|
|
October 9, 2005Captain Ed in WaPo on MiersEd Morrissey has a nice feature in today’s Washington Post A fun and troubling read. It’s fun because in his analysis, Ed has managed to break down the Miers Melee into three distinct groups, characterized as warriors: The Loyalist Army, The Rebel Alliance, and The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. It’s troubling because, well, conservatives are now broken into three groups. And I fear some of the estrangements may be rather serious, not because people have disagreed, but because so much of the disagreement has become so disrespectful. I must say, it has certainly been a very disturbing and unsettling week. As a “Loyalist”I have read pretty much everything being said out there by the “Rebel Alliance” and just as they are unconvinced by anything the “Loyalists” have to say, I remain unconvinced that this nomination is the end of the world, and still believe that a great deal of ego is behind some - not all, but some - of this vehemence. The clue to that - to the egotistical component - is that so many folks are not merely disagreeing, but flaming each other, that formerly friendly conservatives are now not merely viewing each other as worthy opponents in debate, but as suspicious and untrustworthy “thems” who should just shut up. This is very troubling. And I don’t know if I fully fault Bush for “splitting” this group. Some of this split has an element of (I am sorry to say it) elitist dismissiveness to it. Those of us who are dissenting and do not have Hugh Hewitt’s White House and Law School pedigree are being swatted away like annoying flies who really have no business opining at all - which means that any deepening of this rupture is the fault of the very creatures who are blaming it on Bush, as they seem blithely unaware of the damage done by their own overt lack of respect for “red state commoners” who disagree. We commoners expect insulting condescension from folks on the left who, in their “tolerant” sophistication, openly disdain the hicks. It has been an unpleasant surprise to see that same disdain from some on the right. Disagreement does not have to be humorless and ill-natured, but unfortunately, too many mouths in this fight have gone grim and lost their grins. That is almost never productive. That said…the day President Bush named Miers as his nominee, I (with a grin) said it was a rope-a-dope. Actually, I got so flamed for it, I said it twice conceding that some of the “Rebel” concerns were not unfair. Having said that - “Rope-a-dope,” I say, still. I had thought President Bush had only the Democrats in his site, but after reading Robert Novak’s and Thomas Sowell’s assertions that the GOP told Bush they would not fight for the Owen or the Luttig, or the Rogers Brown, (which is not difficult to believe, considering the GOP agreed in advance not to ask Gov. Kathleen Blanco any questions about how her administration handled Hurricane Katrina) I wonder if Bush didn’t take a look at Harry Reid’s list and see Harriet’s name (probably included, btw, as a disrespectful lark) and think…”okay…you “gang-of-14″ heros and you moderates don’t want to fight? I’ll bring old Harriet into this. Then, when Stevens steps down, and I try to name Luttig, let me see you say you will not fight…” If that was his game, it may all backfire on him as the “Rebels” are not to be placated - they want what they want, when they want it, not later - but I am convinced that if they insist on the withdrawal of this nominee on the threat of war, they will in the end be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. By sneering at Bush and insisting he give up his right to his own nominee, that he humiliate himself by bowing before them and doing only their bidding, they will have weakened him irreparably. Try to get a Luttig or an Owen through if the GOP Senate is still spineless and unwilling to fight, and the Democrats have seen Bush unsupported and “cave-able.” It won’t work. I think Miers is a punching bag meant to strengthen the backs and spines of the GOP, in order to get ready for a big match. I don’t think Bush, managing things from the corner, expected his trainers to take the sparring to a TKO level. If they knock her out, the GOP Senate will not have been strengthened - they will continue to cower and duck and bobble and weave - but everyone else will have been weakened; the president, the next “acceptable” nominee, the conservative pundits who have sneered at their own audience, the conservative movement as a whole…and ultimately the nation. The only ones who will walk away unscathed will be the Democrats. But…as I say, what do I know? Unlike Ann “When-you’ve-got-a-conservative-ivy-leaguer-you’ve-really-got-something” Coulter, I’ve been wrong before. I wonder if she’s read much Chesterton. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/09/captain-ed-in-wapo-on-miers/trackback/ 22 Responses to “Captain Ed in WaPo on Miers” |
October 9th, 2005 at 3:23 am
Bush has doled out plenty of jobs to cronies, which I guess is a common thing in politics. But, to go as far as the Supreme Court, that’s his unique type of arrogance.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:23 am
Just because President Bush has named someone he knows well and trusts to the SCOTUS DOESN’T make Miss Miers a “crony”–someone who gets her position on the friendship alone.
There’s an old adage: least said, soonest mended. Instead of fighting over WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, let’s look ahead to achieve the next goal.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:38 am
What troubles me about the Miers nomination isn’t Miers; it’s the lost opportunity for the public fight we need over Constitutional principles. I just hope it hasn’t been lost for good.
October 9th, 2005 at 8:48 am
I agree w/Anchoress, which peeves our friend Spudly to no end, BTW :).
i’m so glad to be a hick, to watch the smart people hit below the belt. When it’s all said and done, we’ll still live to fight for a noble SC Justice. Myabe Miers is the one to win, but I doubt it.
I had made a comment about the elite attitudes of those who brush off the *Loyalist* commentators. When they tell you, A, that you haven’t been Conservative long enough to have any opinion… that’s elitist as all get out and sucks, IMhumbleO. It’s hard to admit that ranking system exists in the Republican party, but it’s always been there. Do you know many redneck Republicans… those who only want to keep their guns in the back window of their pickups? I certainly do. I wonder how kind elitists are to us?
October 9th, 2005 at 9:57 am
I guess, Karen, that I’m a “redneck Republican” although I don’t keep my rifle in the car these days. I have to drive my kids to school every day and there’s that no guns within 1000 ft rule. (Which is ridiculous, btw. How many school shooters wouldn’t do it if they thought Mr. Jones had a concealed carry permit because they know all about that 6 pointer he got last deer season?) I don’t care if the “elite” are kind to me, but it does bother me to see them acting like this over someone the President has seen at work and believes is qualified. Just because they haven’t seen it themselves, doesn’t make it untrue. I believe the Resurrection happened, even though I didn’t see the Christ with my own eyes afterward. I believe that President Bush takes his oath to protect and defend the country and the constitution seriously, because he’s been taking it seriously for four and a half years now. He’s not a small government conservative, but the “elite” knew that and elected him anyway.
Okay, that’s my rant for the day…I agree with the Anchoress (as usual), that waiting to see will be the best thing. I am encouraged by the fact that I haven’t seen very many Senators engaging in this war. They are the ones that Harriet Miers has to convince that she is the right pick. I’m still praying for Wisdom for them …and for the fighting to stop. It’s giving me a headache.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Bush is the first to send up a friend to SCOTUS? Hardly. JFK nominated his old Navy pal Byron White, if I recall. And he wasn’t a jurist either. I assure you that’s not the only instance, but I’m too lazy to bolster my case. Bill Clinton did consider sending up Bruce Babbitt before Breyer. Maybe you can now sing his praises for showing restraint.
Harriet Miers is qualified and Bush knows her well. We had many a sitting Justice who was not as qualified. One side benefit from Bush nominating Roberts and Miers might be further retirements on the Court. Some were planning to stay if hard-line Conservatives were put up.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:53 am
There is a reason that I start each day’s blogsearch with Captain Ed and end it here at your site. Both of you have justified that faith with your posts today.
BTW, when I eata meal, I always save a forkful of my favorite item for last.
October 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Two conservatives, three opinions.
Your remark that “formerly friendly conservatives are now not merely viewing each other as worthy opponents in debate, but as suspicious and untrustworthy “thems” who should just shut up” is accurate.
Like the left, there is a litmus test- with each group saying “my way or the highway,” which in effect, leaves for little loyalty from voters. The nation understands the need for consesus, that very attribute that serves us well in our day to day life. Self serving ideologues do not. In fact, consesus is the one thing they cannot abide- it removes from them the mantle of superiority.
Conservatives have proved to be no better than their adversaries at politics- or in the morality that shows they really do care about the people of this nation.
October 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
The other serious issue to confront in the midst of all this is what the people outside think about us with all of this happening.
‘
Not good, guys. Not good.
October 9th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
[...] And here’s The Anchoress on the right’s troubling elitism over the Meirs nod. And I don’t know if I fully fault Bush for “splitting” this group. Some of this split has an element of (I am sorry to say it) elitist dismissiveness to it. Those of us who are dissenting and do not have Hugh Hewitt’s White House and Law School pedigree are being swatted away like annoying flies who really have no business opining at all - which means that any deepening of this rupture is the fault of the very creatures who are blaming it on Bush, as they seem blithely unaware of the damage done by their own overt lack of respect for “red state commoners” who disagree. [...]
October 9th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
I am concerned about the amount of infighting among the Loyalists (where I am, along with Anchoress), the Rebel Alliance, and the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces, but as I indicated in http://donsingleton.blogspot.com/2005/10/bigger-than-miers.html there is, IMHO, a much biger problem facing the Right side of the Blogosphere, and regardless of whether Miers is approved or not, and whatever happens in the situation I think is Bigger than Miers, we need to pull the right side of the blogosphere back together by the 2006 elections, and definitely well before 2008.
Whether you like Miers as a nominee, or would have preferred someone else, I can guarantee you will not like any nominee from Hillary, and should she get in we need to make certain the Republicans in the Senate develop a backbone, and if some are incapable, we need to elect better ones in 2006 and 2008
October 9th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
I’m not sure there’s muhc cuase for concern that Republicans (and those who support them right now) are split into such groups. Republicans - or at least folks on the right - have always been splits into such groups on various matters.
I believe it’s a serious point of strength that the right can have groups like that and still manage to defeat the left in detail in election after election. Our “side” is where ideas are rigorously debated, where everyone who can intellectually defend their point of view is welcome to speak, and where you can still be part of the family whether you win or lose a debate.
Those who have decided that “shut up and take what the President gives you” will be the whole of their argument on the Miers nomination deserve every bit of scorn we can heap upon them. That is the hallmark of the left, where only the monolithic holds sway and where no dissent is ever allowed, on penalty of eternal banishment and verbal feces-slinging.
I admit that this nomination may well fracture the right for an election cycle. I’m perfectly happy to do that if it means that the right returns stronger and more resolved to integrity and the core principles the right has championed for decades. I’m more than willing to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for four years if it means that we spend that time remembering what it is we really stand for on the right.
I think we’ve forgotten much in the past five years and perhaps we need a reminder.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:07 am
I’m perfectly happy to do that if it means that the right returns stronger and more resolved to integrity and the core principles the right has championed for decades. I’m more than willing to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for four years if it means that we spend that time remembering what it is we really stand for on the right.
I recall hearing exactly those sentiments from the right in 1992 - except at the time I was a liberal democrat and it was music to my ears…just as it undoubtedly is music to the left’s ears today.
‘
I am not willing to cede even four years, even one year to Hillary and Bill Clinton. I am convinced that if they get back into the WH and move “their people” back into position - this time with a press that adores them and will do their bidding unquestionably - the presidency and the country will never be the same again.
‘
And more and more, when I hear this sort of rhetoric, I think Miers cannot come CLOSE to doing the damage to this country that such a mindset can do.
October 10th, 2005 at 5:06 am
The Miers’ Supreme Court Nomination Controversy
Edward Morrissey (Captain’s Quarters), writes a guest editorial for the Washinton Post about the storm unleashed by the Miers nomination. “Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any …
October 10th, 2005 at 10:43 am
I agree Anchoress. And this is dangerous. Now, the lefty talk shows like Meet the Press are having conservatives on to contribute to the Bush bashing they always engage in. Kate O’Beirne (sp?) would not defend Bush over anything discussed Sunday even when it wasn’t about the nomination. After all he’s been subjected to over the last nearly 5 years, to have his own supporters join in now must be so demoralizing. Just what we need, a demoralized Commander in Chief during a war. They must all be so proud.
October 10th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Electing a Democrat is cutting off your nose to teach your face a lesson. Do you know how much damage was done during the Clinton years? Damage hard to spot. Thousands of Leftist “true believers” hired throughout government. Employees that can’t be gotten rid of due to Civil Service rules. Employees that work at counterpurposes with Administration goals and strategies. Only a few top people(2 or 3) in every department and agency are allowed to be changed by an incoming Administration–the rest stay. To illustrate what that means, consider what happened when the Administration was pushing for the final UN resolution against Saddam, authorizing action. Some State Dept. personnel were actually going out and speaking against it. One quote I heard was “I’m supposed to present our Administration’s case to you and get you to go along, but quite frankly, I don’t see why anyone would.” It got so bad that several ambassadors contacted Newt Gingrich informally(believing he would let the President know) to state what was going on–you may remember that in the news, although it was totally misreported. The two Presidents in office during the largest number of retirements throughout government just happened to be Carter and Clinton–by happenstance. The Nation will have to suffer twenty years of their “service.” Then we have Federal Judges at all levels….and other factors to numerous to mention here.
Until the Democrat Party truly divorces itself from the Left and returns to sanity, save your lessons for them. If you can’t bring yourself to vote for Republicans, vote against the Democrats.
October 10th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
“And more and more, when I hear this sort of rhetoric, I think Miers cannot come CLOSE to doing the damage to this country that such a mindset can do. ”
Well, what, exactly, have we gained here in America with five years of Republicans in charge? We don’t have a smaller government - in fact, our government now (even taking away homeland security spending) is larger than Bill Clinton ever dreamed it could be. We haven’t managed to decrease entitlement programs - in fact we added a brand new one that’s going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. We haven’t managed to get the Federal Government out of our schools - in fact, thanks to an ever-so-clever compromise with Ted Kennedy, the Feds are now more involved in our local schools than they ever have. We haven’t struck a death-blow to affirmative action quotas - in fact this President fought against conservatives in the Michigan Law School case. We haven’t managed to get more control into the hands of state governments - in fact the President is seriously contemplating using the military to run disaster scenes no matter what the local or state government thinks about it.
So what, exactly, have conservative-minded folks managed to gain from having the Republicans in charge? We have tax cuts (which last just until the squishy moderates feel a little heat over them) and we have a War on Terror that, domestically, is starting to look less like a vigilant fight against killers and more like another reason to build a monolithic bureaucracy that does very little protecting but shows a lot of tenderness and understanding for “diversity”.
What I’m saying here is not that Republicans need to be cast out simply for the casting, but that they need to understand very well why they’re in power in the first place. We out here put those legislators in place to do very certain things - shrink the government, get the Feds out of our lives as much as possible, create a lean, mean Homeland Security, and to nominate judges who are conservative when it comes to the Constitution.
If they can’t do that, they don’t belong there. It’s that simple. The damage these pikers do to the right every day with their constant betrayal of conservative principles is far worse than anything any Democrat has ever done to us, or this nation.
I’m far more concerned about the principles than the party - or any party.
October 10th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Yes, I understand that, Jimmie…but the principles cannot win - not at this point, anyway - without the party.
Sitting out an election at home on principle, or voting for the “principled” candidate who cannot win may feel justified…but the end result is the same…the stand on principle lets in something much, much worse.
October 10th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Your only option, then, appears to be to sit down and take whatever Republicans give me?
That surely smacks of what the Demcorat faithful have been telling their voters for several elections: the Republicans are evil, the Republicans are going to turn the country fascist, the Republicans are going to eat your babies.
Look, we either stand for principles now or we stand for them later. if we stand for them now we may or may not lose an election. If we do it will not be the end of the country. We will not have faded into irrelevance. It’s one election - two years at the minimum.
But, when we are ready for prime time again, it will be with a party that isn’t ashamed of our principles. We will have candidates for office who very well understand that principles are more important than power to us. We’ll have people in Congress who know down to their marrow that we would rather take a turn in the minority than to sell out the things that really matter to us.
I think that sort of thing still matters to people on the right these days. I shudder to think that standing up Senator Milquetoast McWimpypants simply because he wears an “R” on his chest is the most important thing in our political thoughts.
October 10th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Jimmie…all I can say is…you seem to think we can “lose” the WH for one or two terms and then come back and there will be rainbows of perfection in the sky…
‘
It didn’t happen that way in 1992, when conservatives “sat out” on principle, and the following eight years of disaster happened BEFORE the press became completely and wholly owned by and subservient to, the Clintons.
‘
Try to do in 2006 or 2008 what was done in 1992, and - this is not hyperbole or exaggeration - you will not recognise this nation or the presidency. After everyone sits out “on principle” and the press carries a soft-balled all the way Hillary into the WH and spends her time being utterly unquestioned by the press and having everything she does SOLD to the public by the fourth estate…what do you think you will have left by the time the “principles” come back strong and “not ashamed…”
‘
I have a friend with whom I corresponded all weekend on this Miers issue. THe one thing he REFUSED to address - flat out said he would NOT address - was the question of why Bush made this nomination, how the GOP senate came into play with it, and whether or not Bush’s hands were tied. HE DOES NOT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT. But it must be looked at….WHY this nomination was offered.
‘
I Still think the President was informed that his hands were tied, that Luttig et al would NOT go through.
‘
It’s not enough to say “she’s not good enough, she’s not conservative enough.” We have to know WHY this nomination was offered.
‘
No one seems to care about that, and its at the crux of the issue.
‘
Was she nominated because Bush is a moron who has managed to make one excellent fed judicial nomination after another, but suddenly forgot how to do it?
‘
Was she nominated because Bush wants to stick it to his base?
‘
Was she nominated because Bush doesn’t care about the make up of the SCOTUS?
‘
Those all seem like “nae’s” to me.
‘
So….WHY?
October 10th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Anchoress, I’m willing to believe that Miers is our nominee for no other reason than the Senate Republicans were too weak to actually stand and fight for an actual conservative. I don’t think it takes any stretch of the imagination to believe that.
Doesn’t that argue for being that much more stubborn about getting Senators who will fight for conservative principles, no matter what that takes?
For a dozen years conservatives have been far more concerned with electing a Republican than they have in electing conservatives. We’ve essentially told the Republicans that we will throw our time, money, and unflinching support behind the party based only on promises made during the campaigns and despite broken promise after broken promise. We have steadily reinforced the message that no matter what the party does we’ll support it.
What I’ll have in 2008, Anchoress, is a part that can trounce the other side on every single issue with strong conservative arguments and is hungry to turn those arguments into strong legislation. We didn’t have that in 2000. We thought we did, but we didn’t.
My question back to you is, when are we supposed to stand for our principles. When would it be most convenient to do so? The Democrats aren’t going to get any better for the country in the near future. The moonbats will be with us always and there’s no indication that they’re going to leave the party. So when do we stand?
October 10th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Quite possibly, later rather than sooner.
‘
When you have generations of entrenched mediocrity, as we do in the senate and the house, it takes time to move them out. While you’re doing so, though, the other side is not remaining static - it too is busily at work and they have ACQUIRED the mainstream media…and if you think that is meaningless, consider that John Kerry - whom NO ONE LIKES now that he is not a candidate and the press is not working FOR him, damn near made it to the WH.
‘
I do not know what the strategy will be for conservatives to finally get to make their stand without contributing to the utter distruction of the nation. But the “sitting out the vote” or “voting for an unwinnable principle candidate” strategy has NOT served us well. It will NOT serve us well, this time, either.
‘
I am very disappointed - seriously disappointed, in how difficult so many spiritual people are finding it to remember that there is more here than we see - that there is always more, what is seen and what is unseen.