Posted on 10/07/2005 6:52:34 AM PDT by quidnunc
Off to Phoenix, but before leaving I absorbed Professor Bainbridge's latest, that compares me unfavorably to Eleanor Roosevelt. Perhaps I should not have been so encouraging in his blogging?
But the Professor of the Vines is hardly alone. "Shill," "toady," "kool-aid drinker," and — yes — W's "Joe Conason" — the unkindest cut of all — have all been attributed to me by colleagues on the center-right. Actually, there are even worse descriptions, but I maintain a PG blog. Fine, all around. Let fly, friends, you owe me nothing except your candid opinions. But you might owe the president more.
I submit Disraeli for the defense:
Gentlemen, I am a party man. I believe that, without party, parliamentary government is impossible. I look upon parliamentary government as the noblest government in the world, and certainly the one most suited to England. But without the discipline of political connection, animated by the principle of private honor, I feel certain that a popular assembly would sink before the power or the corruption of a minister. Yet, gentlemen, I am not blind to the faults of party government. It has one great defect. Party has a tendency to warp the intelligence, and there is no minister, however resolved he may be in treating a great public question, who does not find some difficulty in emancipating himself from the traditionary prejudice on which he has long acted. It is, therefore, a great merit in our Constitution, that before a minister introduces a measure to Parliament, he must submit it to an intelligence superior to all party, and entirely free from influences of that character.
There are many persuasive reasons beyond "Party" to support Harriet Miers, but "Party" ought to have at least tempered some of the most strident critics of the nominee. Nothing lasting will be accomplished with SCOTUS unless the GOP remains in power beyond 2008 and 2012. If the current seven veterans linger, and the GOP is crippled because of intra-party quarrels, how will President Hillary's and Vice President Obama's justices rule?
There is a great deal to be said for "Party," including the willingness to accept that the good must not be the enemy of the perfect, and that at least 25% of the time you are going to be disappointed with the Party's decision. There are occasions when you have to leave, and Churchill the younger lived that principle. There are even times when you ought to resign leadership because of principle — Lord Randolph Churchill taught that. (Of course you might end up as Lord Randolph, without the syphilis, that is.) But there is honor in heading for the exits when you can't abide the leadership's consistent pattern of decision making on the most important issues.
The nomination to SCOTUS of a ten-year veteran of George W. Bush's team — a team that has been rock-solid on judicial appointments — is not one of those occasions. No Senator of the Party has stepped down from a Committee Chairmanship. No one has "crossed the aisle." In fact, as far as I can tell, no one has refused a White House invitation. Thousands of words have been written, but no one has said "This far and no farther," which makes me think that opposition to Miers is not that deep.
The debate ought rather to be an occasion for asking "What does the president know that I do not know?" and even, "Has the president earned my trust in this area?" It is easy for some to dismiss Cheney, Rove, Card, Dobson, Colson, Sekulow and many others, but what is the argument for not delaying the assault on Miers until the Administration had enough time to get her writings and bio out? That they didn't think you important enough to brief before the announcement? What is the argument for trashing as "not impressive" her many accomplishments which have many millions of Americans of similar resumes wondering, "What am I, a potted plant?"? The series of posts she has held — Texas Bar president, Dallas City Council, and especially managing partner of a large law firm — all speak to her abilities which disappointment seems to forbid critics from recognizing. There are many hundreds of thousands of GOP faithful who have held similar posts. How wonderful to telegraph to them that their efforts are fine, for a certain class of people.
Some are suspicious of Miers' ABA work:
"Scalia served a brief period between 1981 and 1982 as the chairman of the American Bar Association's section on administrative law and the Conference of Section Chairs."
Others assert that she is not the "best available candidate," a criticism levelled at Clarence Thomas when he was nominated after a very brief tenure on the D.C. Circuit and a half-dozen years in the Reagan Adminsitration.
The critics might be right. I may end up regreting the posts now permanently archived in which I defend the confirmation of this nominee, but that will only be the case if the overall Bush presidency fails, not if Harriet Miers disappoints.
I am confident, however, in arguing that "Party" matters. And that it matters in much more enduring ways than Bush's sunshine supporters ackowledge. To the doubters I recommend Blake's Disraeli. The folks that get it, don't be alarmed by the noise on the right. This, too, will pass.
Update: This doesn't matter? Of course not. She hasn't any law review articles.
Nothing lasting will be accomplished with SCOTUS unless the GOP remains in power beyond 2008 and 2012. If the current seven veterans linger, and the GOP is crippled because of intra-party quarrels, how will President Hillary's and Vice President Obama's justices rule?
Mull that over for a while.
If the ideological Right's Daffy-Duck hysterics succeed in crippling the Bush administration, say goodbye to to the Congress and presidency for at least a decade.
Frankly, there is a subset of the conservative movement which is becoming the mirror image of MoveOn.org.
Bravo! My post from another thread:
I'm amazed how many elitist conservatives, and those who post on the Internet for all to see, have become willing tools of the MSM and the left.
I wanted Janice Rogers Brown. I wanted a big fight. I want Congress to cut spending and I want the borders sealed. I want the Ten Commandments tattooed on Ruth Bader Ginsberg's forehead.
But, I'm not going to bring down the President and the party because these whiners want another conservative intellectual on the court (didn't the President give us Roberts?). He is appeasing his base by providing the reliable vote with Scalia and Thomas; but that's not good enough for some. They want to lose the battle and the war.
They're doing more than airing dirty laundry. They're soiling the nest.
Jeeez another Bush bashbot.
I think Austinite is trying to share his kool aide with Quidunc.
;-)
There is no Republican Party anymore. It is the RINO party now.
By the way, the left shift of the repubs will ensure they do ok without my vote. The Dems are so weak, the rinos have nothing to worry about.
The rino party has made a political calculation and so have I.
If it looks like a rino, grunts like a rino, defecates like a rino, then it is a rino.
No doubt about it. I do understand when folks feel strongly about the court, especially after the savaging of Bork, and I think debate is healthy, but in the end we have to be as one, united against the Dems.
Hewitt nails it. Much of this opposition actually has a lot more to it than just this nomination. It's just reaching the boiling point. The immigration single-issue people have been looking for an excuse and encouragement to openly rebel. Much of this comes from that; they're just piling on.
In other words, we can't have any differences from the President on any issue? There can't be a spirited debate? We have to be the loyal marching millions no matter what?
It seems that our rulers need to be reminded who they work for. For example, they can't seem to find any more fat to trim out of the budget. Apparently the fat is blocking their carotid arteries, and they can't think clearly. Perhaps they should go on disability.
OK, let's have a good nominee, and I'll be happy and willing to "unite". Roberts wouldn't have been my pick, but he was acceptable.
Funny how so many are focused on the past when it's the future we need to worry about.
In what sense are conservatives in power?
LOL!
My opposition to Miers may be a little different than some here. I'm opposed to corporatism, and I think Miers record shows her to be a corporatist. Corporatism is much trickier to reverse than socialism. It has market and "conservative" elements, so it can't accurately be called socialist. Nonetheless, it results in less freedom for individuals and less opportunity for small businesses. Ultimately, it is as oppressive as a Soviet-style regime.
We need another Clarence Thomas on the Court, not a Sophist, willing to make any argument based on who is the highest bidder.
"Hey Hugh: Robust conservatism wins elections"
And extremism loses them.
Like it or not, politics is how things are accomplished in government.
Ideology is all well and good, but nothing gets done without compromise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.