It seems to me that the current split in the Republican Party is not caused by a bunch of purists who aren't "staying with the program". It was caused by a monumentally incompetent move on the part of George W. Bush, a move that has acted to put the various awful moves he's inflicted on us in the past (out of control spending, an open borders policy, McCain Feingold, the Medicare bill) into a new light. These things were only borne by the base because they figured that the REAL game was the Supreme Court. And then the guy nominates an undistinguished crony and ducks the necessary fight.
I think the base (i.e., me) is also beginning to think: Gee have we given this guy way too much credit for doing what any reasonable President should have done in the War on Terror? Has it only been the treasonous fecklessness of the Democrats that has made him look good by contrast? Are we really dealing with a complete mediocrity who is only palatable due to the utter wretchedness of the competition? Just what the heck IS this purple stuff in the paper cup I've been drinking from?
I don't know. I could be wrong. I'm just sayin'. But if a longtime supporter like me is feeling like this, then I think it is fair to say that Bush screwed up here. Royally.
John Hawkins excerpt:
"These so-called anti-Miers conservatives are saying that they don't like her because she's an under qualified candidate with questionable conservative credentials who got the job because of personal favoritism, but that's not it. Actually, they dislike her because they're really snooty upper crust types who sneer with disdain at anyone who isn't part of the whole Ivy League set. Why didn't we all see it sooner?"
Unfortunately, there is a huge problem with that line of reasoning. The problem is that before Monday of last week, Harriet Miers had a fan club of one: George W. Bush.
Back then, had you spoken to those who are today the most ardent defenders of Harriet Miers or her most vituperative conservative critics, not only would their top selections for the court have been almost exactly the same, they'd have also agreed that Harriet Miers would be a poor selection by the President for many of the same reasons that are today being espoused by her opponents. The only reason more people weren't saying that publicly at the time (although some were pointing out that Miers would be a poor choice) was because she was such an obviously bad pick that very few people seriously thought Bush would nominate her.
So just to be perfectly clear, it's the Miers' boosters who have made a 180 degree turn from the now presumably elitist position of, "Oh God, not Miers," to what some of them apparently believe is the position of the common man: "Thank God George Bush had the wisdom to select Harriet Miers instead of one of those hoity-toity, high falutin' nominees like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, or Michael McConnell."
Wait...that's not exactly true because it's also worth noting that if you pin them down on the subject, most of the apostles of Miers will admit, even today, that they'd prefer the same candidates the "elitists" are touting, despite their support for Miers. What does that make them: closet elitists?
Everyone on the right, on both sides of the Miers debate, should be willing to admit the truth about this nomination. It's a split that was caused by George Bush selecting a fourth rate candidate for the most important court in the land and then saying, "Trust me."
....
[I]n the past, well meaning Republican Presidents have told us to, "trust them," as they've given us John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter among others.
That is the essence of what this conservative dogfight is all about, not "elitism."
No comments:
Post a Comment