“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” -James Madison

Monday, October 24, 2005

I oppose the Miers nomination

I oppose the Miers nomination.

At first my position was lukewarm support based in my trust of the President's judgment in terms of political machinations and his prior judicial nominations. The rhetoric of many early critics turned me off, and I searched for a reason to support this nominee, resulting in my post on Misunderestimation.

This was incorrect. While my reasoning may have been potentially valid, it appears now to have been completely misplaced. I was guilty of Misoverestimation, as was the President.

Over the last few weeks I have learned plenty about Ms. Miers' background that increasingly disturbs me. My support for her has eroded with each new fact. The White House, in the meantime, has been pathetically ineffective in making a substantial case for this nominee. By utilizing tired cliches about glass ceilings and quality personhood, the nomination has been undercut. Further damaging any remaining validity, the President chose to throw bones at the religious base with the nod-and-a-wink Roe implications.

And so many others were right about this long before I was. When Harry Reid is backing something, conservatives should immediately look elsewhere.

Although I do not share the Crony view, it is obvious the President thought he could slip a Stealth past the Senate Dems, soothe the jangled nerves of the conservatives, and move on to bombing Iran and Syria. Or gut the Mortgage Interest writeoff. Whatever.

President Bush appears to be suffering from 2nd-Term-itis. Convinced of his decisions (aided by an insular environment typical of 2nd-termers) as Absolutely Right, he cynically and arrogantly moved forward with a nomination that never should have been. The majority of his base was plainly against this nominee, and he would have known that and allowed it to enter his thoughts in a first term. He did not anticipate the backlash, believing that Our Side would follow in lockstep as long as We Knew The Dems Could Not or Would Not Stop It. He did not think about the long memory many conservatives have, and how long we have waited for this moment in time -- Control of the WH, Numeric control of the Senate, and open positions on the Court.

For whatever reasons, he has chosen to avoid the fight with Dems over this nomination. In doing so, he triggered one within our own ranks.

Assuming my original position is correct (which I no longer do), the President would appear to be a brilliant tactician. Alas, it now appears he is tired and out of touch, showing his true not-really-conservative side, and is ignoring those who brought him to the Presidency.

I wanted to buy into this nomination. I wanted to believe in my President. I wanted Ms. Miers to be the stealth Scalia.

Well, as the old saying goes, you can wish into one hand and s--- into the other. See which one fills up first.

I oppose the Miers nomination. I wish I did not.


2 Old Comments:

"and is ignoring those who brought him to the Presidency."


Can someone tel me how, exactly, the conservatives brought Mr.Bush to the presidency? I know they certainly think they did, and I know they think they are God's gift to the Republicans, but I can't quite recall how they did it right now. Have I forgotten? Remember, hard work does not equate with results. Most people who voted for Mr. Bush are NOT conservative.

On the Miers thing...the blogs are in a tizzy, aren't they? But this does not equal votes. All this noise is just that...the hearings are all that matter.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at 26/10/05 9:57 AM  

"Most people who voted for Mr. Bush are NOT conservative." I respectfully disagree. Throughout the Clinton elections, the conservatives were either split due to the interference of Perot, or simply stayed home since there was no compelling candidate on our side. From the 2000 election forward, the conservatives who might have otherwise stayed home or voted 3rd-party chose to unite and vote for Bush. In some cases (I know in mine it certainly was) the vote might not have necessarily been as much pro-Bush as it was anti-Gore (or anti-Kerry), but it still counted the same. I believe MORE conservatives came out for Bush than for any candidate since Reagan.

Bush based part of his campaign on the promise of getting the judiciary, specifically the Supreme Court, back to a more originalist heading. This is a major point for many people.

Yes, the blogs are in a tizzy, and I suppose mine is no different. Unlike many others, I originally was giving the benefit of doubt to both Miers and Bush. However, I am not above changing my mind when new information encourages it. My view, after hearing of her past associations and positions, combined with reading her answers to the Senate questionnaire, and multiplied by the White House's continuing inability to truly make a case for her, is that she is not the one for the Court, especially at this time.

Conservatives have waited too long for this "perfect storm" of judicial appointment opportunity, and are exercising their rights and duties to discuss. Without this discussion I might still be supporting her, and I believe that would be wrong.

Thanks for the comment!

By Blogger Skymuse, at 26/10/05 12:10 PM