More Of The Same

I would have preferred that Bush nominate someone to bring his party together to fight for.
Instead he nominated someone for the party to fight over.*

I think that was a mistake. I am not alone.

Peggy Noonon:

That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.

The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.

He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight.

Peggy Noonan, unlike me, has not made unfair accusations. It is a good article. And fair, even if you disagree. Of course, there are those on the other side.

We have a good old fashioned disagreement here I think.

Are there unfair or silly attacks at Miers herself being tossed out there by the "right?" Sure.

Ann Coulter is always willing to play that role, as she did when Roberts was nominated. For most "right" leaning people, in and out of the party, this isn't about Miers herself. It is about anyone like Miers. The nomination of the unknown, then being asked to take it on "trust" that the President knows what he is doing.

I don't have that trust in this area. I know who the leaders in smart, conservative judicial philosophy are. They are out there, in public, expressing their views in opinions, articles and speeches. They weren't afraid to take the shots for arguing solid legal principles to the bar and the public. They are the losers. And so are we.

In related news, a python tried to eat an alligator and exploded.



*For affect, I ended those sentences in prepositions - please forgive me.