[xx]
It used to be a mystery to me, why Republicans and Conservatives found it so difficult to make the most of their opportunities, or to show the unity that Liberals manage so often. It seems obvious to me now, that the differing factions of Conservatism are unwilling to share credit and gains with anyone who has even a slightly different perspective; a moral victory with no substance seems preferred to a solid victory resulting from consensus or cooperation with other groups. All or nothing, which too often produces nothing.
Sorting through the comments, I see the sort of thing reprehensible in anyone claiming to be mature and constructive in their position. I do, despite so many claims to the contrary, respect the right to think the Miers pick is not the best one, or even not a good choice. But far too many of the commenters have demanded the President give in to them, claimed Miers is unqualified on no basis other than that they wanted someone else. Many comments have been bitter, many more spiteful, and far too many more made no attempt to defend their position, but only attacked the people who supported the decision.
Comments from just yesterday’s post included claims about “Bush’s dereliction of duty”, denunciations of Bush supporters as “cheerleaders” and “kool-aid drinkers” and ”lapdogs”, as “pandering”, whining that somehow “debate is off limits” simply because I point out the venality of their tone and the total lack of evidence to support their claims - please note, by the way, that not a single comment has been deleted from these posts, although one comment Thursday was edited to remove gratuitous sexually offensive comments. Commenters have claimed that Miers was only nominated because she is Bush’s “confidante”, or that anyone supporting the President is “goose-stepping”. These comments are coming from Republicans, folks. Is that how you want to treat your own party? Really?
A surprising number of Conservatives are starting out with the assumption that Miers is not qualified. This betrays a serious misundertanding of the process, and a woeful tendency to jump ship when it’s not the style you want. Looking at the reaction, I generally see three groups - those who have worked with Miers approve of her selection, some of those who do not know her say they would have preferred someone else, and a growing number are saying they will wait until the hearings to see how they will respond. There are, of course, a relatively large number of high-profile people who have said some very unreasonable and negative things, but to be frank they have done this before, pretending they are better-qualified as popular celebrities than people who have been elected to make just these sorts of decisions.
Like it or not, the process will go pretty much as Hugh Hewitt described it yesterday on his radio show;
1. George W. Bush will not retract Miers’ nomination. If you doubt this, look at his track record on nominations.
2. That leaves two choices for the ‘Hate Miers’ crowd. You can give her a chance at the hearings, or you can try to tear her down by demanding your Senators vote against her before you have heard anything from her.
3. Because of the structure of the Senate, there are only two ways in which Miers will not be confirmed. Either she wil prove herself a complete idiot at the hearings, in which case reasonable Senators will remove their support for valid reasons, or Miers will prove herself to be so completely Hard-Right, as to strip support from the RINOs and every Democrat in the Senate. There is no reason, from her resume or her character, to believe Miers will make either of those mistakes. That means, in all likelihood, that Harriet Miers will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. All the name-calling and spiteful feuding will do nothing to change that.
Far too many people on the right seem to have adopted the malicious caricatures the Left uses to think of Dubya. We are told that somehow Dubya “betrayed” the Right, as if he were an untrustworthy standard-bearer of the party. We are told that Dubya did not think this decision through, that he somehow must have forgotten about Luttig, Brown, or the more preferred choices. We are told that Bush prefers setting up his buddies, to doing what is best for the nation. When these sorts of inane comments come from Michael Moore or Al Gore, we chuckle and observe that they just don’t know the President. It’s now obvious that many Republicans don’t really know Bush, either, if they can trot out the very same lies and slander that the Donks have used for the last decade, so miserably and so falsely.
The Bush-haters, whether from Right or Left, continue to miss a few very important points. First, Bush is the President, and you are not. He was elected to make just these sorts of decisions. And before you get on your high horse to demand someone ‘better’, take a close look at the appointments made by Republicans over the years. Was Earl Warren, a “known” Conservative, such a great choice in retrospect? On the other hand, I recall Conservatives moaning about Clarence Thomas in very much the same way they are now about Miers. He wasn’t their first choice, so he must have been a poor choice. Funny how that opinion changed, when they saw Thomas do his job. I agree that there are other choices who appear to be more solidly Rightist, though that brings up another issue very few people seem to have considered - Judges can be just as guilty as anyone else, of putting Ambition ahead of better priorities, and of campaigning for the jobs they want. One thing about Miers, is that she does not appear to have sought out the SCOTUS job, which is something which puts her a notch above some of the other judges who have made sure their contacts and friends kept their name in the light of attention and discussion. After all, one thing we know about Activist judges, as that they tend to think more highly of their own minds than they do of the law they review; in that context a judge who campaigns to be selected to the SCOTUS is LESS qualified, from the Constructionist point of view, than one who has made no attempt to sell their name for the position. Miers is not only known to the President, which is true of very few other contenders, but she was sought by him for the post, rather than showing the ambition which could indicate a dangerous pride.
But to the main point, while honest Republicans and Conservatives may disagree on the Miers selection, there needs to be a better standard of behavior, or else all you do is damage the party, and the nation.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Friday, October 07, 2005
Miers and the Roads of Government
0-0-0
I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error.
Yesterday I noted that George W. Bush is the most Conservative President this nation has seen, even as a candidate, since Ronald Reagan. I noted that Bush has a long string of victories for the Right Side of Things, and has earned more than a little discretion in his judgment. I also noted that the anti-Miers crowd have not presented any opinions or writings from Miers to demonstrate cause for concern; it basically boils down to not trusting the President, even as they hotly deny the charge.
It still strikes me as strange, that so many people do not seem to have seriously addressed the fact that President Bush has considered all if the various candidates suggested before now, and there is a reason Dubya settled on Miers instead of Luttig. If Dubya were somebody with a record of bad appointments or poor judgment, one might reasonably challenge a pick which does not suit the conventional wisdom, but considering the number of times Bush has been right and his detractors wrong, the automatic rejection of Miers is, at best, poor consideration and an overly emotional focus on the part of the naysayers. George W. Bush was twice elected Governor of Texas, and now twice elected President of the United States; it is completely unreasonable to think he does not know what he is doing. Ultimately, like it or not you have to either stand with him or stand against him, and this has everything to do with the future of the GOP and Conservatism in the coming years.
There are six roads to power and influence in Washington, D.C., and far too often these roads are hidden from close inspection. They are quite real, however, and knowing which road a certain leader uses will tell you their motives, loyalty, and focus.
The first road is the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why, even as the media makes great noise about his indictments, that Tom DeLay is relaxed, even cheerful? OK, it’s partly the fact that Ronnie Earle is a corrupt git with a bitter grudge and nothing close to evidence, so that DeLay is in no serious danger of conviction. But it’s also because Tom DeLay does not really need to worry about what the media thinks of him, nor even the whole state of Texas. So long as his District supports him, he’s just fine, and he knows that fact quite well. There are over three hundred other Congressmen in exactly the same situation; they do not answer to the nation or their party, whatever their speeches say, but only to their district. For better or worse, there are always going to be members of Congress who don’t give a fig for anyone who doesn’t live within a walk of their zip code, because they don’t have to care.
The second road is the U.S. Senate. All the talk we saw this summer about the “dignity” and “stature” of the Senate should have warned folks that the U.S. Senate is more about privilege than ideals, more about personal influence than personal responsibility. Even the strongest Conservative in the Senate is going to be tempted by some of the perks and benefits set aside for the elitist section of the Congress. The fourteen Senators who took it upon themselves to decide what the whole Senate would or would not do, without any input from even the Senate Majority Leader, demonstrates the arrogance of such people. And it should be considered that these are the men and women who vote Bush’s nominees in or out, often according to their own measure of advantage or self-interest. Few people indeed, have considered whether the nature of the Senate head count is relevant to the sort of nominees to be submitted.
The third road is the Executive branch. Most visible in that line is the President of course, but also the people he appoints and who provide him with the information and support he needs for his decisions. A President is normally seen as a strong center of power and authority, but as we have seen in the past, the President really has firm limits of his power, and depends on the Courts and Congress to grant him what he requests, form the budget to his appointments to his executive orders. As for the people working under the President, they serve at his pleasure, which in real-world terms means they have no sure security at all.
The fourth road is Lobbying, that mercenary trade of influence and information, somewhat less honorable or direct than Prostitution, but a favorite career for former officials all the same. While these individuals are not elected, and so do not consider themselves answerable, they have increasingly found it expedient to be able to provide information for Congressmen and high-profile officials, in order to receive consideration at a later time.
The fifth road is, it seems, proof that God felt sorry for the Lobbyists, and created a class of creature even lower in ideals and standards. I write, of course, about the Media, which necessarily includes my own humble efforts. The Media can be callously reckless, like the CBS attempt to smear President Bush in the ‘Rathergate’ episode, or stupidly biased, as we see every time a network sees a chance to put emotion ahead of upright reporting; ‘sweeps week’ has become ‘sweeps life’, all about the ratings, or what the suits think will impress the viewers. Sad to say, we see the same thing even among the New Media, where increased stature and attention has led some sites and stations to think they personally matter more than the issues they cover. This week has shown that Conservatives are in no way immune to such thinking.
The sixth road is the courts. While some judges run for office, at the Federal Appeals level and up, we see nominations to be confirmed by Congress, which is where the real circus begins. As a reader wrote me last night, “the absolute first rule of politicians is to get re-elected”, which means that a nominee is not confirmed by his or her qualifications, but by what Senator Hairpiece thinks his voters want. As my reader went on to say, “there are too many Republicans who cannot afford (at least in their own minds) to risk being labeled a "right wing extremist", which is the appellation that surely would follow from any nomination of a committed, vocal Conservative to the Supreme Court “. These are my own thoughts on the matter. The simple fact is, that the nomination of a judge or justice in no way guarantees their confirmation, especially after all we have seen during Dubya’s first term. Just this summer, we saw seven Republicans stick a knife in the back of Frist, rather than do their jobs properly. It is not the President’s fault that so many RINOs roam the halls of the Senate, or that so many politicians have sold their spines for TV time, but far too many analysts have forgotten the fact of that quavering character, demanding the President put everything on the table now, for a gamble they themselves can call reckless if it doesn’t pay off, even as they scream for it. The decision was made to present a qualified candidate, one who will advance the Conservative movement, but not give ammunition to hurt the work coming along in the next three years. Dubya knows Miers, and he has been looking for the best candidate for a long time. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how much we really know about the “sure thing” picks we heard so much before. Not too many people seem to have considered that judges solicit support for the jobs they want, just like anyone else. Funny, that people would put the word of a newspaper columnist or talk show host, ahead of a man they say they trust with the welfare of the nation and the party. Huh, go figure.
And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as “unqualified”, or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are “dozens, even hundreds” of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country.
I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error.
Yesterday I noted that George W. Bush is the most Conservative President this nation has seen, even as a candidate, since Ronald Reagan. I noted that Bush has a long string of victories for the Right Side of Things, and has earned more than a little discretion in his judgment. I also noted that the anti-Miers crowd have not presented any opinions or writings from Miers to demonstrate cause for concern; it basically boils down to not trusting the President, even as they hotly deny the charge.
It still strikes me as strange, that so many people do not seem to have seriously addressed the fact that President Bush has considered all if the various candidates suggested before now, and there is a reason Dubya settled on Miers instead of Luttig. If Dubya were somebody with a record of bad appointments or poor judgment, one might reasonably challenge a pick which does not suit the conventional wisdom, but considering the number of times Bush has been right and his detractors wrong, the automatic rejection of Miers is, at best, poor consideration and an overly emotional focus on the part of the naysayers. George W. Bush was twice elected Governor of Texas, and now twice elected President of the United States; it is completely unreasonable to think he does not know what he is doing. Ultimately, like it or not you have to either stand with him or stand against him, and this has everything to do with the future of the GOP and Conservatism in the coming years.
There are six roads to power and influence in Washington, D.C., and far too often these roads are hidden from close inspection. They are quite real, however, and knowing which road a certain leader uses will tell you their motives, loyalty, and focus.
The first road is the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why, even as the media makes great noise about his indictments, that Tom DeLay is relaxed, even cheerful? OK, it’s partly the fact that Ronnie Earle is a corrupt git with a bitter grudge and nothing close to evidence, so that DeLay is in no serious danger of conviction. But it’s also because Tom DeLay does not really need to worry about what the media thinks of him, nor even the whole state of Texas. So long as his District supports him, he’s just fine, and he knows that fact quite well. There are over three hundred other Congressmen in exactly the same situation; they do not answer to the nation or their party, whatever their speeches say, but only to their district. For better or worse, there are always going to be members of Congress who don’t give a fig for anyone who doesn’t live within a walk of their zip code, because they don’t have to care.
The second road is the U.S. Senate. All the talk we saw this summer about the “dignity” and “stature” of the Senate should have warned folks that the U.S. Senate is more about privilege than ideals, more about personal influence than personal responsibility. Even the strongest Conservative in the Senate is going to be tempted by some of the perks and benefits set aside for the elitist section of the Congress. The fourteen Senators who took it upon themselves to decide what the whole Senate would or would not do, without any input from even the Senate Majority Leader, demonstrates the arrogance of such people. And it should be considered that these are the men and women who vote Bush’s nominees in or out, often according to their own measure of advantage or self-interest. Few people indeed, have considered whether the nature of the Senate head count is relevant to the sort of nominees to be submitted.
The third road is the Executive branch. Most visible in that line is the President of course, but also the people he appoints and who provide him with the information and support he needs for his decisions. A President is normally seen as a strong center of power and authority, but as we have seen in the past, the President really has firm limits of his power, and depends on the Courts and Congress to grant him what he requests, form the budget to his appointments to his executive orders. As for the people working under the President, they serve at his pleasure, which in real-world terms means they have no sure security at all.
The fourth road is Lobbying, that mercenary trade of influence and information, somewhat less honorable or direct than Prostitution, but a favorite career for former officials all the same. While these individuals are not elected, and so do not consider themselves answerable, they have increasingly found it expedient to be able to provide information for Congressmen and high-profile officials, in order to receive consideration at a later time.
The fifth road is, it seems, proof that God felt sorry for the Lobbyists, and created a class of creature even lower in ideals and standards. I write, of course, about the Media, which necessarily includes my own humble efforts. The Media can be callously reckless, like the CBS attempt to smear President Bush in the ‘Rathergate’ episode, or stupidly biased, as we see every time a network sees a chance to put emotion ahead of upright reporting; ‘sweeps week’ has become ‘sweeps life’, all about the ratings, or what the suits think will impress the viewers. Sad to say, we see the same thing even among the New Media, where increased stature and attention has led some sites and stations to think they personally matter more than the issues they cover. This week has shown that Conservatives are in no way immune to such thinking.
The sixth road is the courts. While some judges run for office, at the Federal Appeals level and up, we see nominations to be confirmed by Congress, which is where the real circus begins. As a reader wrote me last night, “the absolute first rule of politicians is to get re-elected”, which means that a nominee is not confirmed by his or her qualifications, but by what Senator Hairpiece thinks his voters want. As my reader went on to say, “there are too many Republicans who cannot afford (at least in their own minds) to risk being labeled a "right wing extremist", which is the appellation that surely would follow from any nomination of a committed, vocal Conservative to the Supreme Court “. These are my own thoughts on the matter. The simple fact is, that the nomination of a judge or justice in no way guarantees their confirmation, especially after all we have seen during Dubya’s first term. Just this summer, we saw seven Republicans stick a knife in the back of Frist, rather than do their jobs properly. It is not the President’s fault that so many RINOs roam the halls of the Senate, or that so many politicians have sold their spines for TV time, but far too many analysts have forgotten the fact of that quavering character, demanding the President put everything on the table now, for a gamble they themselves can call reckless if it doesn’t pay off, even as they scream for it. The decision was made to present a qualified candidate, one who will advance the Conservative movement, but not give ammunition to hurt the work coming along in the next three years. Dubya knows Miers, and he has been looking for the best candidate for a long time. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how much we really know about the “sure thing” picks we heard so much before. Not too many people seem to have considered that judges solicit support for the jobs they want, just like anyone else. Funny, that people would put the word of a newspaper columnist or talk show host, ahead of a man they say they trust with the welfare of the nation and the party. Huh, go figure.
And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as “unqualified”, or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are “dozens, even hundreds” of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The 11th Commandment - Broken Again
.<>.
The continuing rancor among Republicans and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court displays an unfortunate lack of understanding amongst Conservatives about the condition and reality of modern American politics. Certainly the Democrats have demonstrated that they do not comprehend how much things have changed since the heyday of the New Deal and the Great Society, to such a degree that the long-term survival of the Democrats is in grave doubt. But the present inability of many Conservatives to understand the situation they face with the Miers selection also presents evidence that the Right is also going to have trouble making the most of their opportunity.
The most common complaint I hear regarding Miers, is that the SCOTUS is somehow not going to be Conservative “enough” to suit the Right. It has been said before, by Lorie and others, but it needs to be said again, quite clearly, that such talk is a wrongful insult to Judge Miers, and certainly is an unacceptable arrogance taken towards President Bush. It seems to me that Conservatives sometimes fail to keep their support firm for Dubya, even to the point that some groups and individuals act as if the President owes them the first call on his own nominations. This has certainly happened before, with Conservatives decrying the selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, or the recent selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, or his staunch defense of Donald Rumsfeld during any number of MSM attacks. The fact that Dubya makes decisions carefully, then sticks by them, should have long ago warned people that Bush is neither conventional nor a popularity lapdog.
But a lot of people continue to forget the deeper lessons as well. When George W. Bush decided to run for Governor of Texas, he knew Ann Richards was a well-established icon of the Democratic Party, who never expected the former “frat boy” to understand the game of politics better than she did. It’s a great irony that the rising star of the Democratic Party who hoped to become the first woman President of the United States and the next President to come from Texas, instead saw her little-known rival displace her first in the Governor’s mansion, then take the White House twice. The simple fact is, George W. Bush had done his homework, and put up a poker face when it counted. We saw the same thing happen over and over again, as many Democrats ended up voting for the same Iraq War they later tried to make an election issue, and in the 2002 Mid-Term elections, when instead of losing seats as expected, the GOP made gains, directly due to Bush’s personal involvement in a number of close races. It’s frankly amazing to me, how many times Dubya has played the Left with a ruse, and accomplished everything he meant to gain, yet the Lefrt never seems to remember the trick the next time they come up against him; the juke always works.
With all this in mind, we turn to the largest stakes in the present debate; the lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, being “more” Conservative than someone else in appearance does not mean that you will make better decisions on the high court, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a reputation for being a Conservative judge may not mean anything when that judge becomes a SCOTUS Justice; ask Nixon and Reagan if they were surprised by how some of their picks turned out. To know how a potential Justice is really going to think when presented with key decisions down the road a number of years, the President choosing the person must be able to see who they have worked with, how their mind has developed, and ideally should have some personal contact with them as well. In short, just what we see with Harriet Miers. It is not necessary for Miers to hold an NRA card to support 2nd Amendment rights. It is not necessary for her to oppose all abortions as a matter of principle, to agree that the Federal Government should not rule on the practice and deny States their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for Miers to condemn homosexuality, for her to oppose the notion that sexual orientation deserves special rights or protections. I do not mean to say that Miers has any personal opinions which Conservatives should find objectionable, but rather that we should want a justice who rules on the basis of the Constitution, not how they feel about something. The problem with Souter, as an example, was that he seemed to approve personally of the same things the elder Bush liked, but when it came time to rule, Souter applied his preferences in exactly the same method as Ginsberg or Kennedy, and that is the reason we now see him as a threat to the Constitution, rather than its defender. The record available on Miers is that of a Constructionist, and that, when we get to the bottom of the decision, is what we need.
President Bush certainly has his limitations, and there are issues and topics where Conservatives may reasonably disagree with his position. But then, that was true even of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater; the simple fact is that George W. Bush is far better for Conservatives than most of the available choices we’ve seen in my lifetime, and yes, that does mean that Conservatives owe this guy a certain margin of deference. For that matter, most of the columnists and commenting hairpieces on the Right owe Harriet Miers and the President an apology for the manner in which they have portrayed his decisioning process, and their rather rude assumption that just because they didn’t get the Conservative they expected, that the one they got is somehow inferior. The only “damage” that has been done to the Conservative cause in this matter, did not come from the White House but from the brittle egos of malcontents who are unwilling to set aside pettiness in the interest of greater ideals. They demonstrated to Kos and Soros and every back-biting Leftist in the field, that unity on the Right can be shattered by a simple bruised ego here and there, or the notion that the President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his personal discretion, without the permission of selected newspaper columnists. Nice going, to broadcast an Achilles heel for them to use against us...
Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique. It is not common for the average person to give a great deal of thought to SCOTUS nominations; except for recent events, we seldom hear of the community of judges. But given the ages of the Justices on the extant Court, and the strategic and tactical measures necessary to get confirmation and establish the appropriate atmosphere, it is completely in character for President Bush to have developed his working list a long time ago, even as he held it close to his vest. In other words, President Bush not only knows his personal choice far better in detail than most commenters can say for their choice, he has been thinking about this decision far longer than most of the people barking about it now.
Why not Brown, or Luttig, or Owen? Since I am writing this from Houston and not Washington D.C., I would have to say there are points in that decision to which I am not privy but then, that same disadvantage is true for everyone else as well. Certainly we should understand and accept that the President knew these judges well, and has considered their qualifications. If we can do that, then we are forced to concede that there is something else to the decision, that the President has more information and a deeper comprehension of this issue than the general public - what a concept!
Moving ahead, as adults invariably have to do sooner or later, there are two takeaways from this debate. One, is that Conservatives will have to decide for themselves whether or not they are willing to accept the choice of the most Conservative President in memory, and if not, to understand that they would be giving unwarranted influence and power back to the Liberals they claim to oppose in principle. The other lesson, sad to say, is that a great many Conservative figureheads have proven themselves to be as fighty, venal, and narcisstist, as any Liberal they have countered in the past. We are not the party we pretend to be, not yet, and there is much work to be done to mature the leadership of the Republican Party to handle such decisions in better fashion.
Somewhere, Ronnie is not happy.
The continuing rancor among Republicans and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court displays an unfortunate lack of understanding amongst Conservatives about the condition and reality of modern American politics. Certainly the Democrats have demonstrated that they do not comprehend how much things have changed since the heyday of the New Deal and the Great Society, to such a degree that the long-term survival of the Democrats is in grave doubt. But the present inability of many Conservatives to understand the situation they face with the Miers selection also presents evidence that the Right is also going to have trouble making the most of their opportunity.
The most common complaint I hear regarding Miers, is that the SCOTUS is somehow not going to be Conservative “enough” to suit the Right. It has been said before, by Lorie and others, but it needs to be said again, quite clearly, that such talk is a wrongful insult to Judge Miers, and certainly is an unacceptable arrogance taken towards President Bush. It seems to me that Conservatives sometimes fail to keep their support firm for Dubya, even to the point that some groups and individuals act as if the President owes them the first call on his own nominations. This has certainly happened before, with Conservatives decrying the selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, or the recent selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, or his staunch defense of Donald Rumsfeld during any number of MSM attacks. The fact that Dubya makes decisions carefully, then sticks by them, should have long ago warned people that Bush is neither conventional nor a popularity lapdog.
But a lot of people continue to forget the deeper lessons as well. When George W. Bush decided to run for Governor of Texas, he knew Ann Richards was a well-established icon of the Democratic Party, who never expected the former “frat boy” to understand the game of politics better than she did. It’s a great irony that the rising star of the Democratic Party who hoped to become the first woman President of the United States and the next President to come from Texas, instead saw her little-known rival displace her first in the Governor’s mansion, then take the White House twice. The simple fact is, George W. Bush had done his homework, and put up a poker face when it counted. We saw the same thing happen over and over again, as many Democrats ended up voting for the same Iraq War they later tried to make an election issue, and in the 2002 Mid-Term elections, when instead of losing seats as expected, the GOP made gains, directly due to Bush’s personal involvement in a number of close races. It’s frankly amazing to me, how many times Dubya has played the Left with a ruse, and accomplished everything he meant to gain, yet the Lefrt never seems to remember the trick the next time they come up against him; the juke always works.
With all this in mind, we turn to the largest stakes in the present debate; the lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, being “more” Conservative than someone else in appearance does not mean that you will make better decisions on the high court, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a reputation for being a Conservative judge may not mean anything when that judge becomes a SCOTUS Justice; ask Nixon and Reagan if they were surprised by how some of their picks turned out. To know how a potential Justice is really going to think when presented with key decisions down the road a number of years, the President choosing the person must be able to see who they have worked with, how their mind has developed, and ideally should have some personal contact with them as well. In short, just what we see with Harriet Miers. It is not necessary for Miers to hold an NRA card to support 2nd Amendment rights. It is not necessary for her to oppose all abortions as a matter of principle, to agree that the Federal Government should not rule on the practice and deny States their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for Miers to condemn homosexuality, for her to oppose the notion that sexual orientation deserves special rights or protections. I do not mean to say that Miers has any personal opinions which Conservatives should find objectionable, but rather that we should want a justice who rules on the basis of the Constitution, not how they feel about something. The problem with Souter, as an example, was that he seemed to approve personally of the same things the elder Bush liked, but when it came time to rule, Souter applied his preferences in exactly the same method as Ginsberg or Kennedy, and that is the reason we now see him as a threat to the Constitution, rather than its defender. The record available on Miers is that of a Constructionist, and that, when we get to the bottom of the decision, is what we need.
President Bush certainly has his limitations, and there are issues and topics where Conservatives may reasonably disagree with his position. But then, that was true even of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater; the simple fact is that George W. Bush is far better for Conservatives than most of the available choices we’ve seen in my lifetime, and yes, that does mean that Conservatives owe this guy a certain margin of deference. For that matter, most of the columnists and commenting hairpieces on the Right owe Harriet Miers and the President an apology for the manner in which they have portrayed his decisioning process, and their rather rude assumption that just because they didn’t get the Conservative they expected, that the one they got is somehow inferior. The only “damage” that has been done to the Conservative cause in this matter, did not come from the White House but from the brittle egos of malcontents who are unwilling to set aside pettiness in the interest of greater ideals. They demonstrated to Kos and Soros and every back-biting Leftist in the field, that unity on the Right can be shattered by a simple bruised ego here and there, or the notion that the President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his personal discretion, without the permission of selected newspaper columnists. Nice going, to broadcast an Achilles heel for them to use against us...
Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique. It is not common for the average person to give a great deal of thought to SCOTUS nominations; except for recent events, we seldom hear of the community of judges. But given the ages of the Justices on the extant Court, and the strategic and tactical measures necessary to get confirmation and establish the appropriate atmosphere, it is completely in character for President Bush to have developed his working list a long time ago, even as he held it close to his vest. In other words, President Bush not only knows his personal choice far better in detail than most commenters can say for their choice, he has been thinking about this decision far longer than most of the people barking about it now.
Why not Brown, or Luttig, or Owen? Since I am writing this from Houston and not Washington D.C., I would have to say there are points in that decision to which I am not privy but then, that same disadvantage is true for everyone else as well. Certainly we should understand and accept that the President knew these judges well, and has considered their qualifications. If we can do that, then we are forced to concede that there is something else to the decision, that the President has more information and a deeper comprehension of this issue than the general public - what a concept!
Moving ahead, as adults invariably have to do sooner or later, there are two takeaways from this debate. One, is that Conservatives will have to decide for themselves whether or not they are willing to accept the choice of the most Conservative President in memory, and if not, to understand that they would be giving unwarranted influence and power back to the Liberals they claim to oppose in principle. The other lesson, sad to say, is that a great many Conservative figureheads have proven themselves to be as fighty, venal, and narcisstist, as any Liberal they have countered in the past. We are not the party we pretend to be, not yet, and there is much work to be done to mature the leadership of the Republican Party to handle such decisions in better fashion.
Somewhere, Ronnie is not happy.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Why Not Me?
XOXOXOX
The selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court has raised the hackles of an amazing number of right wing advocates for the predictable, demanding a “known” conservative for the high court. My initial reaction to this sentiment was the same as my considered opinion; people insisting that Harriet Miers is unacceptable because she is unexpected, have simply not thought this decision through with nearly the diligence that President Bush has applied, nor have they considered the tactical advantages.
There are, basically, five types of people paying attention to the SCOTUS picks. There are the activists in the Liberal and Conservative camps, demanding the court swing their way. There are a lot of people who don’t really care who the nominee is, except that they don’t want an “extremist”. There are people who have one really hot issue, where they demand the “right” sort of judge. And there are people who just want a qualified jurist, someone who does not rule by a litmus test but maintains a judicial philosophy based on the firm understanding of what the Constitution actually says and allows. Speaking for myself, I belong in that last group.
But while I am speaking for myself, it occurs to me that perhaps I should promote my credentials for the post. After all, I am a solid red-meat Republican, married to a woman from another race to please the Diversity crowd, and an energetic sprite of a 5-year-old daughter to add the requisite ‘cute’ factor. I am a Texan and have worked jobs for minimum wage before, giving me both a loose connection to Bush and the common touch. And I am quite disposed already to tell Senator Byrd or Senator Reid to suck a lemon if they get mad because I am not sufficiently ‘progressive’ for their taste. After reading and hearing the opinions of so many angry Conservatives, I think I may be just what they want.
Of course, some might prefer to have a Conservative justice known to the President personally, rather than rely on someone who just happens to be popular at the moment with the Right. Some might prefer someone whose mind and character are understood by the man appointing the justice. Some might prefer someone whose proven credentials not only suit the court, but also will be very difficult for Liberals to turn to their own political advantage, especially in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some might prefer someone who is focused not just on the issues of the moment, but the Constitutional foundation of American Law itself.
Those people should be happy, because George W. Bush made a choice that addressed those needs and ideals quite well, in Harriet Miers. But if an eminently-qualified jurist known to the President, and this President in particular, is not suitable, I am still willing to accept the responsibility, for the good of the nation, and for the chance to put a tack or three on the seats of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
The selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court has raised the hackles of an amazing number of right wing advocates for the predictable, demanding a “known” conservative for the high court. My initial reaction to this sentiment was the same as my considered opinion; people insisting that Harriet Miers is unacceptable because she is unexpected, have simply not thought this decision through with nearly the diligence that President Bush has applied, nor have they considered the tactical advantages.
There are, basically, five types of people paying attention to the SCOTUS picks. There are the activists in the Liberal and Conservative camps, demanding the court swing their way. There are a lot of people who don’t really care who the nominee is, except that they don’t want an “extremist”. There are people who have one really hot issue, where they demand the “right” sort of judge. And there are people who just want a qualified jurist, someone who does not rule by a litmus test but maintains a judicial philosophy based on the firm understanding of what the Constitution actually says and allows. Speaking for myself, I belong in that last group.
But while I am speaking for myself, it occurs to me that perhaps I should promote my credentials for the post. After all, I am a solid red-meat Republican, married to a woman from another race to please the Diversity crowd, and an energetic sprite of a 5-year-old daughter to add the requisite ‘cute’ factor. I am a Texan and have worked jobs for minimum wage before, giving me both a loose connection to Bush and the common touch. And I am quite disposed already to tell Senator Byrd or Senator Reid to suck a lemon if they get mad because I am not sufficiently ‘progressive’ for their taste. After reading and hearing the opinions of so many angry Conservatives, I think I may be just what they want.
Of course, some might prefer to have a Conservative justice known to the President personally, rather than rely on someone who just happens to be popular at the moment with the Right. Some might prefer someone whose mind and character are understood by the man appointing the justice. Some might prefer someone whose proven credentials not only suit the court, but also will be very difficult for Liberals to turn to their own political advantage, especially in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some might prefer someone who is focused not just on the issues of the moment, but the Constitutional foundation of American Law itself.
Those people should be happy, because George W. Bush made a choice that addressed those needs and ideals quite well, in Harriet Miers. But if an eminently-qualified jurist known to the President, and this President in particular, is not suitable, I am still willing to accept the responsibility, for the good of the nation, and for the chance to put a tack or three on the seats of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Race Baiting
[{}]
Race continues to play an inordinate role in American politics, and influences politics to an unhealthy degree. In addition to normative definitions of racial demographic groups, there are also cultural demographic groups which play a role in national politics, and to my mind are perverting the proper voice of the nation’s citizens.
To start, I took a look around, and generally there seem to be two models of racial influence in national politics; either the dominant demographic simply asserts itself and largely ignores the minority voice, or else the various demographics operate as a coalition, roughly proportional to the representation in the population. Only in the United States are minority groups given a disproportionately large influence in modern politics.
According to results from the 2000 U.S. Census, out of a total population of 281.4 million people, Whites make up 67.6% of the population, Blacks 12.9% of the population, Hispanics 12.5% of the population, Asians 3.6% of the population, American Indians and Alaska Natives 0.9% of the population, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander 0.1% of the population. An additional 2.4% of the population is mixed-race. This tells us four things, right there.
First, while the ‘melting-pot’ nature of American heterogeny is a fine ideal, it has largely been limited to mixing Europeans together; other regional cultures have not been involved in this process, either through exclusion from the majority or by the choice of that group to remain apart.
Second, I notice that Jews and Arabs are not identified in the Census as a race; they appear to be included as a sub-set of Whites, but this may well be an invalid assignment, given the known distinction between most European races and Semitic races. That is, one would hardly expect someone with a genetic background developed through many years in the Middle East to be effectively the same as someone whose genetic characteristics were molded in Scandanavia or Europe’s North coast.
Third, the rising trend of mixed-race Americans (in 1990, the percentage was so low as to not be tracked) indicates that conventional racial identities may begin to lose functional meaning in years to come, diluted as different races intermarry and raise children who do not fit neatly into assumed categories.
And fourth, it becomes obvious that black American politicians enjoy a far greater share of the political spotlight than can be explained by their demographic representation. This, by itself, is in no way a bad thing, as any individual or group has a reasonable expectation to succeed by their efforts. But even a cursory look at the figureheads of black politics shows an alarming focus on negative and predatory tactics. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show the perversion of religion in the pursuit of political influence, and such hateful idealogues as Charley Rangel, John Conyers and Shelia Jackson Lee demonstrate the intention to use race as a tool for fomenting hatred, pursuing division and rancor, and to prevent the consideration by blacks of their true best interests. For these threat mongers, the ideals of common ideals for all Americans, and common assimilation of everything Americans can offer one another, is rejected and replaced by a vitriolic practice of race-baiting.
It’s not PC, but it seems to me that we need to set this matter straight. As things stand right now, Conservatives stand to gain politically from the Liberals’ dependence on hate-only demagoguery, but millions of Americans are not receiving the representation they deserve, and the vital need for the country as a whole is to drive discussions which involve racial issues to solution and cooperation.
Race continues to play an inordinate role in American politics, and influences politics to an unhealthy degree. In addition to normative definitions of racial demographic groups, there are also cultural demographic groups which play a role in national politics, and to my mind are perverting the proper voice of the nation’s citizens.
To start, I took a look around, and generally there seem to be two models of racial influence in national politics; either the dominant demographic simply asserts itself and largely ignores the minority voice, or else the various demographics operate as a coalition, roughly proportional to the representation in the population. Only in the United States are minority groups given a disproportionately large influence in modern politics.
According to results from the 2000 U.S. Census, out of a total population of 281.4 million people, Whites make up 67.6% of the population, Blacks 12.9% of the population, Hispanics 12.5% of the population, Asians 3.6% of the population, American Indians and Alaska Natives 0.9% of the population, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander 0.1% of the population. An additional 2.4% of the population is mixed-race. This tells us four things, right there.
First, while the ‘melting-pot’ nature of American heterogeny is a fine ideal, it has largely been limited to mixing Europeans together; other regional cultures have not been involved in this process, either through exclusion from the majority or by the choice of that group to remain apart.
Second, I notice that Jews and Arabs are not identified in the Census as a race; they appear to be included as a sub-set of Whites, but this may well be an invalid assignment, given the known distinction between most European races and Semitic races. That is, one would hardly expect someone with a genetic background developed through many years in the Middle East to be effectively the same as someone whose genetic characteristics were molded in Scandanavia or Europe’s North coast.
Third, the rising trend of mixed-race Americans (in 1990, the percentage was so low as to not be tracked) indicates that conventional racial identities may begin to lose functional meaning in years to come, diluted as different races intermarry and raise children who do not fit neatly into assumed categories.
And fourth, it becomes obvious that black American politicians enjoy a far greater share of the political spotlight than can be explained by their demographic representation. This, by itself, is in no way a bad thing, as any individual or group has a reasonable expectation to succeed by their efforts. But even a cursory look at the figureheads of black politics shows an alarming focus on negative and predatory tactics. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show the perversion of religion in the pursuit of political influence, and such hateful idealogues as Charley Rangel, John Conyers and Shelia Jackson Lee demonstrate the intention to use race as a tool for fomenting hatred, pursuing division and rancor, and to prevent the consideration by blacks of their true best interests. For these threat mongers, the ideals of common ideals for all Americans, and common assimilation of everything Americans can offer one another, is rejected and replaced by a vitriolic practice of race-baiting.
It’s not PC, but it seems to me that we need to set this matter straight. As things stand right now, Conservatives stand to gain politically from the Liberals’ dependence on hate-only demagoguery, but millions of Americans are not receiving the representation they deserve, and the vital need for the country as a whole is to drive discussions which involve racial issues to solution and cooperation.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Good News, Actually
...
Good Afternoon. Yes, I’ve been away for a few days, and no, I’m not going to explain why. But I have not been so far removed from things that I have not caught the news, especially the running gag (or should I said bound-and-gagged, as in ‘fit to be tied’?) we call the MSM. I’m speaking, in particular, about the attempted twisting of Dr. Bennett’s comments last week about Abortion.
For those who somehow managed to miss it, the Daily Show put up a clip of Dr. William Bennett, noted conservative talk show host, responding to a caller with a scenario with this statement:
Well, that by itself certainly sounds horrible. And as expected, every knee-jerk, head-jerk, and other-jerk in general Liberal website and broadcast team started in to demand Bennett’s firing/lynching/deportation to outer Mongolia. But if you simply look at the very next thing Dr. Bennett said, you begin to wonder if the quote was yanked out of context:
What happened was this – the caller was trying to claim that Abortion was responsible for lost revenue in the Social Security funds, and while that is statistically true, Dr. Bennett argued that this was a poor reason to argue against Abortion, to argue about finance and completely miss the moral imperative. To illustrate how ridiculous and offensive this example was, Dr. Bennett presented the argument in an equally statistical sense – there is significant evidence that not only are a disproportional number of criminal perpetrators in the United States black, but also a heavily disproportionate number of crime victims in the United States are also black. So Dr. Bennett’s example is exactly correct, especially when he reminded the caller that such a notion would be abhorrent on its face; you can not and must not separate the morality from the debate.
Taken in context, Dr. Bennett’s statement is not only clearly not racist, but an effective caution against forgetting the significance of a moral position. Small wonder that the Left ripped out the parts about morality; it’s increasingly hard to find a Liberal who thinks victims have equal rights to criminals, or that helpless infants enjoy the same rights as unwed female Kerry supporters. But it’s actually very good news, when you think about it.
Conservatives, while morally and (apparently) intellectually superior to Liberals, are still vulnerable to doing and saying incredibly stupid things. A smart Liberal would wait for just such a gaffe, test it out to make sure it’s what it looks like, then wreak havoc. After all, one clear lesson from the Presidency of George H.W. Bush is that Conservatives, even relatively mild ones, are held to a much higher standard than Liberals. However, another lesson the Liberals ought to have learned by now but somehow keep missing, is that folks have picked up on their bias (i.e. raving hatred) against Conservatives, and they tend to look for something to back up a claim. So, while Trent Lott mishandled his situation and it cost him a leadership slot, the lynchings of such notables as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself all failed to happen, because the goods just weren’t there when people checked out the claim. The same thing happens in the case of Bennett; anyone who bothers to look finds out that basically, the good doctor never said what was claimed, but was actually presenting quite a different argument. In the end, this may annoy Dr. Bennett for a few days, but will inevitably just add to the mountain of evidence that the Liberals are unable and unwilling to defend their opinion with anything better than slander.
Slander monkeys, they just can’t learn.
Good Afternoon. Yes, I’ve been away for a few days, and no, I’m not going to explain why. But I have not been so far removed from things that I have not caught the news, especially the running gag (or should I said bound-and-gagged, as in ‘fit to be tied’?) we call the MSM. I’m speaking, in particular, about the attempted twisting of Dr. Bennett’s comments last week about Abortion.
For those who somehow managed to miss it, the Daily Show put up a clip of Dr. William Bennett, noted conservative talk show host, responding to a caller with a scenario with this statement:
“But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down”
Well, that by itself certainly sounds horrible. And as expected, every knee-jerk, head-jerk, and other-jerk in general Liberal website and broadcast team started in to demand Bennett’s firing/lynching/deportation to outer Mongolia. But if you simply look at the very next thing Dr. Bennett said, you begin to wonder if the quote was yanked out of context:
“That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”
What happened was this – the caller was trying to claim that Abortion was responsible for lost revenue in the Social Security funds, and while that is statistically true, Dr. Bennett argued that this was a poor reason to argue against Abortion, to argue about finance and completely miss the moral imperative. To illustrate how ridiculous and offensive this example was, Dr. Bennett presented the argument in an equally statistical sense – there is significant evidence that not only are a disproportional number of criminal perpetrators in the United States black, but also a heavily disproportionate number of crime victims in the United States are also black. So Dr. Bennett’s example is exactly correct, especially when he reminded the caller that such a notion would be abhorrent on its face; you can not and must not separate the morality from the debate.
Taken in context, Dr. Bennett’s statement is not only clearly not racist, but an effective caution against forgetting the significance of a moral position. Small wonder that the Left ripped out the parts about morality; it’s increasingly hard to find a Liberal who thinks victims have equal rights to criminals, or that helpless infants enjoy the same rights as unwed female Kerry supporters. But it’s actually very good news, when you think about it.
Conservatives, while morally and (apparently) intellectually superior to Liberals, are still vulnerable to doing and saying incredibly stupid things. A smart Liberal would wait for just such a gaffe, test it out to make sure it’s what it looks like, then wreak havoc. After all, one clear lesson from the Presidency of George H.W. Bush is that Conservatives, even relatively mild ones, are held to a much higher standard than Liberals. However, another lesson the Liberals ought to have learned by now but somehow keep missing, is that folks have picked up on their bias (i.e. raving hatred) against Conservatives, and they tend to look for something to back up a claim. So, while Trent Lott mishandled his situation and it cost him a leadership slot, the lynchings of such notables as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself all failed to happen, because the goods just weren’t there when people checked out the claim. The same thing happens in the case of Bennett; anyone who bothers to look finds out that basically, the good doctor never said what was claimed, but was actually presenting quite a different argument. In the end, this may annoy Dr. Bennett for a few days, but will inevitably just add to the mountain of evidence that the Liberals are unable and unwilling to defend their opinion with anything better than slander.
Slander monkeys, they just can’t learn.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
