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.
I will be happy when the contrived, cheezy "jump the shark" phrase is dumped. It sounds made up and pushed into the threads so someone can claim they coined it.
Just my opinion. And I vainly state it here.
Mr. Hewitt is right, but not in the way he intends. He might well ask himself, "What has the GOP done to keep themselves in power beyond 2008?"
The "Right's Daffy-Duck hysterics," as you so charmingly (if inaccurately) put it, will not cripple the administration or lose the Congress. But George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress will succeed in doing just that if they continue to thumb their noses at the conservative base who put them there.
Yes, George W. Bush is a fine man, and he has done some great things as president: his bold conduct of the war, his tax cuts, and his previous judicial appointments come to mind. But against that we must acknowlege that he has presided over an expansion of the size and scope of the Federal government. Campaign finance reform, prescription drug benefits, de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and GOP pork have many conservatives asking, which is the party of Big Government?
Some in the GOP may contend that the conservatives have nowhere to go: They won't pull the lever for a Democrat. True enough. But not all of them are "Party Men" as Hewitt declares themselves to be. They can hurt the GOP merely by staying home.
Here's the thing: I don't think Bush is compromising by picking Miers. He's giving the court a solid conservative vote to support Thomas & Scalia. Let Roberts be the intellectual voice.
Thomas never says anything. He just votes..right.
He may not speak much in the courtroom. But he communicates quite effectively where it counts—in his written opinions.
As .cnI redruM points out, the phrase "jump the shark" comes from the episode on "Happy Days" where the Fonze on water skis jumped a shark.
That episode is generally considered the point at which "Happy Days" began its descent into oblivion.
If the RATS attempt to Bork Miers the Right will become united. I'm still waiting for RAT talking points to come out (and they will).
Agreed.
Absolutely. But you are preaching to the choir here. Most of us would love to see a united front against the Democrats. Instead, we are told not to expect much of the Republicans in the Senate because of a small group (perhaps half a dozen, give or take a couple) of left-leaning "Republicans in Name Only" who threaten to side with the Democrats on controversial issues.
LOL, no way do the Democrats let this one get away. They are yukking it up, big time.
Why should Conservatives support a nominee who stated yesterday that her favorite SC justice was Warren Burger? Hewitt and the Bushbots are going to get what they deserve, good and hard. The problem is: the rest of us are going to get the same thing.
We can say goodbye to national security as well.
There is no Conservative movement. By its very nature, a Conservative tends to stay put.
Oh good grief, no. How about constructive criticism? How about REASONED debate? How about keeping the raw emotionalism out of it? How about learning the facts BEFORE you leap to wild conclusions? How about ignoring rumor and innuendo? And finally, when someone presents information about, say, Ms. Miers that reflects positively on her, NOT dismissing it out of hand because it does not fit your prematurely formed opinion?
And that's for starters.
Oh, and one more thing. That ridiculous question sounds too much like the, "How dare you question my patriotism" canard.
While I agree with this, I think it's fair to point out that Bush's weakness vis-a-vis the Senate is due to the RINOs, not the conservatives. Bush had to "go stealth" because there are too few -- NOT too many -- conservatives in the Senate.
I think all of us, on both sides of the Miers nomination, should keep this first and foremost in our minds the next time a conservative challenges one of our incumbent RINOs during primary season.
How about not accusing me or others of doing things we haven't done... um, for starters?
>>"How dare you question my patriotism" canard.
LOL...I say, please go ahead and question my patriotism. Please do.
The party promises the moon, it snubs them and betrays them, then it tries to calm them with pleas of the need to keep the marriage together. They calm down and renew their vows. Months later, the party holds out the promises again. The cycle repeats itself.
We have been abused too often. There have been too many promises. The intervention we are having is necessary and good.
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.