It’s about President Bush and how a tipping point has been reached with the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Bush has, frankly, bungled an awful lot of stuff, and conservatives have been extremely forgiving of this on the promise that Bush would appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Now that Bush has welshed on that promise, a whole lot of unforgiving is going on. If Bush doesn’t fix matters right quick, he’s in deep trouble.
EXCERPT:
American conservatism is in crisis at the moment because the bizarre Harriet Miers nomination imposed a surreality check on the right, forcing us to consider just how much nonsense we had gone along with for the sake of party discipline.
Where to start? With the LBJ-level spending? The signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, which candidate Bush had denounced as unconstitutional? The race-preferences sellout in the University of Michigan cases?
There was also the cynical use of the federal marriage amendment, which the administration dropped after turning out the social conservative vote in 2004. And grass-roots conservatives cite the president’s intent to liberalize immigration policy with Mexico.
Then there is the Iraq quagmire, which, even if initially a worthy cause, has become a rolling disaster.
On top of this came the Katrina debacle, which further damaged conservatism’s claim to competent governance.
Conservatives, consciously or not, looked the other way for far too long, mostly because we felt it important to back the president in wartime and because nothing was more important to the various tribes of Red State Nation than recapturing the Supreme Court. For the first time in a generation, a conservative Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate made that dream a real possibility.
Whatever else Mr. Bush might fumble, we trusted him to get that right.
Instead, he gave us a crony pick of no extraordinary constitutional expertise or discernible vision, except for love of Our Lord and George W. Bush, and support for racial preferences. This is what we drank the Rovian Kool-Aid for? The Miers selection was no isolated incident, but the tipping point in a series of betrayals.
I’d like to say that I agree with every word in Rod’s piece, though there are two things I don’t.
I, for one, never drank any Rovian Kool-Aid. I’ve been willing to ignore Mr. Bush’s flaws in order to get good Supreme Court nominees, but that’s not the same thing.
I also have to disagree with a specific word in this statement:
Mr. Bush has
alienated both a significant portion of his base and all of his
opposition, so he cannot hope to triangulate his way out of this one.
With his political blood in the water and toothsome challenges making
ever-tighter circles around his presidency, Mr. Bush should give his
mutinous mates a reason to toss him a life preserver.
This is almost entirely correct, but one word is wrong: toothsome. "Toothsome" means "delicious, agreeable, or attractive" (as in "a toothsome dinner" or "a toothsome wench").
Rod means "toothy." Other than that he’s on target.
One thing I definitely agree with is this:
Conservatism
is in an unhappy place now, but the movement is still bristling with
intellectual ferment and ideological confidence and is beginning to
look past the Bush era to new leadership.Truth to tell, Mr. Bush needs conservatives a lot more than conservatives need him.
Darn, tootin’!
Suck it up and fly right, Mr. President! Swallow your peevish pride, can the Miers nomination, give us what you promised, and get back to business!
Conservatives escalate opposition to Miers
Conservative activists intensified their opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers
If the conservatives can rally together around this issue, there is no way that Giuliani or any other “moderate” or pro-abortion Republican will win the nomination in 2008.
And, if the nation truly is trending conservative, as we’d all like to believe, this is a death-toll for Hillary’s candidacy.
I believe you misunderstand Rod’s meaning and that “toothsome” is the word he meant. Used along with “blood in the water” toothsome connotes that he is an agreeable dinner for the (democratic) sharks that are sure to be circling. Thus the need for someone to throw him a life preserver.
Now if only Rod would go on Hugh Hewitt’s show and smack some sense into the leader of the anti-anti-Miers cause.
This is almost entirely correct, but one word is wrong: toothsome.
Used along with “blood in the water” toothsome connotes that [Bush] is an agreeable dinner
No, Jimmy’s right. Dreher said “toothsome challenges making ever-tighter circles around his presidency.” It’s not a reference to Bush being delicious to predators, it’s an adjective describing the predators themselves. It should have been something like “toothy,” not “delicious.”
On the other hand he’s liberated tens of millions of people living in two of the worst tyrannies in history, who are now living under democratic constitutions created by elected representatives that protect religious freedoms, brought a very evil man to justice, brought many more almost-as-evil men to justice, negotiated a peace agreement to end a civil war against Christians in Africa, negotiated the disarmament of two other very evil tyrannies, introduced economic reforms that have resulted in unprecedented economic growth and reduced unemployment, negotiated trade agreements with latin america that will lead to the economic growth there that will be the true solution to illegal immigration over the long term, had the courage to start a discussion about ending a sacred cow civilization-destroying ponzi scheme, did just about everything in his executive power to create the beginnings of a culture of life in America, single-handedly began the reform of the federal judiciary, appointed a brilliant, conservative, originalist, young, devout Catholic Supreme Court Chief Justice, and has now appointed another associate supreme court justice who is a devout Christian, led an effort to reverse the nation’s bar association position on abortion and who is on the record as being pro-life and supporting a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. And there’s still 3 years left.
On top of all that he has the ability to count to 48! The probable number of senators who would vote to confirm a justice who openly and publicly admitted to wanting to reverse Roe v. Wade in front of the senate.
All that and he’s had to endure some of the most diabolical hatred from the left and also from some Catholics in the blogosphere who’d like to blame him for the sins of his father and even one blogger who blames him for killing one half of all Americans via Avian flu.
He hasn’t even been able to escape being called names on this blog.
Oh, I also forgot he increased by about 10 times the amount of aid America gave to fight AIDS in Africa, vastly more than all the other industrialized nations combined.
Billy,
GWB has done some good things too, but right now, the negatives, and there are many, are beginning to stick out.
The latest article in the Washington Post today might be the final straw for her nomination. It’s pretty hard to pretend she is a judicial originalist any longer after reading those comments. When Kate Michelman and Susan Estrich start defending Miers, that should be a gigantic red warning flag for conservatives.
What Bush seems to have lost sight of is that half the country was going to hate him no matter what he did.
In trying to please everyone, he lost even what he had (the support of those who elected him).
People can respect strength, even in their enemies. When he spoke and acted boldly, alot of the people in the middle went along with him.
The first and most important job of the president is to inspire people. Ronald Reagan knew that. GW seemed to understand it at one time. He has squandered his bully pulpit, though.
I would still vote for him, if I had it to do over. He’s remains right on Iraq, even if some who supported going there have gone all wobbly.
He’s at least a mixed bag, where Gore & Co. would have been an unmitigated disaster.
“He’s at least a mixed bag, where Gore & Co. would have been an unmitigated disaster.”
In other words, GWB has been a mitigated disaster?
No, Seamus, just a squandered opportunity.
Call that a disaster, if you want.
I’m just pointing out that things could be far worse, IMO.
And I DO prefer my disasters mitigated.
The latest article in the Washington Post today might be the final straw for her nomination.
Dave, your right. I’ve just read the Post article and have just about changed my mind pending a reading of the full transcript of her speech.
Although I don’t see how this reconciles with her support for a human life amendment, unless she has some sort of split personality.
Luckily, I don’t see how she could possibly refuse to answer questions before the senate regarding this speech and also the previously discovered pro-life statement. Any refusal to answer would be reason enough to vote no on confirmation.
Although I don’t see how this reconciles with her support for a human life amendment, unless she has some sort of split personality.
When she sent back the pro-life questionnaire, she was running for political office as a conservative in a conservative city. I think political exigencies are enough to explain it, especially considering the paucity of other evidence as to her being pro-life (like church attendance and paying the minimum to attend a pro-life dinner once). Choosing between the quesionnaire filled out while running for office and the speech given while not running for office, I give the speech more weight, especially since it is at a later date after the election of Bill Clinton and after the Casey decision. At best, she plays to the crowd she’s with and that is a very bad thing for a prospective justice to do.
Before reading that article, I thought she was probably O’Connor II with fewer qualifications. Now I think she’s as likely to turn out to be Harry Blackmun in a dress, both in terms of mediocrity and in terms of judicial philosophy.
I think political exigencies are enough to explain it
But her efforts to reverse the ABA’s position on abortion doesn’t seem to have had any personal benefits.
I think political exigencies are enough to explain it
But then how do we explain her efforts to reverse the ABA’s position on abortion?
I think political exigencies are enough to explain it
But then how do we explain her efforts to reverse the ABA’s position on abortion?
Woah, sorry about that. Typepad was acting really strange there for a second.
But then how do we explain her efforts to reverse the ABA’s position on abortion?
She didn’t fight to reverse the ABA’s position, merely to devolve the decision to the rank and file rather than the muckety-mucks of the ABA.