Bush administration officials) has made repeatedly over the past few days in defense of Miers: "The president knows this nominee better than any president has ever known any nominee before."

Mehlman insisted that Miers -- unlike Justices David Souter or Anthony Kennedy, who are seen as traitors by conservative ideologues -- will be a true-blue conservative on the bench because of the president's personal relationship with her. Conservatives need not wonder whether Miers wants "to curry favor with the Georgetown cocktail set," added Mehlman.

Mehlman's call was organized by Patrick Ruffini, a blogger who is now directing the RNC's online operations. (Sources close to the committee also suggest that in an attempt to amp up the organization's credibility in the blogosphere, it will cease editing its blog.)

Even as the Mehlman call was going on, however, a six-page memo was being circulated around the conservative community that may further weaken Miers's standing.

Compiled by the National Policy Center, and written by its president, Mark Sutherland, the memo concludes that "current support from the conservative movement can only be based upon blind faith in the president or an attempt to gain favor."

The National Policy Center bills itself as a "policy analysis organization" that does not take sides on partisan issues, according to Sutherland.  Sutherland is employed by Joyce Meyer Ministries. Meyer, a St. Louis-based preacher, was recently ranked by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.

"Because there was no information given to us by the White House, we had to go out and find the information the best way we knew how," explained Sutherland. "This is not designed to say Harriet Miers is a bad nominee."

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 12, 2005; 3:57 PM ET
Categories:  Politics and the Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Al Gore (Again)?
Next: Survey Says: A 2nd Term for Hillary

Comments

Good site

Posted by: Dublin Accommodation | March 22, 2006 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Please, Chris. No more junk about bloggers. If you were a mere blogger, I wouldn't read your stuff. Most bloggers are mindless windbags.

Posted by: White Mule | October 14, 2005 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Is it just me, or are a large number of the people who complain about "liberal activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" just upset because the legislation isn't what THEY agree with?

After all - what was Terry Schaivo? Social conservatives who were just plain IRATE because conservative judges were, in fact, refusing the "legislate from the bench."

Definitely the school of "it's only wrong because I don't agree with it"

And, if we get justices who refuse to "legislate from the bench," doesn't that mean all prior precedents will stand? that means RvW is firmly entrenched in the current interpretation of the Constitution, which means it is the law of the land. Overturning RvW would be, in effect, deciding law, and therefore "legislating from the bench."

The social conservatives need to be open and honest about their TRUE goal - telling everyone in the USofA exactly how to run his or her life. Funny how that's what they accuse liberals of doing, when most of the time, the liberals are simply asking to allow people to live their lives as they see fit, within normal social boundaries.

Posted by: hypocrisy? nahh.. | October 13, 2005 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Why can't the GOP be upfront about all this?

Either a hypnotist has been at work, or GOP operatives have been telling the religious right,in private,that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Hmmm....if they are so sure about the moral superiority of their argument, why don't they just come out and tell it to the American people openly?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 12, 2005 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company