Posted on 10/10/2005 1:02:41 PM PDT by Checkers
The e-mails are deeply divided and vehement on both sides. Anti-anti-Miers people want me to christen the Coaltion of Robert the Bruce and start naming names, call for the cancellation of various subscriptions, and gather Octavious Lepidus and Anthony for a list-making. The anti-Miers people want the same thing, just with different names attached.
The nomination of Miers is one of three things: a brilliant move by the president; a blunder like Reagan's nominations of Justice O'Connor and Kennedy or the first Bush's of Souter; or a betrayal of the sort that occasions taking leave of the whole project.
Other than those who are easily betrayed --and probably already feeling betrayed because of budget deficits of less than 5% GDP or a failure to put machine guns on the Mexican border-- the GOP voters in the last category are very few indeed. They have disproportionate representation among the conservative punditry.
There are quite a few pundits who feel the president has blundered, some badly. Time will tell, as will other factors such as the number of additional vacancies he gets to fill, and his nominees for those slots.
But only a disingenuous pundit will argue that it is better to lose ground in the elections of 2006 than to maintain or gain grouynd then. And only a self-deceiving individual will argue Hillary-Obama is getting hurt by this intra-party melt-down.
Some elaborate arguments will now be forthcoming on why it really helps the Adminsitration if the nominee is defeated. They will be like the SCOTUS majority's elaborate argument in Casey, Romer, Lawrence and other decisions.
To put it bluntly: There is zero advantage and plenty of harm in defeating Miers, including the very obvious encouragement of the previously fever-swamp argument that Bush was a lame duck. It is also certain that a crucial slice of the evangelical base will perceive in the rejection of Miers a rejection of their status as equal partners in the governing coalition. Even if that slice is small --and it does not appear small to me at this point-- it is strategic.
Concern over the direction of SCOTUS --an issue second only to winning the GWOT-- counsels support of Miers. Even those convinced it is a blunder ought to now turn their attention to the Iraq elections and away from Miers until the hearings are underway.
Not that they will. Only that they should.
I like listening to Hugh Hewitt, but ultimately I don't trust him. Why? His whole approach is that Republicans should abandon much of their conservative principles, so that they can increase their dominance in elections. Which sounds an awful lot like power for power's sake.
Dan
Stop posting reasonable people!
If Hewitt wants to sound reasonable and persuade people, he shouldn't stoop to cheap shots of his own.
I agree.
Harriet Miers deserves hearings and an up/down vote, not rocks thrown by the gang of "Harriet's Harriers."
Exactly correct on Hewitt, and I have an email from www.mullings.com, wherein Rich Galen says that this could be a brilliant move by Bush because it had been determined that having a knock-down-drag-out fight was what the dems were salivating for .. so Bush decided not to let them have their little drama.
I don't know if Rich is right and this could be just another one of the misunderestimations of Bush. But Rich has a good ear for what's really going on in the beltway.
Is Hewitt saying here that among the reasons for supporting Miers is that if she is rejected some evangelicals will stay home at the next election. If so, does that mean those evangelicals get put into the same 'easily betrayed' category that Hewitt applies to the pundits he disagrees with.
I don't see where Mr. Hewitt counsels abandoning conservative principles. You'll be able to wallow in the purity of your principles under President Hillary, I'm sure, but I doubt you'll be able to implement many as policy.
The only way to "win" is for Miers to get confirmed, and beat the odds and actually vote like Clarence Thomas.
I don't see it happening.
I see a Miers defeat and a Miers successful confirmation as both uncomfortable outcomes that may have bad consequences down the road.
The Roberts nomination split the Democrats,
The Miers nomination split the Republicans ...
which was the better nomination?
btt
LOL
We don't know that Harriet Miers is not a Constitutionalist conservative.
Anti-Miers conservatives at FR should read this posting before they continue attacking Miers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts
See, HH agrees with me...
"The only way to "win" is for Miers to get confirmed, and beat the odds and actually vote like Clarence Thomas.
I don't see it happening."
Why not? Where in her record do you see evidence that she won't turn out to be a good judge?
Personally, I admit to serious trepidation at the prospect of any "knock-down-drag-out fight" that relies on the leadership of Senator Frist and is dependent upon the good will and fighting qualities of Senators Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, DeWine, Voinovich, Warner, McCain and Graham.
Which is to say that, if the President chose this moment in history to finesse the fight, it is easy to understand why.
Well .. I don't believe the Meirs nomination has SPLIT the repubs. What it's done is show that the real conservatives of the party are stinking fed up with the RINO's who think they control and run everything.
Any RINO who is running for re-election better be prepared to LOSE. We'll find candidates who will uphold conservative principles and run them against the RINO's.
The gang of 14 does not a SPLIT make.
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.