An essential White House mistake--really a key and historic one--was in turning on its critics with such idiotic ferocity. "My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old. Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.Over Harriet Miers, the "serious conservatives" have identified themselves and now demand recognition. What would motivate them to back down now?
As for Ed Gillespie and his famous charge of sexism and elitism, I don't think serious conservatives believe Ed is up nights pondering whiffs and emanations of class tension and gender bias in modern America. It was the ignorant verbal lurch of a K Street behemoth who has perhaps forgotten that conservatives are not merely a bloc, a part of the base, a group that must be handled, but individuals who are and have been in it for serious reasons, for the long haul, and often at considerable sacrifice. They don't deserve to be patronized by people they've long strained to defend.
१३ ऑक्टोबर, २००५
"'You're a sexist snob' isn't a case; it's an insult."
Peggy Noonan thinks there is no case to be made for the Harriet Miers nomination and the efforts at defending it have become embarrassing and harmful:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
Many of the anti-Miers crowd tend to critise before listening. They say no case has been made for Harriet Miers yet at this point I know more about Ms. Miers than almost any person in government.
The case that has been made by the White House is that Miers is a different kind of pick than the ususal. Many who don't like this "case" strike back with the argument that a case hasn't been made for Ms. Miers. An easy argument to make.
Accusations fly that Miers is like Souter or a closet lefty, however, I cant find anything that Souter and Miers have in common other than that each are unmarried and both appear to be stealth candidates. In fact a close examination of the two shows that they are quite the opposite of each other in most matters (beginning with their home states).
Perhaps litagators should be asked the question about how they may prepare their cases differently with someone like Miers on the Court. You might get strange answers. After all, Miers has spent most of her life living in Texas and not Washington, DC.
Critics of Miers are falling into group-think... I am unconvinced.
All this is good for liberals, in the short term at least. By December, Miers will be on the court - never saying a word and ruling to the right of Clarence Thomas. Liberals will be wondering what happened.
Aren't we throwing the dice on every supreme court candidate?
Aren't we throwing the dice on every supreme court candidate?
Not if we had Janice. /longing sigh
It’s interesting that Noonan is criticizing Bush for his characteristic tenacity:
"My way or the highway" is getting old. "Please listen to us and try to see it our way or we'll have to kill you," is getting old.
I thought that was supposed to one of the good things about Bush, his steadfastness in the face of criticism, especially on the war – it’s why I voted for him (at least on the war issue). He got cheers for statements like, if you are not with us you are against us. But now that some conservatives don’t like something he does, they want him to cave. That’s never been Bush’s m.o. Bush's tenacity is one of his strengths and its probably also his fatal flaw…King Lear anyone?
However, it’s probably liberal’s who should be more concerned than conservatives. She is a stealth candidate, but I wager a stealth conservative candidate.
"...Not if we had Janice. /longing sigh..."
Maybe you should step back and consider Janice Rogers Brown. She is a quality judge, but she also tends to be a libertarian. In my opinion, this makes her more risky than appointing Miers. Do you want a libertarian judge? Do you want a judge who thinks its unconstitutional to regulate drugs? How about war on terror issues. Would brown be a reliable conervative on these issues.
Someone like Brown could end up voting with the liberals far more than people would expect because of her libertarian views.
I am more a Libertarian than a conservative, and I believe the U.S. Constitution as written is a libertarian document, so if a Supreme Court Justice is being an honest reader of the document rather than a political actor looking for an excuse to validate their world-view they will more often than not make libertarian leaning decisions.
That's why I personally think Judge Brown would have been a brilliant choice for nomination, but I also understand why those qualities I admire are also the qualities that most likely will prevent her from being chosen for any future vacancies.
as far as the hullabaloo surrounding the characterization of the opposition to the nomination of Miers, I don't think their are very many people paying all that much attention and noone will remember this fuss 6 months from now.
Over Harriet Miers, the "serious conservatives" have identified themselves and now demand recognition. What would motivate them to back down now?
A tax cut? Gutting the environment? War on Iran? 2006 and 2008? Paybacks to their industry?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा