Posted on 10/12/2005 3:09:32 PM PDT by indcons
IT'S BEEN A BAD WEEK for the Bush administration--but, in a way, a not-so-bad week for American conservatism. George W. Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was at best an error, at worst a disaster. There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.
But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
One should add that some of the defenses of the president have been spirited as well--and in fairness to the defenders of the Miers nomination, they really were not given all that much to work with by the White House. Consider this game effort from one former Bush staffer:
Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M's in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M's in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M's were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&M's, and I like sharing."
Do these things matter at all when it comes to her qualifications for being an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court? Yes. They speak to her character. And in matters of justice, matters of character count.
So what now? Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. She has not aspired all of her life or even until very recently to serve on the Supreme Court. And her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington to serve. Would a withdrawal be an embarrassment to the president? Sure. But the embarrassment would fade. Linda Chavez at the beginning of the first term, and Bernard Kerik at the beginning of the second, withdrew their nominations for cabinet positions and there was no lasting effect. In this case, Miers could continue to serve the president as White House counsel. The president's aides would explain that he miscalculated out of loyalty and admiration for her personal qualities. And he could quickly nominate a serious, conservative, and well-qualified candidate for the court vacancy.
Failing that, we are headed towards hearings that will in no way resemble the recent triumph of John Roberts. These hearings will not be easy for Miers, as she will have to at once demonstrate a real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence, reassure conservative constitutionalists, and presumably placate Democrats as well. Conservative senators will for the most part withhold judgment until the hearings are completed. Many have already said as much, leaving open the possibility of a no vote in the event things do not go well. It would be awkward, of course, if a combination of conservative and Democratic votes defeated Miers. But this is a moment where it is more important that conservatives stand for core principles than that they stand with the president.
It may be--we can certainly hope--that Miers will be very impressive and that conservatives can support her in good conscience. But if not, they will be doing a favor to the conservative cause, the Republican party, and--believe it or not--the final three years of the Bush administration by voting no on Miers's confirmation. Conservative congressional opposition to the 1990 budget deal was a key to Republican success in 1994--and the absence of such opposition would not have helped the first President Bush in 1992 anyway. Conservative opposition to Nixon's policy of détente was crucial to laying the groundwork for Ronald Reagan's success in 1980--and didn't appreciably hamper Gerald Ford's already uphill struggle in 1976 in any case. This is a time when loyalty to principle has to trump loyalty to the president.
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?
-William Kristol
From the article: President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?
Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?
He doesn't believe it will, therefore, she will not withdraw.
If Bill Kristol was demanding that I do something, I'd spit in his eye and do the opposite.
This is the same arseclown who wanted McClown for president!
The article posted earlier had a modified title.
ping
Kristol's belittling of the staffer's comment about "character matters" is telling. Character does matter in all positions. Otherwise we would have a computer as a Supreme Court.
OK.
I read the article.
Now can I bash him?
I read it...every word. I won't bash him. I just ignore him. He's still pining away for McLame.
I read it, it's a well written plea from Kristol but he doesn't say much more about moving forward. He seems to think that if Miers withdraws, all will be right in the world and everyone will get on board and support...? I'd like to hear his formula for getting the Senate votes needed to confirm his candidate, ...? Instead I had to read through some story about M&Ms which of course was supposed to prove to us that the White House is desperate. Kristol sounded a little desperate himself and didn't reveal his plan to get a Kristol-approved "REAL" conservative the job he so much wants Miers not to have.
Your rhetoric is the same as those who say they will never vote for the GOP again. It's petty and juvenile.
If Kristol called for the repudiation of some liberal idea or proposal, would you spit in his eye and do the opposite?
I read the article. I trust Bush more than Kristol and I don't trust Bush very much.
I have a theory about this whole thing. Usually Bush does rope a dope when dealing with liberal democrats. It might be possible that conservatives are falling for rope a dope here. (By rope a dope I mean the idea that Bush has benefited from low expectations i.e., when he debated Gore everyone said Gore would cream him but Bush held his own and appeared to win the debate). By constantly criticizing Miers the bar has been so lowered that if Miers gets up there at the senate confirmations and just does an OK job that will so exceed expectations that she will get good reviews even from some conservatives that were critical before. Just a thought!
If we trusted President Bush enough to vote for him, why can we not trust his nomination of Miss Miers? She did not graduate from a Eastern liberal school, so what. She has no judicial experience, you do not have to have experience to be nominated to the Supreme Court. I have come to the conclusion that Republicans are their own worst enemy. The Repubs in the Congress and the Senate are a bunch of wimps. I do not understand where Kristol is coming from.
The only people suffering lasting damage to their respective legacies are those who will not shut up and give the lady a chance, namely:
Bill Kristol
Ann Coulter (whose columns I will no longer read) and
Charles Krauthammer.
I used to respect all three, but the constant moaning and hissing over what amounts to NOTHING is really annoring.
So he makes a couple of good points, I've made good points about the NBA and NFL that does not make me ready to coach. Don't give Kristol, an elitist, too much credit, it breaks down the efforts of true workers for the grass roots party members.
Well....Kristol is a former liberal after all. That said, I agree with him on this article.
Nothing is to be done!
She is the most qualified!
Do not show disloyalty to the President, who the hell are you?!?!
BOHICA!
(sarcasm)
Kristol is now reduced to writing a column congratulating himself?
Hubris, thy name is Kristol.
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.