I started to collect some of the comments I was finding on the conservative sites, but they’re just too numerous. The “conservative base” is finally starting to see what the social liberals have known and felt all along: Bush is an incompetent fascist (or to quote Mussolini, a corporatist), and a bald faced liar to boot.
It looks to me as though this (the Mires nomination) was a huge mistake on Bush’s part - those who have “trusted” him to support and push their conservative social agenda are getting screwed royally and now they know it. No more nagging doubts at 2 a.m. No more wondering (in the silence of their own heads of course) if the trust bestowed to Bush has been well placed.
Nope. No more doubts. Now it’s known by one and all that they’re screwed. George isn’t even hiding now - he just came right out and said it: “All you folks who supported me and expected me to work on social issues - well, your donations just weren’t big enough, so screw you.”
Amazingly enough, hate radio has even turned on him. Rush is “disappointed” (what’s the matter big boy, did the koolaid wear off?). Hannity is dubious, you can tell ‘cause his shrillness is, well, not so shrill. He’s having a hard time pushing this one. Savage gave up, he’s gonna quit before the masses turn against the whole genre.
Yup. It’s a “watershed moment” for sure. Red Ink. Mired in a war. Mired in another war. Oil prices. Hurricanes. Mired in Mires (couldn’t resists that one). Red Ink. The social conservatives are rebelling and that’s really all he has as a political base. The idealogues are just too few (and although wealthy and powerful) they’re just not numerous enough to provide the kind of support that the rest of the party hacks need. Believe it or not, Americans will vote their concience when it gets to bothering ‘em too much. “Tell a lie often enough and people start to believe it. Tell enough lies and people start to call you a liar.”
Here’s a piece I cam across on RedState.org - it’s attributed to George Will but I’m unable to confirm that:
UPDATE: Miers is the wrong pick
Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential deference to which senatorial discretion is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s ‘‘argument’’ for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked in advance — to insure a considered response from him — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ‘‘I agree.’’ Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ‘‘I do.’’
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’ confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
Under the rubric of ‘‘diversity’’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.
The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing
Miers, deplored judges who ‘‘legislate from the bench.’’ Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ‘‘discriminated against’’ because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?