Blogger Conference Call, Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman
I had the good fortune today to participate in a conference call with the great Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman, regarding the Harriet Miers nomination. Here are some quick highlights, and I’ll conclude with some final thoughts.
- Mr. Mehlman opened with a well-deserved congratulations to Patrick Ruffini on coming back to the RNC, a sentiment I completely echo (and thanks, Patrick, for the invite!). Mehlman spoke of his belief that one of the winning factors in 2004 was the more effective use of technology by the Republicans – at one point he said we had been at 2.0 while the Democrats were still on version 1.0. The RNC Chair also said that looking to the future, he thinks there will be a continued strengthening of the nexus between talk radio and blogs.
- Before the questioning began, Chairman Mehlman made a brief statement about Harriet Miers, stressing how she shared the belief he had formed upon joining the VRWC as a Harvard Law student in 1989, when he joined the Federalist Society. That belief was in a judiciary that was strictly constitutionalist in nature, one that did not legislate from the bench. Mehlman said that the judicial philosophy of Bush’s picks was second only to the War in Terror in his support for this President. Thus philosophy was the first selling point.
His second selling point was the character of Miss Miers. Mehlman likened judges who ‘grow’ on the bench to socialites who curry favor with the Georgetown cocktail set; he assured us Miss Miers was not such a person.
The third point stressed by the RNC Chairman was the War on Terror. While conceding that Miss Miers may have to recuse herself from a few cases, he said this was a short-term problem and the GWOT is a generational affair. Mehlman spoke of his disgust that activist judges are micromanaging decisions at, for example, Gitmo, decisions that should be properly made by a branch of government accountable to the electorate, in this case the Executive Branch.
Finally, Mehlman spoke of the qualifications of Miss Miers, emphasizing her resume, as it were.
- On to the questions: Lorie Byrd of PoliPundit fame asked if there was any polling that Mehlman was aware of concerning the attitude of rank-and-file Republicans as opposed to bloggers. Mehlman responded that the only polls he was aware of were the Pew Poll, which showed strong conservative support, and the Gallup Poll that showed support to be weaker, though Mehlman was, as you might expect, dismissive of that result, pointing to the polling dates as a big difference between the two.
Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits, who already has his post-conference call piece up, asked if Ken could give us any assurance that Miers would be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas; Mehlman replied that while there could be no assurances with any nominee, as that would be a call for prejudging, he was confident that Miers shared the philosophy that makes conservatives so fond of Scalia and Thomas.
Eric Pfeiffer of National Review’s The Buzz, who also has a number of conference-call-related comments up, had this as his question:
“Do you believe that those conservatives who have reservations about the Miers nomination will be more comfortable with her qualifications and philosophy after the hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee?”
Chairman Mehlman responded, “Yes, I do. People will be able to hear about her vision. She will be a judge who respects the Constitution. She will have a conservative approach to the bench and I think she will reassure people with her constitutionalist approach.”
I totally struck out on my own question, as I knew I probably would, but at least I gave it the ol’ college try. I asked Mehlman if he could follow up on Scott McClellan’s confirmation today that several potential nominees had withdrawn themselves from consideration prior to the naming of Miers, by either giving us some names or some reasons why. Mehlman responded that those were matters that weren’t shared with the RNC Chairman and that it would not be appropriate for him to comment (note to self: ask a better question next time!).
I missed the fifth question while kicking myself for blowing my question – I’ll see if anyone else has that info and update appropriately, if so.
Gerry Daly of Daly Thoughts asked if there was a long-term strategy for dealing with the fairly effective Democratic tactic of forcing us into sending up nominees that won’t get ‘borked’ because of controversial writings in the past, and whether we could trust Bush on Miers after he flip-flipped on McCain-Feingold. Mehlman said that McCain-Feingold was a different bill by the time it reached the President than the one we all know and hate…and on the first part – goose egg (for me, not Mehlman). My notes do not indicate this response – again, I’ll update later if possible.
The good Captain Ed tried to articulate what he sees as the conservative problem re: Miers: that here we are with a Republican President and Senate, and yet we don’t seem to be rewarding those conservatives with the strongest background and written records of solid conservative principles. Mehlman said that a consistent philosophy was more important than a paper trail, and that Janice Brown, Pryor, etc., were absolutely rewarded with appellate seats.
Good ol’ Prof Bainbridge closed out the call. From his own post:
I get to ask whether Miers’ records on preferences suggests she’ll be more like O’Connor than Scalia or Thomas. Mehlman won’t comment on Miers role, but defends the position the administration took in the Michigan affirmative action litigation. I also comment that Miers needs to be forthcoming at the hearings. Mehlman says she’ll lay out her philosophy, but comport with the judicial code of ethics (which says to me that she’ll pull a Ginsburg and we won’t learn much from the hearings other than how well she can spout platitudes).
Call ends. My mind is unchanged. It was a lot of assurances but not a lot of facts. And facts are what we need.
Well, my own mind was not changed, either…I preferred to wait until the hearings to render a final call and I still do. I did find my support for the nomination strengthening, however. Mehlman was a terrific salesman, as always, and even he said many times, if you’re on the fence, wait for the hearings.
I guess a lot of how you feel about the Miers nomination depends on how much you trust the President. I happen to trust him a hell of a lot. I know others don’t, even many conservatives, at least not on this issue. To the nay-sayers, I can only echo Mehlman: wait for the hearings…
Many thanks to Patrick Ruffini and Ken Mehlman once again. I am grateful for the opportunity, and proud to be in a party that reaches out this way to the blogging community.
UPDATE 3:31 p.m. central: Be sure and read Gerry Daly’s clarifications in the comments, and thanks to Leon H at Red State for the link (and speaking of Red State, our good friend Erick Woods-Erickson remains unimpressed)…and a big thank you to the lovely Mary Katharine Ham and the less lovely but still lovable Instapundit for the links…
UPDATE 2 4:10 p.m central: Thanks also to Lorie Byrd for the link, and for solving the mystery of the missing question; it belonged to Thomas Lifson (but you’ll have to read her post for more)…
Be sure to follow the trackbacks in the comments for lots more good stuff…
Mark,
It was a pleasure being on the call with you. In regards to my first question, Mr. Mehlman’s response was along the lines of “what they do is wrong and the public needs to see that it is wrong,” which really did not answer the question of if there is a long term strategy in place to make that happen.
I was not really satisfied with the answer to the McCain-Feingold question either. Yes, some details in it changed. By and large though it was the same bill with the same constitutional problems. Simply put, I think Bush broke his promise on it, and it is a concern that makes me waver in if I want to just trust Bush on his nominee.
But I do have quite a bit of trust in him in this regard. His previous nominees have been stellar. I abhor the precedent (good God, Lanny Davis or Bernie Nussbaum for SCOTUS?) and I am appalled at the either blindness to or disregard of what the political fallout of the choice was going to be. But I suspect that, if confirmed, I would eventually approve of the job Ms. Miers will do.
Gerry, many thanks…good points here and good questions in the call…
matters that weren’t shared with the RNC Chairman and that it would not be appropriate for him to comment (note to self: ask a better question next time!).
note to mark:
i disagree with you.
damn good question and one that should be addressed/repeated to any and all who purport to speak for/on behalf of the president/RNC.
Well, thanks for the confidence…incidentally, I prefaced my remark by saying I would be doing an imitation of the White House Press Corps, and Mehlman said as long as you’re not Helen Thomas…
[...] More analysis at Decision ‘08 and Ankle Biting Pundits. By: Ian @ 4:56 pm in: Republican News, Blogosphere | Permalink | No Comments » [...]
Conference Call With Ken Mehlman, Bloggers
…
[...] Liveblogging an interview w/ Ken Mehlmen. I was invited to participate but had already committed to carpool a bunch of teenagers to driver’s ed. Thus Motherhood trumps Glory one more time! [...]
Mehlman’s Blogger Conference Call
Decision ‘08 Mark Coffey’s Notes
I had the good fortune today to particate in a conference call with the great Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman, regarding the Harriet Miers nomination. Here are some quick highlights, and I’ll conclude with some fi…
Liveblogging the Ken Mehlman Conference Call
I’ve been invited to participate in a conference call with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and bloggers re the Harriet Miers nomination. I’ll be live blogging as we go along. I’m not a stenographer, so this will be paraphrases, but I’ll
Good for you, Mark, and good for Ken for doing this. Simply making people feel like you’re listening to them (especially if you actually are) goes a long way towards restoring their faith. That’s an old Reagan trick.
I skipped the conference call because, as Ed Morrissey’s “question” points out, it is futile. Like NARAL, PFAW and ACLU, the blog dudes demand “proof” that she will vote their way. That attitude triggers a lot of ill will and bad karma.
Well, Don, I thought the attitude was pretty respectful…even the ones that asked the tough questions seemed apologetic about it (myself included)…plus I’m a big Mehlman fan (and AE, I totally agree – I’ve seen many people who think it didn’t go well – I’m hoping that’s not Mehlman’s opinion, because I’d like to see more of these)…
As for the call not going well, from where I sit the whole premise of the bloggers is to be “counter culture” and the last thing they want is to be assumed into the RNC machine. But this is an indication of respect, which the blogosphere has certainly earned over the last 12 months, and should be taken as such even if no one could get Ken to say things that there was no way he was going to say…
Great question Mark, it is better to have asked and be rebuffed than not to ask. It is a very important angle.
Must have been a real pleasure to be in the inner sanctum. Don’t forget about us ‘little people’!
I don’t know about the ‘inner sanctum’, AJ, though it’s kind of you to say…I just started a little earlier than you, but with the great work you’re doing, you’re moving up fast…
Well, my own mind was not changed, either…I preferred to wait until the hearings to render a final call and I still do. I did find my support for the nomination strengthening, however. Mehlman was a terrific salesman, as always, and even he said many times, if you’re on the fence, wait for the hearings.
I can’t see how Mehlman was such a terrific salesman from your summation. He’s a paid shill. Did anyone actually believe he would say anything other than that Harriet Miers was the bee’s knees? c’mon.
I also can’t believe there was no follow-up on the issue of Miers’ recusal from all the GWOT issues. Even Thomas has problems with some of the things the admin has been doing in the name of protecting us from terrorists.
While conceding that Miss Miers may have to recuse herself from a few cases, he said this was a short-term problem and the GWOT is a generational affair. Mehlman spoke of his disgust that activist judges are micromanaging decisions at, for example, Gitmo, decisions that should be properly made by a branch of government accountable to the electorate, in this case the Executive Branch.
A short term problem? What happens when all the cases she has to recuse from become precedent for the rest of the GWOT cases? You think Judge “Stare Decisis” Roberts is going to be keen on flip-flopping the court after Miers decides she can deal with these issues?
“activist judges” micromanaging gitmo? We’re talking huge constitutional issues here. How is that “micromanaging”? As for accountability to the electorate, George Bush is no longer accountable to the electorate, so that answer doesn’t wash.
bryan, I’m sure my summation does not do justice to Mehlman’s sales abilities…he is quick on his feet, confident, intelligent, and really one of the best of the business. We might kindly concede he didn’t have the best hand to play, but he played it quite well.
As for the issue of no follow-up, I can tell you that time was limited…only eight bloggers had a chance to ask questions, myself among them, and speaking only for myself, I was cognizant of not hogging the time. This was a thirty-minute call (really about 27 minutes or so) and the Q&A was probably 20 minutes. I personally was grateful for the opportunity, and would gladly participate again if asked to…
Mark,
I had good teachers. No, I realy liked the question – it was to a critical point. And it was a demand for something tangible instead of a rehash or talking points. It was good.
The fact Mehlman did not answer indicates it was a good question – one that caused hesitancy.
Probing allies is not easy or fun. Personally, I am like AE in that I would like to stay on the outside somewhat. At a minimum it helps me keep a good ear to the ground relative to what the rest of the non-politically addicted are thinking!
I can see for Miers and Miers
RedState's Erick Erickson reports on yesterday's RNC conference call between Ken Mehlman and a small group of conservative bloggers critical of the Miers nomination (most of whom remain unswayed). Here's the part that caught my eye:[...]…
[...] I’m blessed right now to be riding one of the hot streaks: my post on the RNC conference call and the Mother Sheehan / Mother Mary post are ranked #3 and #5, respectively, at Blogniscient among political posts, and my Weekly Jackass piece on Harold Pinter is getting good play, too. [...]
[...] Patrick Ruffini continues his excellent work at the RNC; I’ve just got off the line of the second blogger conference call he has arranged (you can read about the first one here). This time around, we spoke with former Texas Supreme Court Justice Craig Enoch and RNC Communications Director Jim Dyke. [...]
Anyone notice Mr. Mehlman and other Republicans emphasizing “working together” in Congress? Where were you guys a week ago? A year? FINALLY those a**holes are out of power. Thank God.
Jay, unlike most bloggers on the left, I don’t label those who disagree with me as trolls and ban them…but please keep it clean. My blog, my rules…
[url=http://tramadol-best5.blogspot.com/]tramadol[/url] http://tramadol-best5.blogspot.com/
Dont forget!