The Right's Irresponsible Criticism of Bush

FrontPage Magazine ^ | October 17, 2005 | Michael Reagan

[quidnunc]

If you listen to what we conservatives were saying about John Roberts or Judge Pickering or any of the other judicial nominees who were being blocked by the Democrat filibusters - or other methods of killing a presidential nomination to the federal bench - the argument we were making was that the president won the election, and by virtue of that victory has the right to appoint judges of his own choosing.

It was the conservative battle cry that the president’s nominees had the right to go through the process and be voted on by the full Senate. We jumped all over the left-wing Democrats on this issue, insisting that the president had the right to pick the judges he wants on the federal bench.

Now, all of sudden, because the president didn’t call us personally and get our permission, we wise pundits are now suddenly acting the way the leftists did with Roberts and others, demanding that he reveal how Harriet Miers will vote and what she thinks about just about everything. That’s exactly what we condemned the liberals for demanding. We are in a snit because he didn’t call us and consult with us about his choice. In short, we are adopting a double standard, and you can’t have it both ways.

Because the president didn’t pick someone from the list of names we wanted, we are going to stir up a big fuss and question his judgment.

When the Democrats wanted Judge Roberts to spill his guts about every hot issue that might come before the Supreme Court, we cried foul and called for the application of the Ginsburg rule — insisting that he did not have to answer these questions.

Now, with the nomination of Harriet Miers, it’s as if there is no such thing as a Ginsburg Rule. We want to know everything — especially how she feels about abortion. Why are they asking merely that, but not about how she feels about eminent domain, or Affirmative Action, or gay marriage, or any other hot button issue certain to come before the court? Don’t they matter?

Harriet Miers can’t talk about any of those things, and they know it. After all, that’s what they told the Democrats when they tried to get Judge Roberts and other nominees to violate the Ginsburg Rule.

-snip-

[RobbyS]

Consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds?

[Alberta's Child]

Michael Reagan ping.

[xzins]

It's reasonable. Collect all we can find about her opinions. Give some deference to her conversion experience from Democrat to Republican (seeing this is from Michael Reagan, that's a good reminder.)

See what comes out of the hearings.

Make a list of pros/cons, and write senators accordingly. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[fatrat]

the president won the election, and by virtue of that victory has the right to appoint judges of his own choosing

yes, elected him and it looks like he has betrayed us with this nomination.

[XJarhead]

yes, elected him and it looks like he has betrayed us with this nomination.

Is it a betrayal because:

1) you know for certain that she is not a judicial conservative; or

2) that you personally are not convinced she is a judicial conservative?

[no dems]

Ooooooooos and Ahhhhhhhhhhs. Sinkspur is gonna love this.

[i.l.e.]

Ever wonder what a stampede of conservatives would look like? The MSM and the laughing hyenia liberals are doing all they can to stampede the electorate. SOME KNOW BETTER, others are pushing their way to the front of the herd and leading the charge over the cliffs of doom.

[Prysson]

This article is nonsense. None of the anti-Miers pundits are suggesting that she should be filibustered. Some are saying she shouldnt have been nominated and some are suggesting she should be voted down..a few others that she should withdraw her nomination. BUt I havent heard a single conservative say she should be filibustered so the comparison is ludicrous.

I normally like Reagan. This is a dissapointing commentary on his part.

[Fiji Hill]

I lost a lot of respect for Michael Reagan when he passionately supported the Clinton Administration's efforts to hand Elian Gonzales back to Fidel Castro.

[oblomov]

Another Republican minder dispatched to herd up the "irresponsible" conservative critics. Pat Ruffini must have promised Reagan a box seat at the '08 RNC Convention.

[claudiustg]

You forgot the part about George Bush being a liberal stooge and Laura Bush being pro-abortion and that Miers censors Christmas cards, writes unacceptable personal notes and went to that school for retards, MSU. :^)

[Logophile]

This article is nonsense. None of the anti-Miers pundits are suggesting that she should be filibustered. Some are saying she shouldnt have been nominated and some are suggesting she should be voted down..a few others that she should withdraw her nomination. BUt I havent heard a single conservative say she should be filibustered so the comparison is ludicrous.

You are absolutely right. The conservatives who are upset at the Miers nomination know that the Constitution empowers the President to nominate whom he will. They have merely questioned the wisdom of nominating Harriet Miers. Is Mr. Reagan unable to see the difference?

[Paradox]

I lost a lot of respect for Michael Reagan when he passionately supported the Clinton Administration's efforts to hand Elian Gonzales back to Fidel Castro.

Quite a few good Conservatives supported that move as well. This place (FR) went apesh*t over it.

[thoughtomator]

You know, you're not supposed to point out the logical fallacies in the argument before the thread builds a head of conservatives-are-evil steam!

[wideawake]

The problem was the shrill minority of lunatics who started screaming "Bush lied!" in complete A.N.S.W.E.R.-style hyperbole.

[elli1]

None of the anti-Miers pundits are suggesting that she should be filibustered. Some are saying she shouldnt have been nominated and some are suggesting she should be voted down..a few others that she should withdraw her nomination. BUt I havent heard a single conservative say she should be filibustered so the comparison is ludicrous.

Reagan didn't say that conservatives/ Republicans were calling for a filibuster. This is what he said:

Now, all of sudden, because the president didn’t call us personally and get our permission, we wise pundits are now suddenly acting the way the leftists did with Roberts and others, demanding that he reveal how Harriet Miers will vote and what she thinks about just about everything. That’s exactly what we condemned the liberals for demanding.

Reagan explicitly lays out how some conservative pundits are acting like the Dims--'demanding that he (the President) reveal how Harriet Miers will vote and what she thinks about just about everything.'

[cardinal4]

yes, elected him and it looks like he has betrayed us with this nomination.

Whatever. The president doesnt have to consult you before he picks. And you, just like every other dissenter, knows nothing about her. At least not enough to call it a betrayal. So get off the "Bush didnt do what I wanted him him to do bandwagon" and wait until the hearings to make an informed post..

[ClidePenbroke]

Laura Ingram today noted the appearance of Card, Cheney, and Rice this weekend in defense of Miers as evidence that the Administration knows it's in trouble over her nomination.

People wonder why Bush doesn't defend himself over B.S. the Dems and LSM throw out, and here his own party pulls exactly the same crap on him his enemies would.

Since she can't sing, Laura should just shut up.

[RobbyS]

What do you think the conservative pundits are doing but filibustering. Call it kibitzing or whatever you like, but they ARE demanding of Miers exactly what the Democrats did of Robert and some of Bush's circuit court nominees, and the administration has fallen into much the same trap. A very unseemly display.