Thursday, October 27, 2005

Evil Triumphs


This WILL Come Back and Bite the Conservatives.

This hands a whole new weapon to the Left; Ideology as a valid litmus test in nominations. There is a continuing problem with attention by many on this issue.

I have, repeatedly, explained the difference between principled opposition to Miers and the vicious attackers against her. Her withdrawal gave the rumor-mongers exactly what they wanted, and has shown that thuggery will work as a tactic against the President. If Miers had been allowed her hearings but declined by the Senate, that would have been one thing, but instead she was rhetorically assaulted, sadly by many who used to understand the evil and stupidity in just such methods.

If you felt Miers was unqualified, but were willing to let the facts come out at the hearings, I am not talking about you. If you believe that many other people were better qualified than Miers, but were waiting for the process to work its way through, I am not talking about you.

But there were many who took great enjoyment in deliberately casting the White House Counsel as an unintelligent woman. There were many who actually claimed to know that Miers, despite signing a clear anti-Roe statement on multiple occasions, was somehow plotting to promote Abortion as a legal right. There were many who regularly took up character assassination as their mietre against Miers, insulting her personally and misrepresenting her credentials in order to attack her. She was insulted for her appearance, for casual communications, for old speeches made before she knew the President and worked for him, for graduating from a non-Ivy League school, for not impressing various unelected big-name figureheads. Such tactics are unconscionable, and exactly the sort which were used against Clarence Thomas, when he stood as a nominee. Miers was held to an impossible standard, for no better reason than petulance and a demand that the President not make his own choices, but choose only from a list created for him by special-interest groups. Such people are bastards, and since their method has come to success, those methods will certainly be used again.

Far too many people have forgotten how long and hard President Bush worked to support so many court nominees which the Conservative Movement understood to be vital to the needs. How long did so many have to wait, even with a Republican Majority, simply because the Senate lacked the resolve to support the President responsible for their majority? How many people have forgotten the knifing of Majority Leader Frist, who was assured the long-awaited “Nuclear Option” would finally settle the filibuster tactic against judicial nominees, only to see a handful of Senators presume to control that decision on their own arrogance? The plain fact is, the Left will not hesitate to say that this withdrawal “proves” that President Bush is “controlled” by “ideologues”, and they will use this as the “Extraordinary Circumstances” to filibuster, and very likely will be supported by the RINOs in the Senate. The assumption that Miers’ withdrawal is a victory for Conservatives in any way, fails to consider the recent history of the Senate, and the success which Liberals have used in applying Conservative tactics against them. Ever wonder why, when the Republicans were proportionally so much more responsible for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that blacks have overwhelmingly credited Democrats for it? Ever wonder why, with the comparable nominations and appointments by Republicans and Democrats of qualified women and minorities to high positions, that Democrats can still claim it is the Republican Party which is sexist and hypocritical? The Democrats/Liberals have always been very good at manipulating appearances, and there should be no doubt that the Miers withdrawal will be cast by the MSM and the Democrats in only such light as allows them to gain. And it is avowed Conservatives, who have renewed that power in the Left, and shown a dismally poor loyalty to the President and his judgment.

And yes, it will convince more than a couple Senators that the McCain method of two-faced promise and treachery, is the most effective mode of operation. The bastards did indeed win, and on more than one level.


bill said...

I beg to differ, the left just hid the fact that ideology was their weapon of choice against Conservatives in the past. The big difference is now the left does not have a monopoly of the public stage, and the reality is the country is more Conservative than the distorted picture the media monopoly was painting.

Presented properly, like say in the context of the Kelo decision, a real originalist can get approved for the Supreme Court. We just need to do some educating. That will be a lot easier with the base behind the nominee.

It's time for "the fight", I say bring it on.

Mike's America said...

You hit the nail on the head...

Some thoughts from my post on the subject:

*In the Miers debacle Republicans have turned the old rallying cry: "Give them an up or down vote"upside down.

*Republicans in the Senate have overturned the principle of protecting Executive Branch documents.

*After witnessing this latest episode can we know expect our GOP Senators to grow a spine and defend an even more controversial nominee?

*Chris Matthews summed it up this way: "Bush is lame duck with broken

Tom P said...

Hey, Mike!

Good to see you getting out and about within the confines of your personal echo chamber!

Re: your points.

1) Nobody denied Harriet Miers of an up-or-down vote but Harriet Miers. If she hadn't withdrawn, I'd have fought against an illegitimate filibuster even though I believed she would have been a genuine disaster on the court and would have set back the conservative movement a full generation. The constitutionally mandated "advice" was given by the senate (formed and informed by their vocal constituents -- remember them?), and that advice caused the administration to pull the nomination before they either granted or witheld their "consent". What part of that do you not understand? No supermajority requirement was ever imposed or advocated. The principle of demanding an up or down vote is undamaged as it ever was to those who pay attention and aren't so persuaded by their own indignation that they give credence to Harry Reid's illegitimate talking points.

2) Brownback and others used the tactic of requesting privileged documents to highlight the lack of a paper trail. The administration saw the purpose of their request even if you didn't. And ... in case you didn't notice, no documents were released. That principle also remains inviolate, contrary to your craven assertion.

3) Harriet Miers' nomination failed not because she was "controversial". It failed because she was unqualified. She had almost no experience with complex constitutional issues and had demonstrated zero interest in preparing herself for the court. This was painfully obvious (and more obvious with every passing day); her appointment to the court would have been an embarrassment, and a debasement of our supposed committment to merit.

I am not one to accuse our weak majority of possessing spines, but this was the wrong fight. Let them have the unanimous support of the base on a qualified conservative pick, and you'll see them stiffen.

4) Now you're taking your talking points from Chris Matthews? Aren't you embarrassed?

You're wrong on all counts. If you and DJ Drummond can't let go of your petulant anger after this is all resolved, you do much more damage than the Miers opponents ever did.

You're wrong on every point. Get over it.

I LOVE YOU said...