Thomas Sowell: Dangerous Moderation

Creator's Syndicate ^ | October 30, 2005 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

[RWR8189]

The choice of Harriet Miers to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and her subsequent withdrawal, shows that caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy.

She was obviously chosen cautiously as a "stealth" nominee -- someone without a paper trail or a judicial record that could ignite controversy -- in hopes of avoiding a confirmation fight that the Senate Republicans had the votes to win, but had neither the unity nor the guts required to make victory certain.

Harriet Miers was a choice made from political weakness. Now she is gone but the political weakness remains. So celebrations in conservative quarters may be premature.

Liberal Senators have already gained from the time lost with the Miers nomination and they have every incentive to stall on the next nominee, to make sure that nominee is not confirmed before Congress adjourns at Thanksgiving. The longer they stall, the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court -- and she is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.

Obstructionist Democrats in the Senate have had their hand strengthened by this episode. Even those who had their knives out for Harriet Miers can now piously lament her withdrawal and claim that, while they might have voted for her confirmation, they must now oppose an "extremist" nominee chosen in response to the conservative groups that forced Ms. Miers' withdrawal.
Any judicial nominee who has said that the Constitution means what it says, not what judges would like it to mean, is going to be called an "extremist." That person will be said to be "out of the mainstream." But the mainstream is itself the problem.

What is the point of electing a President pledged to appoint judges who are like Justices Scalia and Thomas, if the weakness of his own party's Senators leads him to appoint judges who are like Justices O'Connor and Kennedy or -- heaven help us -- David Souter?

If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.

The brutal fact is that Senate Republicans have not had the stomach for a fight, either during this administration or during the Democratic administration under Clinton.

While Senate Democrats have not hesitated to obstruct the Senate from even voting on some of President Bush's nominees to appellate courts, Republicans gave an overwhelming vote of approval to even such a far left Clinton nominee as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

While it would have been wrong to obstruct the Senate from voting on Judge Ginsburg, there was no need for the Republicans to vote for her themselves. If they thought that such cooperation would be reciprocated when their party controlled the White House and the Senate, events have shown that they were sadly mistaken.

Democrats understand that they were elected to do what those who elected them wanted. But Republicans seem to think they were elected to make deals with Democrats and gain media applause for doing so.

Senate Democrats are a united minority, while Senate Republicans are a divided majority, with prima donnas and opportunists ready to leave their fellow Republicans in the lurch when a showdown comes -- even if that means risking the whole party's loss of support among voters who feel betrayed.

That is the hand that President Bush has been dealt.

Harriet Miers was his attempt to make the best of that weak hand. Now his conservative base, having rejected Ms. Miers, expects him to nominate someone with a clearly established track record of upholding the Constitution as it was written.

But does the Republican "majority" in the Senate have the guts for the battle that such a nomination would surely set off? Are they prepared to put up a fight and be satisfied with a victory on a close vote, with perhaps Vice President Cheney breaking a tie?

Or is looking "statesmanlike" in the liberal media more important to some Republican Senators, either for its ego boost or for its practical political value in running for re-election or for the Presidency in 2008?

Politically, these can be "times that try men's souls" -- for those who still have souls and haven't sold them.

Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate

[GATOR NAVY]

...perhaps being in the minority will help to concentrate their minds.

As chickensh*t as they are with a majority, would they even notice a difference?

[Tax-chick]

Greatest mind in America ...

[monocle]

I would suggest that were not for the 17th Amendment there would be greater party unity. Republicans like Collins, Snowe, Chafee and Specter would be more party oriented if they owed their seats to state legislatures rather than worrying about the next election. As matters now stand, senators are most concerned with their own self interest rather than what is in the best interest of the nation.

[Cboldt]

Given the political aspirations of some of those 7, I strongly suspect at least two will defect from their "Gang of 14".

There may be DEM defectors as well. Nelson comes to mind.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

If there were no 17th Amendment those senators would not be in office, because their state legislatures are not controlled by the Republican Party, with the exception of Pennsylvania.

[ovrtaxt]

If the Republican majority in the Senate cannot bring themselves to act like a majority, they may no longer be a majority if their base of support stops supporting them at the ballot box.

That's absolutely correct. The liberal Republicans cannot win without us. They had beter wake up.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

What about those lame Republicans who don't hail from the Northeast?

Such as Leapin' Lyndsay-and Liddy-Trent Lott, Waner, Gordon Smith and Orrin Hatch-two of the most liberal Mormons that I've ever laid eyes on-and the always infamous, lamentable-and contemptible-monstrosity known as "McHagAr."

Hmm...?

[ovrtaxt]

There is more at stake than a Supreme Court nomination. Please try to think beyond one issue.

This 'one issue' is the basis fo rmy support of the GOP. SC nominations are by far the most important single event that can happen during a Presidency.

This is too important to swallow a 'trust me' line. If we trust him and we get Souter, the sequel, the GOP majority will take a serious blow in the next election.

[muir_redwoods]

That contradicts the premise of your post."

No, you missed the point, Moderation in all things including moderation. One should not be moderate all the time.

[dawn53]

True, there's plenty that don't hail from the Northeast...I'm just saying the behavior from those from the NE can be understood, though not excused.

The others (Lott...don't even get me started on him, McCain, Warner, Graham, etc.) can be neither understood nor excused.

[monocle]

But those losses would be compensated by states having Republican legislatures which now have Democrat senators.

[Pietro]

"Did you hear that, Senator Santorum?"

Santorum is in a dicey position. PA can go either way and the dims have nominated a "pro-life" candidate w/ the appealing name of Casey. The scion of the infamous, to dims, Casey that bucked the party line on abortion (and was uncerimoniously ostracized as a result).

Santorum has been one of the most stauch conservatives in the Senate. the dims, nationwide, are pulling out all of the stops to knock him down.

If that happens the RINOs will be emboldened and justified. It is vital to the right, nationwide, that Santorum wins next year. And that my friends is going to be very difficult.

[labette]

punish the party next year by stripping it of its Senate majority.

Tempting.
But we'd better apply the coup de grace while the rat is cornered before we go chasing after neutered elephants.

[johnny7]

...we can help move some of the cowards into action.

The same passion that forced the Miers withdrawal... can now be redirected into slapping these ninnies back to reality.

[Hardastarboard]

caution is sometimes the most dangerous policy

Reminds me of the old military doctrine "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing".

[G.Mason]

" ... And while he's about it, how about closing down the borders and going after the illegals who are already here?

I am honestly afraid that if we don't take the fight to them right now and on every front that it will be too late."

I am normally an optimist, but it is way late and there is absolutely no reason to believe things will change.

The border issue will be decided by the action "we the people" take, and I don't mean elections. [Minutemen, etc.]

It has become painfully obvious that we are under the control of appeasers, be they Democrats or Republicans.

They refuse to fight the WOT without their p/c gloves on, refuse to protect Americans from the illegal onslaught, refuse to wean the U.S. of off foreign oil dependency, refuse to demand prosecutions for "crimes" committed by any Democrat administration, while seemingly are eager to aid and abet in the takedown of Republicans, ignore the Able Danger issue, sit silently while the whole country watches an attempted Republican administration coup under the guise of "outing" a supposed covert CIA agent, etc. etc., adnauseum.

Though I look, I can see no reason not to elect a Democrat to the Whitehouse. By doing so may make the certain civil war, we will eventually face, simply begin sooner.

"It's just a matter of time before the Left comes up with a candidate who's not a flake and has an idea or two, and once that happens we're dead!"

Someone like Lieberman? Not a chance.

Though he is a pathetic leftist to us, he is a far right Conservative to the Dims. Perhaps they will nominate Hillary and we will be saved, in spite of ourselves. ;)

[Miss Marple]

I understand the importance of the Supreme Court. I definitely want a good nominee.

The problem, as Dr. Sowell points out, is with the Senate.

I am concerned about other things, however. If the President is perceived as weak, we will have trouble getting other things passed, like permanent tax cuts. I also am concerned that terrorists will use this time to push against us in Iraq and that the left will use it to try to force a withdrawal because of a lack of public support.

If a conservative acceptable to the Miers critics is nominated, we will have a large-scale battle in the Congress. Whether this is a good thing for the country, I do not know. I don't have all of the poll information, security reports, and White House political assessments of the Senate.

We are in a war, and I do not think it helpful to have the President look weak. I would prefer that the blame and perception of weakness fall on those actually responsible...the Senators.

Then again, too much pressure on some Senators could send them into the opposite camp. And some Senators might be defeated in 2006, losing us the majority. While I don't claim that this Senate has been particularly effective, we certainly wouldn't profit from a democrat Senate which would block ALL nominations, prevent needed legislation, and initiate non=stop Senate investigations which would be given heavy coverage on all the TV channels.

This nomination process is not an easy one, and I don't envy the President. Those who think it is simple are not looking at the political consequences realistically.

[Sam Cree]

*

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

As usual, a brilliant Thomas Sowell article.

What Thomas Sowell is saying in nice words can be put more bluntly:

1] Sowell indicates that the Republicans have moved hard left.

2] Sowell implies that the Republicans lack spine.

3] Sowell minces words but says the "RATs tail" wags the "Repubs Dog".

4] Sowell lists reasons why the Republicans are not conservative.

Thomas Sowell used different words, but the fact is this is exactly what Sowell is saying, the same things many here on FR say, the TRUE CONSERVATIVES. We get flamed by the cheerleaders when we say these truths, but these are the truths we must confront.

It is time conservative activists, like those of us on FR, start fighting for this nation and for the conservative cause, and STOP believing and wishing and praying that George Bush grows spine and acts like a majority rule president.

Republicans does NOT = conservatives in Washington.

Activists need to STOP doing the "Democrats vs. Republicans" thing (like Sean Hannity continually does) and START discriminating between radical leftists and conservatives.

George Bush should not be cheered on with every step, but watched VERY closely and held to strict accountability as he easily moves hard left when he walks, never to the right.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I still don't see the value-or wisdom-in repealing the 17th Amendment.

Our U.S. Senate is the most self-important, megalomaniacal confederation of mediocrities known to man, as it is.

The idea of further insulating these men and women from public scrutinity-which was in part responsible for their increasingly negative reaction towards the Miers nomination-is preposterous, in my opinion.