Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Why is everyone so up in arms over Miers?

Now that I'm back, I figure it's time for me to start opining on politics, in addition to (admittedly glorious) Vanderbilt football.

One of the topics that has piqued my curiosity over the past couple of weeks has been conservatives' responses to President Bush nominated his former White House Chief Counsel, Harriet Miers.

[Note: I am a Republican because of my position as social conservative; I tend to lean moderate on fiscal issues courtesy of my upbringing in the hills of East Tennessee -- after all, it's hard not to be a populist when you grow up in an environment like that. Not to mention the fact that I believe classical Christianity suggests far more social justice and concern than most fiscal conservatives would tolerate these days. ]

The loopy lefties, par usual, have begun their hue and cry that Miers' nomination heralds the end of the world:

"Don't gamble with your right to choose!"

"She may be a woman, but so what!"

"Miers is a demon, and George Bush is the devil!"

Well, maybe that might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I imagine that many liberals aren't saying those things only (and only) because they know that they'd lose what little credibility that they have left if they let those particular thoughts escape their mouths.

None of that, of course, is surprising. We expect Daniel Schorr (NPR commentary man) and the New York Times editorial page to rail against just about any nominee that the President (if he's a Republican) puts forth.

The suprising thing to many, and to me, has been the reaction of many of my fellow social conservatives to Ms. Miers' nomination. They've been all over the President, saying that this is not a nominee in the mold of Scalia.

My response? A resounding, "Duuuuuhhhh."

If my fellow social-cons had been paying attention of late, our party is not in a position of particular strength. Saber-rattling toward a battle with the Dems and moderate GOPers (a.k.a, "RINOs"), is not what a prudent politican would do.

And is not what President Bush did.

Instead, our President, under the advice of good ol' Rove, realized that he had two objectives:

(1) Get a nominee on the Supreme Court; and
(2) Make sure that nominee is a conservative on the important issues

Accomplishing (1) without making sure that (2) happens is just as bad as sending up someone who meets the test of (2) but has no chance of attaining (1).

With both John Roberts and Ms. Miers, the President found people who were legitimate conservatives and who could pass through the gauntlet of Senate approval. Let's face facts, folks: Senator Kennedy is not going to allow someone who openly and proudly says that they'll vote against Roe v. Wade. And he can rally fellow Dems to help him.

But when the President sends someone up Capitol Hill who only says, "I haven't made up my mind," the Dems look unreasonable and irrational for attempting to block someone who claims to be open-minded.

I urge those who want to continue to see the Supreme Court return to traditional notions of Constitutional construction -- reinforcing federalism and family values -- to support Ms. Miers.

I think she'll do her part.


At 3:25 PM, Anonymous Chris Song said...


You knew it had to be me.

While I enjoyed your recent blog entry, I do have certain points that I'd like to address, if you'll have me. I know that my party and I "lack credibility" and all, but let's just humor me for a moment. (PS - if public opinion is any indicator of credibility, I have bad news for you my wonderfully conservative brother and friend:

Saying that Miers' isn't pro-choice is like saying that Bush isn't anti-using-science-to-help-find-cures-to-terrible-diseases.
James Dobson vouches for her pro-life stance, as does Karl Rove, as does her congregation back at home. Also, she lacks credentials as a constitutional scholar. The White House Counsel's office is arguably different from the United States Supreme Court. Although, I will concede that several able men have passed through its chambers without prior experience - though, you have to ask yourself, is that a gamble we want to keep on taking?

I'm gonna go ahead and say this - President Bush is not a prudent politician, my friend. He is an excellent and crafty one, but prudence is not his forte. He says that God told him to invade Iraq, and we all know how that's going. He refers to foreign diplomats as, "pieces of work." He places incompetent people in positions that require...well, competence. He's folksy, and charming, and arguably good-looking...but he's not prudent. In fact, I'm shocked that he didn't put up an Edith Jones or Priscilla Owens. Actually, I heard they dropped out of the short list because they found the process too conservatively partisan. But, whatever.

Democrats aren't angry because his nominees haven't "made up their minds" about how they'll rule on a decision. They're angry because they won't even express their own opinions on the subject matters that are on the forefront of living room politics in this country - something that they owe to the American people.

Not that they need to, anyway.

Chris Song

PS - See if you can follow...


PPS - I love you.


Post a Comment

<< Home