So, what's the conservative rage about Miers all about?
Not being a conservative myself (I just play one on TV every now and then), I'd initially been surprised by the degree to which conservatives are angry at Bush for the Miers nomination.
But I guess I shouldn't be. When I really think about it, it seems that conservatives are so exceptionally angry because they wanted (and fully expected) him to give them exactly what they've been waiting for all these years, and haven't gotten from him yet in the Supreme Court Justice department--a fire-breathing ultra-conservative with a track record a mile long to make it all crystal clear.
If Bush had done so, it would have started a bitter battle. But I think a certain number of conservatives actually wanted a divisive and vicious battle--they were positively aching for it. I don't know why--to rub it into liberal faces, perhaps. So Bush deprived them of the candidate--and for some of them, of the battle--they had every reason to believe was coming their way. Now the full force of the anger that was building for that fight, fueled by their frustrated hope, is turned on him.
I think conservatives are also especially embarrassed at the cronyism aspect, because, after all, that argument against the appointment holds some water. It really does give at least the appearance of a problem, and it taps into some of the harshest criticisms that have long been leveled against Bush.
So, many conservatives (such as commenter "strcpy" here) are angry and stunned that Bush pulled the rug out from under them, as it were, and he did it in a way that has allowed liberals to say to conservatives, "See, I told you so!".
Here's strcpy to explain in his/her own words:
Basically I've spent a lot of time defending (and rightfully so IMO) Bush against a lot of charges from the left. Quite a bit of the cronyism, and then....this. It may not really be cronyism - maybe he knows her well enough to *know* she will do a good job, but surely there are others that he does also. Then he asks for blind trust. While I do not "not trust" him, I don't particularly trust him either (part of him being a politician - I trust him has far as I do any politician and think he is better than nearly all at a national level). It basically kills years of arguing - I can't point at someone and say "stupid" because cronyism is more likely than not in this case and your thought basically boil down to how much you trust him (along with the "I've been telling you for years, your an idiot"). Ultimately he lost years of political arguing with this giving his opponents something to bash him on that can't be refuted - after all if I'm "wrong" on that then it goes that I am on the rest.
What was Bush thinking? My belief is that Bush chose Miers because he thought she would be acceptable enough to the Democrats to be confirmed without a bitter fight (which he, at least, wanted to avoid) but conservative enough to actually perform as all conservatives want. By saying "trust me" he actually means "Look folks, I know her; she'll be every bit as conservative as you could wish, but she'll appear blank enough to the opposition to get through the confirmation process without a total war." But the words "trust me" sound condescending and arrogant--particularly when his base has just received what they think of as a betrayal--with the added drawback that arrogance is a charge to which Bush is especially susceptible.
To answer a question posed here by commenter "holmes," I do think the confirmation process can answer some questions about what sort of justice Miers will make. It can tell us a lot about her in terms of intelligence, verbal agility, quickness, integrity, courage, forthrightness--all of which are things that are relevant to being a justice. The clerks do a lot of the research, after all; a justice has to be able to think.
But my guess is that holmes' question taps into what so many conservatives are fearing--which is that hearings can't tell us how she will actually vote on the hot issues of the day if she ends up a member of the Court. Will she be firmly in the conservative camp? Or will she--like the woman she is replacing, Sandra Day O'Connor--be a conservative hope dashed, a swing voter whose only predictability is that her vote tends to balance the court and keep it from veering too strongly to one side or another? I don't know the answer--and, as a centrist, of course it doesn't bother me as it would a true conservative.
How blank a slate is Miers? The answer appears--at least so far--to be: pretty blank indeed. It turns out that not even most of her friends and colleagues know her actual opinions, although they speak highly of her. To me, this means either that she really is opinionless (which would be odd and rather offputting, a sort of Chauncy Gardner of the legal profession)--or that she is circumspect and private, which I don't mind at all.
Perhaps, in fact, Miers will turn out to be what all the conservatives say they want: a strict constructionist, who merely interprets the Constitution and keeps her own opinions out of it as much as humanly possible. Wouldn't that be novel?
[For my previous post on the Miers nomination, see here.]
posted by neo-neocon @ 12:20 PM
39 comments
39 Comments:
II think Bush chose the best conservative candidate that he could that would be confirmed. To chose a Janet Rogers Brown, or a Luttig, would have triggered a fillibuster, and McCain has stolen the Republicans' ability to win with the "nuclear option" of overturning the fillibuster. No need to fight fights that you think you will lose.
As Rush Limbaugh, who is pretty disappointed in Miers, speculated, is this the Republican congress you want to go to war with? A lot of liberal Reps from the East coast who won't go for the nuclear option.
If you don't have the guns, don't take them out and start shooting.
Bush is more like a golfer here; he is taking what the course is giving him. Play a safe shot to the fat part of the green, don't go for the sucker pin right next to the lake, take your two putts for a good par, forget about the hero shot at the pin for the birdie.
1)I am dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
2) I am an Ivy League grad lawer.
3) I am embarrassed at the loud spokesmen for the Republican base demanding 100% captivity of the nominee's voting plans. We call that "litmus." And, truly, a good lawyer does not know where any one fact pattern will lead, if (s)he is honest, even though hoping to support a particular outcome.
The Repub chattering class are behaving like unsophisticated children, are not serving the unborn well, and just subtly sacrificed a claim to the moral high ground.
I can't escape comments that make me wonder about the image -- Eyeliner. Old woman. No blow-dry cool, does everybody still have a crush on Roberts?
Grow up.
I do find myself agreeing with your analysis.
The perfect justice, who will do exactly what most conservatives (and I) want to do on the court, isn't necessarily Robert Bork reincarnated.
The perfect justice might be a quiet unknown. However, this appointment does have some smack of "she's in the inner circle, so let's put her in" to it. Not something I'm exactly comfortable with.
In all of the commentary I've read pro and con this nomination, I've come across nothing that explains the political stupidity displayed by the President and his people in not forseeing and preparing for the reaction they've gotten. It strikes me that rather than miscalculating how their base would respond, they were simply in total ignorance of what was being said by conservatives about the impending nomination. Such appalling ignorance, in this case, is reaping the reward it merits, though I worry about the potential for collateral damage.
It is inconceivable that an administration would pick a nominee whose views were so outrageous that the administration's own party would vote against in significant numbers.
While it would be nice to know in advance how she would vote, we don't have a clue about Roberts, and the Ginsburg rule says we shouldn't ask, or if we do, the nominee shouldn't answer.
What we're losing by not having a papertrail is meaningless. Roberts didn't have one, either.
IMO, some repubs were looking for a fight. Whether they'd have won--probably--and whether that would have made them stronger is chancy.
Why the surprise that Bush would appoint an unqualified crony?
tequilamockingbird
I suppose the dozens of unqualified cronies Bush has appointed over the last five years have pretty much slipped under the public radar. Who cares if he appoints a FOG as dogcatcher in Wichita? A SCOTUS appointment is going to draw a touch more flak.
To be upfront, I'm anti-Bush.
Pro- or anti-Meires? Never heard of her. Can't say one way or the other. No doubt we'll hear more than we want to in the days to come.
tequilamockingbird
We already have some judges who attempt to simply read the constitution as written, so it would not be all that novel, no.
The answer to your question about conservative anger is fairly simple. Conservatives have been supporting Bush and the GOP through some rather trying times. They gave done so even though the Republican party has gone against everything it supposedly stands for. The list is endless; immigration, spending, budget deficits, support for affirmative action, supprt for the dreadful campaign finance reform bill - I could fill the comments section with examples of things the GOP has done to antagonize its supporters.
People have consoled themselves with the notion that at least on the issue of the courts, Bush and the party are solid and dependable. It now appears that this is not the case. So the anger you are seeing is simply years of silent frustration boiling over.
Somewhere along the line, before the 2006 elections, the GOP will have to find some way to throw at least some scraps to the people who make up eighty percent of their supporters.
Can't even spell her name right. Doubtless I'll correct that over the next week or two.
tequilamockingbird
This is my all time favorite fake blog (Flog). It's a brilliant laugh, including the fake comments. But at the same time I feel so desperately sorry for Americans who are having their tax money wasted on this nonsense by Whitehouse departments. Poor poor sad little people, no clue at all.
None seem to appreciate the fact that throughout both his terms Bush has nominated strict constitutionalists who provided miles of paper-trails yet all his nominations were struck down. All were struck down by a majority Republican Senate. Why is that?.
McCain and his Gang in the Senate had proven to Bush that these Republican Senators are spineless idiots. The war was lost when McCain and his Gang cowered to the Democrats filibuster threat. Bush learned his lesson and is using a different tactic to beat McCain and his Gang at their nasty political game.
Off topic, but am I the only one curious about neo's first sentence: "Not being a conservative myself (I just play one on TV every now and then)..."
So does a "strict constructionist" not find any right to privacy in the constitution? Is this the interpretation conservatives want or is this a moral issue? At first I assumed conservative ideology seemed confusing because I didnt understand the system of thought but now I realize it is confusing because it is confused, it is contradictory, there is no system of thought unless hypocricy can be called a system.
To 8:44 anonymous: I can answer your curiosity: a lame joke (the "play one on TV part.") The rest of it? I consider myself an independent: a blend of opinions, some of which would put me in the conservative camp and some in the liberal. Neither a conservative nor a liberal; see my posts here and here for further explanation.
My name is Carol Herman. Since I don't blog, I've got to choose the Anonymous button. Never did figure out how to blog on "blogger sites," otherwise.
As to the Religious Right, what they saw is that "appointments for life," would give them 1/3rd of the US Constitution. One third they CANNOT GET ELECTED TO! And, they, like the settlers in Israel, thought they'd "sock puppet" the man elected to lead.
It's a good thing that Bush is not doing what he's being told to do; because the "fight" would destroy the republican party's ability to attract voters. Obviously, when you look at the senate, you see people there who aren't elected by crazy wing nuts. And, politicians are more interested in getting people to vote for them, than anything you'll hear in some religious pulpit on Sundays.
By the way, a right wing Bork gets dumped by the senate votes. Even Reagan couldn't get Bork ONTO the Supreme Court. And, by nominating him, he managed to shoot his second term into lame-duck land. This president is much more engaged than Ronnie. And, he's playing towards the MAINSTREAM.
One reason you get such a loud thunk out of the right is that the media is elitist. And, Anti-American. Which is why the Internet grows. And, the media, along with Hollywood, is losing business.
I'm waiting to see how well Harriet does in front of her hearings. I don't think she'll be shot down by "obscure" questions. That wouldn't impress most Americans. But as you say, if she comes across, bright and decent, she'll get enough votes to be nominated. While, yup. Bush just did to the right wing of the GOP, what Arik Sharon did to his right wing nuts. GOOD LEADERSHIP JUST SHINES!
I think the fact that some overly hysterical conservatives have decided to jump on the blame Bush bandwagon with the media and the Democrats is disgraceful.
To hear some of these guys ranting one would think the woman was a communist.
People can say that conservatives have waited for a Justice like Scalia, well maybe they have one. If they would give the woman half a chance they might find out she is what they want.
In any event they will not be waiting much longer because if they don't stop acting like shrieking fish wives there might not be any more chances.
Employee selection: A subject about which I have 27 years of practical experience, mainly through observation from within the process, but sometimes through having to hire employees myself.
People are frequently picked for jobs because they are known & trusted or because they are recommended by those who are known & trusted. In fact I believe this is the primary method of selection of employees. Most hiring processes do not use the traditional tools of meritocracy, such as tests, rigid sets of criteria in regards to experience, knowledge or education level, etc. The word might be passed that there is an opening in the shipping department & that if anyone knows someone who might be a good worker to have them call the shipping supervisor. Several candidates may be garnered by this method & interviewed. Even within employers which have a ostensible system of meritocracy in place hiring & promotion based on strict criteria of merit is frequently disregarded or subverted.
Dictionary.com - Cronyism: Favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.
Clearly, Miers nomination is not an example of cronyism. She fits neither the “old friends” or lack of “qualifications” requirement in the definition. She has been Bush’s employee, not his “old friend” – although I am sure they are friendly & cordial toward each other. An argument can be made that others are more qualified, but such arguments are very subjective & depend on individual attitudes toward what constitutes a valid set of qualifications. That she has had a distinguished career in law cannot be denied.
I believe the cronyism charges(& perhaps controversy on other issues) that have popped up & been taken seriously by the right, even sometimes originating from the right, reveal a subconscious & repressed personal distaste for Bush within certain elements of the right who might be termed the George Will/Andrew Sullivan elitist wing of conservatism.
Perhaps because my own reservations about Bush & most of his policies are not repressed – I am fully aware of them – & because a Texas accent & good ol’ boy personality doesn’t put me off, having been born & raised in Texas, I see these charges as the conscious manifestation of repressed negative thoughts about Bush, unworthy thoughts that are repressed because they have to do with style, personality, elitism & prejudice based on regional snobbery & little to do with the qualifications of those he nominates, the decisions he makes or policies he follows.
Consequently, the charge of cronyism leveled at Bush because he nominated an SMU law grad & not an Ivy Leaguer seem to me to be obvious psychological rationalization.
This post isn't on topic; it's general.
Can't we all just get along?
Whatever happens, whatever people say, each of us interprets events by putting them through the filter of our experience. Whatever the objective facts, people with ideological motives spin it one way or the other. You and I read the same speech, and we interpret it in different ways.
Allowance for difference of opinion is perhaps the most admirable and wonderful aspect of our Western (meaning American, Canadian, and Western European) political system.
Reasonable people can disagree. I consider myself a reasonable person. I consider GWB to be an absolute disaster as president. Neo-neocon, and I presume the majority of the readers of this blog, don't (perhaps putting it a bit mildly).
Is there any possibility of rational discussion of important issues, where intelligent, rational people disagree? I hope there is: Can we do it here? Sure, you can read dozens and dozens of messages that support and reinforce your view. About 50% of Americans feel differently. Let's discuss the issues with an open mind.
tequilamockingbird
Please forgive my ignorance, but point me somewhere I can read why a bunch of people wearing wigs and coonskin caps and who rode horses to meetings should dictate how the law should be interpreted today. It seems preposterous on its face.
I'm not being inflammatory. I'm truly ignorant on this point, and I'd appreciate some enlightenment.
tequilamockingbird
(As you may have guessed, I'm not American; I suppose this is stuff that every little American learns at his mother's knee).
tequilamockingbird
john moulder
That looks like a little psychological rationalization on your own part.
As for employees - Miers, and Bush, and all government people, are OUR employees. We have the right, and indeed the duty, to assess their job performance.
tequilamockingbird
What compels people who are not American to offer their opinions on matters which they poorly understand, and are none of their concern in any case?
I'd appreciate some enlightenment
"What compels people who are not American to offer their opinions on matters which they poorly understand, and are none of their concern in any case?"
Flenser, that message is too stupid and bigoted to merit a response.
Have a nice day.
tequilamockingbird
Flenser, I’m puzzled: Where did I comment that assessment of job performance shouldn’t happen? And where did my psychological rationalization occur?
Tequilamockingbird, despite the wigs, caps & horses of the writers many people think the principles outlined in the American Constitution have a general, universal value that transcends fad, fashion & passage of time.
Yes, the men in wigs on horseback did indeed have some things right. I don't believe, however, that they were endowed with some magical quality that made them any better than our present politicians -- in other words, they were probably a pretty sorry lot.
8th grade U.S. textbooks are in short supply here. Nevertheless, thanks for your help.
tequilamockingbird
john moulder:
Yes, many people, including me, think "the principles outlined in the American Constitution have a general, universal value that transcends fad, fashion & passage of time".
That's a long way from saying that every word in a document written 200+ years ago should govern how we live today.
I'm not trying to engage in a constitutional argument with you, or with anyone; I've confessed my ignorance, and you're fighting an unarmed opponent.
tequilamockingbird
I'm not a religious person -- horror of horrors! Get thee back, Satan -- but I see a parallel between belief in the Bible and belief in the Constitution, as if either is divinely inspired and irrefutable.
I think not.
tequilamockingbird
Tequilamockingbird, I wasn’t being argumentative – only trying to answer a question posed by you.
Tequilamockingbird, I don’t think anyone believes the Constitution was divinely inspired – on the contrary the writers knew mankind to be fallible & that the Constitution might need to be revised - & that’s why a corrective mechanism was written into the document with the provision for amendments. I’m sure the future will see other amendments than the ones already attached to the original Constitution.
john moulder,
No, I wasn't maintaining that the Constitution was divinely inspired; I was pointing out that some fanatics believe implicitly in them both, taking them both on faith as if they were divinely inspired. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, or if I didn't make myself clear.
tequilamockingbird
I understand perfectly that you weren't being argumentative. Thanks.
tequilamockingbird
Tequilamockingbird, not to be argumentative but I don’t think one has to be a fanatic to believe in the Constitution – or for that matter the bible unless one believes anyone of faith is by definition a fanatic. I certainly don’t, although I am not at all religious. But I don’t need faith to believe in the Constitution; my intellect, flawed instrument that it is, informs me of it’s value – that & the test of time & reading history.
No President is going to have a dummy for their attorney. Since all Presidents want a strong legacy, none are going to nominate for the SC someone who is not of the same, basic moral and political persuasion. I'm sure they have discussed many things as attorney and client in the privacy of the Oval Office.
The people who complain the loudest about judicial activism are the same ones who are pissed over this nomination. The fact that she converted to born again Christianity in the middle of her life - and - that she idolizes Bush...it indicates that she's open to suggestion.
That scares conservatives, as they don't want her listening to her heart ten years down the road...they want her listening to them.
Bush appoints people based upon character. If his advisors can't supply a list of people with good character and good qualifications, Bush will prioritize character over qualifications. Bush is conservative like that.
Bush did that with the new Joint Chief, the Marine General. Qualified in infantry tactics, expeditionary roles, and other subjects which the nation will be concerned about in the next 4 years.
THe real question people should ask is how effective these nominations of character were.
And whether the correlation between efficiency and character is directional or inverse.
What someone should not ask is whether Bush appoints people via cronyism. You could easily hear Democrats appointing their brother as Attorney General. But why does Bush appoint everyone he knows?
Simply because the people that he doesn't know, like CIA Thief Tenet (Chief sorry), end up being an embarassment and a danger to national security.
Anyone who voted for Bush and thought Bush would disregard character, did not really understand Bush.
Bush is not a technical person, he is not an intellectual or an intellectual's intellectual like Kerry appears to be.
No, Bush is just concerned with good people.
And if the director of FEMA was somene he knew, and trusted in because he was a "good guy", and this resulted in him doing poorly, than that is a legitimate strike against his strategy of nominating people.
But if he wasn't someone Bush knew, then it gives food for thought.
When did the MSM become the enemy? Was it around November 2000? It seems to me the MSM kicked the living hell out Clinton for two or three years.
Which served the purpose of diverting our attention from terrorism, Somalia, and other you know... uh... "important stuff".
I can answer your curiosity: a lame joke
I remember that joke. It's a good memory.
Reasonable people can disagree. I consider myself a reasonable person. I consider GWB to be an absolute disaster as president.
Reasonable people also recognize that there is a slight problem in saying some other leader has been a disaster, given you don't even live under his policies.
About as slight as me saying Tony Blair has been a great boon to British politics. Or how New Democrats in Canada have one of the best and spotless records around.
Thanks, The Bunnies.
Ymarsakar: I think reasonable people respect other people's right to express an opinion in a public forum regardless of the passport they hold.
That includes you, and as it happens, I disagree with you about Blair and the NDP. We can discuss those opinions if you wish, but not here, if you don't mind.
tequilamockingbird
How would a strict constructionist have decided Brown vs Board? The best strict constructionist would be a computer program that just identified whether a law was exactly worded as the text of the constitution designates and we could avoid this divisive process.
Post a Comment
<< Home