David Limbaugh Again?

I discussed David Limbaugh's last Miers article here.

I'm going to discuss his latest one -- here.

Anyone who has read my comments knows that my beef is not with Miers. It is with President Bush. Limbaugh, who apparently agrees with most of my criticism's of Bush's decision, addresses those critics who take that criticism too far.

I hate it when I am sympathetic to arguments on both sides of an issue as it threatens my image as a benevolently close-minded, dogmatic, doctrinaire ideologue. But I do think conservatives are talking past one another on the Miers nomination and that a rift is growing between some conservatives and the White House. . . .

Conservative critics of the nomination might need to be clearer about the applicability of their objections. There is a difference between criticizing the president's pick and actually advocating Senate rejection of Miers' nomination.

Which of course is true. I said at the outset that I may support Miers'* confirmation, if she gets that far. I think the Congress is obligated to confirm qualified, good character nominees constitutionally selected by the President.

It is perfectly legitimate (and healthy) for conservatives to register their disapproval of the president's selection. . . . But they best not advocate that the Senate reject Miers just because they believe she may not be the most qualified for the position. If she is qualified and of good character, the Senate must, as a matter of constitutional law, defer to the president's prerogative and confirm.

Accordingly, conservatives, unless they truly believe Miers to be unqualified, should specify that their objections are directed at the president and not the Senate, lest they run the risk of lending legitimacy to the liberal practice of rejecting nominees for extra-constitutional (including political) reasons.

Nor do senators of a president's party have an exemption from their duty under the Advice and Consent clause to affirm an honorable, qualified nominee. If they ignore this and vote not to confirm a qualified nominee, they will be as guilty as Democrat senators of usurping the president's appointment power.

I think this caution from Limbaugh is sound advice. The President is charged with the obligation to nominate Judges and other positions. Persons with the qualifications and character for the job should not be denied the appointment for purely political reasons. This is especially true of the slightly better party when it comes to hypocricy. We expect Democrats to ignore their own words with each successive administration. Every now and then, Republicans still hold up the measuring stick to their own and say -- nope, your conduct is inappropriate.

Limbaugh then tackles the whether and how Miers' evangelical Christianity should play in the debate. I'll let you go to the article and read that. He makes several fair points.

In the end, Limbaugh reminds all involved on the rules of proper discussion:

I am all for the robust intra-conservative debate, but I think both sides should tone down the personal attacks and be less anxious to jump to conclusions impugning the other side's or the president's motives. And perhaps all of us, myself included, should strive to retain an open mind until the confirmation hearings.

Given the heated debate many of us had at VC the last two weeks, we could have all heeded such advice.

But I still think it is much more fun to jump to conclusions and burn people at the stake.

*I will use an s' form for Miers name in possessive tense since Limbaugh does. I think, however, that the proper form would be s's.