Replies

"If they do so, and if they hand the election to the Democrats, there could be a real bloodletting among conservatives that could split Republicans for a generation and perhaps even give impetus to the creation of a third party. "

I want to thank W personally for this debacle. It never could have happened w/o him.

At this point all the hand-wringing about her lack of stature, her lack of depth, her lack of high-octane education, her lack of Federalist Society membership, yadda, yadda, yadda, comes down to this:

How will she vote?

If she votes like I think she will vote, the Republican Party is saved.

Otherwise... doom...

...seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.

This is the fulcrum of the debate. While I too was initially dissapointed by the nomination of Miers, I am now convinced that history will show Miers was a solid, landscape altering pick.

Nice article.

Disappointed though I am in Miers' choice, I'm pragmatic enough to realize that letting the Dems win in '06 will disappoint me orders of magnitude more.

Dissent and churn is part of a healthy democratic process that'll likely keep the Repubs in touch with their base and relevant to the big questions of the day and avoid the fate of the current Dem party. I don't grudge the Bush protestors on the right their protest or their reasons.

Have a nice day.

I don't number myself among either the fall-on-your-sword true believers or the Bushbots. I neither hate Bush nor trust him beyond all contrary evidence.

I don't hate Harriet Miers, either.

What I do think, however, is that her nomination was a grievous mistake. She is not the best candidate. Her nomination has split the conservative ranks down the middle. The tensions and bad feelings on FR are only too clear. I'm not sure whether it may have slowed the process of quarterly fund raising, although certainly Jim Robinson has had nothing to do with this whole business either one way or the other. But it certainly has caste a lot of anger, gloom, bad will, and eagerness to hurl insults on the forum.

I think there's zero chance that her nomination will be withdrawn, and small chance it will be defeated. So we'd just better hope: a) that she proves to be a strong conservative voice on the court, preferably making that crystal clear before the 2006 senate elections (which hardly gives her much time); and b) that Rove and Bush have learned there lesson by this whole unpleasant experience and don't make the same mistake again.

It's very possible that Bush will have a chance to make one or two more SCOTUS appointments. We can't afford to weaken any further. Probably this stupid business of letting the RINOs, Harry Reid, and Arlen Specter dictate terms will already make it impossible for Bush to stiffen up next time and fight for a really strong candidate. But we sure need more reliable conservatives on the court, and this business doesn't help.

No, we can't back down now on Miers. But it was a horrible mistake that never should have been committed in the first place.

Sorry I disagree with the whole thrust of this article.

The problem over the last 30 years has not been the "I'd rather than right than be President" hard rock conservatives but the constant pandering and giving in to the siren song of "pragmatism".

The "cool-headed" pragmatists favored Ford over Reagan in 1976 and Bush in 1980 - because he was "Electable." They supported Bush I in 1988 and continued to support him despite his governing as a Rockefeller Republican.

They supported boring, loser, Dole in 1988 because he was "responsible". And whenever, Bush II has gone liberal on us, they have supported him and trashed any conservative who disagrees. Whenever a Republican betrays us, they urge us to continue our support. Whenever the Republicans refuse to fight for conservative positions, they come up with detailed "sophisticated" explanations as why this isn't the time, or its really part of some "clever" longterm strategy.

They have been leading down the path to defeat for 30 years. They have constantly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Their defeatism, love of compromise, and pandering to big business and the liberal establishment have gotten us nowhere.

I say reject Miers. Play hardball and maybe GWB will get the message and nominate someone we know is really like Scalia.

"if Harriet Miers falters or comes up short in any way, the coalition that has elected 3 out of the last 4 Presidents could finally collapse in flurry of recrimination and anger."

I have a different analysis: If the President wisely pulls the plug on this mistaken nomination, or Miers herself throws in the towel, Bush can redeem himself and cement the base by being as bold in nominating an originalist, strict-constructionist, no-foreign-precedent nominee as the Slickmeister was in nominating the far-leftist Ruth "Darth Vader" Ginsburg during his presidency.

It comes down to trust.

If the President hadn't gotten behind amnesty for illegals and had instead advocated a marked increase in immigration law enforcement, harsh penalties for lawbreakers, and deportations, he'd have had a much easier time maintaining trust and credibility.

And that's just one issue.