Though I, like the vast majority of the American public, know little or nothing about President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, I have chosen a different path than most of the population: I have not expressed an opinion on her qualifications.
I have watched with growing astonishment while Democrats applaud the nomination of a 'mainstream candidate' and conservatives bemoan the nomination of an unknown, unpredictable, constitutional lightweight. Meanwhile, White house flacks try to placate the base with half-hearted declarations that Miers will be 'good...no, she'll be great.' What all of these diverse groups have in common is that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. But that doesn't slow them down one bit.
Each group has its own axe to grind, its own spin to put on the nomination. They believe that, if only they can say it just right, public opinion will swing their way. But what will they say? The stock phrases that each side has in storage for just such an occasion seem unsuited to the moment. Democrats, ever ready to oppose (sight unseen) whatever nominee Mr. Bush should proffer, are apparently happy, however confusedly, with Miers. Republicans are befuddled by the President's choice, conservative Republicans especially so. They have begun taking phrases from the Democrat's storehouse: the nomination shows 'cronyism and capitulation'; it is evidence that the President is 'unsure' of his support in the Senate and wants to avoid a fight. They even say she is a 'stealth candidate' and has no track record.
All of this may be true, but one thing they are overlooking is that, unlike Miers, George Bush does have a track record. His opponents have consistently underestimated him. He has won two terms against the unprecedentedly concerted efforts of the Democratic Party and their in-the-pocket media. He has just won the appointment of the profoundly conservative John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Do they suppose he has forgotten everything he knew just a few months ago? Do they suppose that, despite being known far and wide for his loyalty to people and ideals, he has lost the courage of his convictions? What fuels this equivocation?
Thomas Lifson believes that decades of bitter defeat have have set conservatives in a rut.
There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them. They are stuck in the decades-long tragic phase of conservative politics, when country club Republicans inevitably sold out the faith in order to gain acceptability in the Beltway media and social circuit. Many on the right already are upset with the President already over his deficit spending, and his continued attempts to elevate the tone of politics in Washington in the face of ongoing verbal abuse by Democrats and their media allies. They misinterpret his missing verbal combativeness as weakness.
I have my doubts about many of the policies of the Bush administration but I don't have any doubts about their ability to win an argument, sometimes against seemingly insurmountable odds. They often encourage their opponents to go so far out on a limb with their opposition that they can't recover from their own rhetoric.
The problem with the President Bush's ability to win a political fight is that, this time, I'm not sure I want him to win. When even the people in the know aren't in the know, how could I be? When the best argument that the White house has offered up so far is that we conservatives should 'trust the President' I am, to say the least, underwhelmed. Not to mention that trusting in government would be a decidedly liberal thing to do.
As far as trust goes, when I look at the President's track record on conservative issues I see an $800 billion medicare drug entitlement, huge spending on Katrina relief, open borders, the largest spending increase on education in our country's history (through a bill approved by Ted Kennedy of all people), and not a single veto in his entire term in office. Only his prosecution of the war on terror, and his holding the line on taxes stand out as truly conservative positions. Not a lot to trust.
Is Miers a decoy nomination, put up to take the wind out of the Democrat's sails? Or does the President expect that conservatives will roll over and confirm the nomination of his friend based solely on his recommendation? I sure can't read the situation. The only thing I'm sure of is that they have a plan. They always have a plan.
Update: Amy Ridenour has noticed something about Lifson's article:
Conservativism was NOT in its "tragic phase" when O'Connor and Kennedy were appointed. It was NOT in its "tragic phase" when Souter was appointed.
What it was in was its "making bad Supreme Court appointments" phase. True, that phase started earlier (much earlier) but most of us are not stuck in the Eisenhower era, or an earlier one.
Just how many Kennedys, O'Connors and Souters are we supposed to put up with before noticing that the presidents conservatives elect often seem to have bad judgement in making Supreme Court nominations?
She has a good point.
Update: Professor Bainbridge has a few more reasons to temper your trust of the president. Among them are the fact that he signed the McCain-Feingold act and...
# Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, while proudly calling it "the most farreaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt," which I've called "Odd praise, indeed, coming from a conservative president."
# Bush said: "the more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way." Riiiight
# Bush pushed for and signed one of the biggest (or was it the biggest) expansions of entitlement programs.
# He's done virtually nothing to restrain spending, especially of the pork variety.
Comments