Hugh Hewett: Why the Right Was Wrong

The New York Times ^ | October 28, 2005 | Hugh Hewett

[quidnunc]

Anaheim, Calif. – Over the last two elections, the Republican Party regained control of the United States Senate by electing new senators in Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas. These victories were attributable in large measure to the central demand made by Republican candidates, and heard and embraced by voters, that President Bush's nominees deserved an up-or-down decision on the floor of the Senate. Now, with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers under an instant, fierce and sometimes false assault from conservative pundits and activists, it will be difficult for Republican candidates to continue to make this winning argument: that Democrats have deeply damaged the integrity of the advice and consent process.

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left — exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources — will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around. Given the overemphasis on admittedly ambiguous speeches Miers made more than a decade ago, conservative activists will find it difficult to take on liberals in their parallel efforts to destroy some future Robert Bork.

Not all critics of Ms. Miers from the right used these tactics, and those who did not will be able to continue on with the project of restoring sanity to the process that went haywire with Judge Bork's rejection in 1987. Conservatives are also fortunate that no Republican senator called for Ms. Miers's withdrawal.

But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.

-snip-

[flaglady47]

Hugh's been drinking the kool-aid.

[Hank Rearden]

In that scenario, I'm rooting for The Lump.

[Spirited]

Absurd individual.

He underestimates conservatives and must move in the realm of the moderates who call themselves conservative.

Even Hume's panel agreed the nomination was faulty. Conservatives merely saved the WH' nether parts.

[Torie]

any politician's bootblack

That seems a rather unfortunate term by the way. Just pounding out on the keyboard words to just do it, may not in time be viewed as totally admirable.

[Valpal1]

This triumph of the conservative punditocracy will have lasting consequences, and I hope my fears are misplaced. The first returns will come in the decision on parental notification statutes that will be argued before the Supreme Court in late November. Absent a miracle of Senate efficiency, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will cast one of her last votes on the most important abortion-rights case in a few years. And then the accounting will begin in earnest.

I think he's right on this.

[Bush 100 Percent]

I wonder if the anti-Mier's crowd realizes that their friends at NRO, Frum, Fund, et al are pushing for the likes of Christopher Cox, John Cornyn, and Orin Hatch to be the next nominee?

These may be good conservatives, but they are POLITICIANS (for a lot longer than Miers' short council stint). Yes, Cornyn seems like a very good conservative Senator, but he chose to leave the Texas Supreme Court for POLITICS. What happened to the "must have" qualification of a day and night constitutional scholar? How are they like Scalia?

Some want M. McConnell, who doesn't understand that you couldn't simply recount the Bush v. Gore votes and come up with one undisputed total .... A scholar who doesn't seem in touch with the real world ....

John Fund is mentioning people based on who is "easily confirmed" (ie. have Dem support).

I have a feeling that the NRO folks are, now, going to part ways with many on this board as to what type of nominee is "acceptable".

[quantim]

Perhaps a wiser course, would be that with new facts, one has to make new judgments.

Nominate a verifiable conservative then.  Stay away form cronies.

[counterpunch]

High is wrong.
The public has a right to discuss and critique the President's nominees. That is a democratic side effect of the First Amendment. The same First Amendment that allows Hugh to now criticize the critics.

Ultimately, it was Harriet Miers who decided to withdraw her nomination precisely because she knew that the Separation of Powers conflict prevented her from full participation in Senate hearings and deprived the Senators from casting a fully informed up-or-down vote.

There was no mistake on the Right for discussing her credentials, nor a mistake on her part for withdrawing over the documents impasse.

The only mistake being made is by those such as Hewitt who are now trying to recast the opposition to Miers as one of ideology, rather than qualification, and recast her decision to pull out as bowing to pressure from those outside voices who disagreed with her nomination.

 

[USPatriette]

"First, Bush created this situation in the first place."


Tiresome argument. Consider taking some responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming the president. I never knew so-called conservatives could have such a victim and blame-the-other-guy mentality. What an eye-opener.

[Torie]

Suppose McConnell or Jones or Brown or Luttig was Bush's crony? Don't suck the well dry. Save something for a rainy day.

[counterpunch]

Cornyn is an excellent choice if Bush wants a solid conservative without the fight.
Janice Rogers Brown is an excellent choice if Bush wants the solid conservative AND the fight.

[kabar]

David Frum, Bill Kristol, Ann "Impeach Bush" Coulter, et al, will never be able to demand, of the Democrats "give our nominees an up-or-down vote."

You mean like Breyer (confirmed by an 87 to 9 vote) and Bader-Ginsburg (confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote) received?

[Hank Rearden]

That seems a rather unfortunate term by the way.

boot·black
n.

A person who cleans and polishes shoes for a living.

[wireman]

The next nominee will send the "true believers" through the roof... Alberto Gonzales!

GW is never running for office again. So calm down. He doesn't give a rat's ass about your opinion.

[gpapa]

The next nominee - even one who is a superb scholar and sitting judge who recently underwent Senate confirmation like Michael McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, or a long-serving superstar like Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit - will face an instant and savage assault.

McConnell and Luttig were Hugh's original picks for the SCOTUS nomination to replace Justice O'Connor. They would both receive the democrat "treatment" with or without the intervening nomination of Miers. If Hugh was willing to fight for them then why not now?

I respect Hugh most of the time for his opinions, but this latest piece placed prominently the NYSlimes was not his finest effort. He should recognize that the battle for Miers is over and move on.

It is time to get over the debate on the SCOTUS nomination and get back to something where losing is not an option, the War on Terror. I trust our President to do that no matter what the democrats, chicken hawks and bloviating pundits throw his way.

[Barnacle]

“But the Democrats' hand has been strengthened. Voting for or against Ms. Miers would have forced Senate Democrats to articulate a coherent standard for future nominees. Now, the Democrats have free rein.”

[quidnunc]

Hank Rearden wrote: 1. I don't give a damn about the fortunes of the Republican Party - they've devolved into the usual gaggle of greedy, power-mad, sleazy parasites whose only purpose in life is to retain a deathgrip on power and keep whoring themselves out for votes by squandering money confiscated from normal people.

And just how do you plan, pray tell, on getting a conservative agenda implemented without them?

[Torie]

Still unfortunate. Perhaps courtier would be better.

[Wallaby]

The process has been bastardized.

You seem to think there was a process where every nominee received an up-or-down vote. So far, that is a process involving one candidate -- Roberts -- a man who had more than enough votes to block a filibuster. You seem to be forgetting that the "Gang of 14" deal, upon which the Senate is operating currently, did not honor the principle you think Frum, Kristol, and Coulter "bastardized." The compromise did not end the filibuster on the nominations of William Myers (to the 9th Circuit) nor of Henry Saad (to the 6th Circuit). Moreover, there was no commitment to end the filibusters "in extraordinary circumstances."

[TAdams8591]

Someone should write an article entitled, "Why Hugh Were Wrong."

Stop pushing it, Hugh. It's over and your side lost.