Yes, it's infinitely frustrating that the debate is WITHIN the GOP, rather than contra the Dems. An interesting piece by David Broder suggests that this fight, in some form, was inevitable: "A valuable historical perspective on all this came from Stephen Skowronek of Yale University in a talk to the American Political Science Association just before Labor Day. At the time, it seemed a bold -- even questionable -- thesis. Now it looks prescient.
"Skowronek, a presidential scholar, defined Bush as "an orthodox innovator," meaning someone who inherits a governing doctrine from others -- in his case, Ronald Reagan -- but applies it in different circumstances and with different techniques....
"Skowronek said that historically what leads to ultimate failure for orthodox innovator presidents is "sectarian infighting." They fail, he said, not because the political opposition becomes so strong but because their own supporters fall out among themselves -- some insisting on the original orthodoxy of the inherited philosophy, others demanding more change to adapt to the new conditions." The rest is at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701700.html.
So what do we do to get back on track?
There is nothing wrong about the heated debate hear at FR. It happens all the time. People who post here are activists. It is natural for them to vent their frustrations at this Forum. Where else can they have an opportunity to do that. It gives them a chance to voice their own opinions unvarnished by the spin of the MSM, bloviating columnists, politicians of every stripe and even other Freepers. We do not think like liberals, who promote group think in the guise of multiculturalism. We conservatives can think for ourselves, as you can readily see on this forum day after day.
We do not need to get back on track. We are already on it.
I think the debate here should be straightforward, instead of worrying about whether her law firm's PAC donated to Hillary or whether her church is pro-life.
The first and most fundamental question is, do we need a seasoned conservative jurist with decades of experience? Or is there merit to the argument that the Constitution is over-analyzed and we need some folks from outside the jurist caste to breathe some basic sensibility back into decisions (such as demanding that interstate commerce involve both commerce and interstate movement).
If someone decides that yes, only a jurist will suffice, then the debate is over at that point for that person.
The second question is, having decided that key point, could Bush have even nominated a constructionist conservative with a documented track record and gotten them confirmed in today's Senate environment? Or is a stealth candidate necessary?
Third, could Bush have nominated a male nominee given that some RINOs wanted a female nominee to replace O'Conner? If he could not have gotten a male nominee confirmed, then that eliminates Luttig, et al.
And fourth, if we get this far, does Miers have the experience and temperment to be a suitable alternative to the jurist caste, if there is agreement that such a person is viable? That is where the hearings will come into play.
I think if everyone focused on those four questions, we could eliminate a lot of the current bickering and have a better debate.