Thursday, October 27, 2005

Savaging Nominees and Presidents

What a sad day. Another nomination has been shot down before coming to a vote. This time due to pressure from some conservatives.

We seem to be veering further and further away from government by elected officials to government by special interest groups.

Some, crowing over Miers’ withdrawal, see a rejuvenated conservative base. What I see is deepening distrust. The arguments raised at times were mere sneers savaging both Miers and President Bush.

“childless” - Phyllis Schlafly

“neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments” - George Will

“While Bush was still boozing it up in the early ‘80s” - Ann Coulter

". . . I fully expect that if Justice Stevens retires, President Bush will nominate his dog Barney to fill that vacant seat. After all, who can a man trust to be loyal more than his dog? I reckon the president knows Barney's heart as well as anybody's, and certainly Barney has no paper trail, unless you count stuff he chewed up when he was a puppy. Besides, if Caligula can put his horse in the Senate..." - Rod Dreyer, National Review Online - The Corner

"Many leaders come from nowhere before rising to the top. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College; Richard Nixon went to Whittier College; Abraham Lincoln went to no college. Ms. Miers had as many advantages as these men, or more. She only has fewer achievements." - Richard Brookhiser

The anti-Miers campaign even took out TV ads. It’s obvious that Supreme Court nominations are now considered a 3-ring circus by people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Count me out. I still believe in the constitutional process. President nominates. Senate gives advice and consent. Only special circumstances: the nominee has ethical or moral problems. Otherwise, it’s an up or down vote in the Senate. My view on that doesn’t shift with the nominee or the president.

I don’t see hugs and kisses all around. I see a deeply fractured conservative base wondering what rules and values are central to the nomination process, a president wounded by his supposed friends, and Democrats rejoicing that they didn’t have to do anything to look good.


Richard said...

Miers was not defeated by "special interest groups." To allege that is a cop out and intellectually dishonest. Dissatisfaction with her nomination was extrememly wide and broad throughout the Republican party.

Mike's America said...


Could you really be so smug and arrogant to presume that the vast majority of people who voted for Bush, otherwise known as THE REPUBLICAN BASE did NOT support the Miers nomination?

The blogosphere "base" that you are most likely referring to is does NOT represent either the party or the conservative movement.

Those folks couldn't win an election for DOGCATCHER let alone a Presidential election.

If you Barabas conservatives think that shouting louder is proof of your strength we are all in for a hell of a disappointment in 2006.


terrance said...


You would be right if you said the issue was immigration or high spending. But, the Republicans I know (some of whom go way back to supporting Goldwater)are sickened by the spear throwing that didn't even give Miers a chance.

The real losers, besides the judicial nomination and confirmation processes, are conservative pundits. Some showed class in their dissent. But, unfortunately they never faulted those who sneered and raged. They acted like a special interest group in promoting their view no matter what the cost to the President, Miers and other Republicans.

I think in the coming days you will see just how distatesful the nipping at heels was to most voters who are tired of that whether it comes from the left or the right.

Mike is right that the blogosphere, political pundits and even talk show hosts don't represent the majority of Republican voters--who don't read their opinions or listen to their shows. These are the people that have been believing the argument that every nominee deserves an up or down vote.

I think a lot of them will not easily get the reasoning that every nominee deserves an up or down vote _except_ the ones some don't like.