Conservative thoughts on Miers
A couple more interesting things I read today regarding Miers at RedState (this time from an actual conservative, one of the frontpagers named Erick):
1) I disagree with the nomination of Harriet Miers. I think there are more qualified conservatives out there. And, I agree with Armando to a large extent (quick, is that a pig flying?). John Roberts' career tells me that conservatives should not have to hide in the closet until after they are on the Supreme Court. By picking a stealth nominee, Bush has, I think, set us back a bit.
That's, of course, assuming that Miers is in fact a "stealth nominee". The editors of The American Prospect think so too, and they know more than me about these things. But I still don't think that "stealth" is a factor here, at least not intentionally. Why stealth? Bush has never indicated that he cares what the Senate Dems think, or, really, what anyone outside his little circle thinks. He's got the votes to confirm almost anyone. And, even if the Dems can sustain a filibuster (which is pretty doubtful for anyone other than Rogers Brown and maybe Owen), Frist not only could but would need to detonate if he wants to keep his presidential hopes alive. And McCain, who has the most Beltway weight to throw around among the "gang of 14", would need to let Frist detonate if he wants to keep his presidential hopes alive. The Dems might win the ensuing PR battle depending on how unhinged the Republicans acted in the interim -- but right now they have a lot more to lose in fighting it.
And yet, conservatives and Republicans have to believe that Miers' nomination is all about stealth (either that or the Luttig-stalking-horse theory). And that leaves them in the position of having to feel a little bit insulted that, even with 55 senators (representing well under 50% of the popular vote over the past three election cycles btw), a majority in Congress, control of the White House and a prominent role in the national discourse, their movement's braintrustees still have to hide who they are if they're going to make it all the way in American life. Anyone who reads The Corner knows that conservatives revel in their intellectual persecution complex (as, to be fair, do a lot of people. It's a very human thing; it's just weird, when you basically hold all the political power and control the discourse in a country, to keep on with it). So supporting Miers means not just believing the dubious proposition that Miers is "stealthy" -- rather than somebody Bush just likes a lot personally. It means believing that Miers is stealthy but also that the fact that she's stealthy doesn't mean conservatives are being intellectually shafted. Or that that they are being intellectually shafted, but it's small potatoes relative to joys of seeing a female Scalia on the bench... which they could have had anyway, with just about any other potential female nominee.
That's a jagged little pill (sorry, gratuitous Alanis reference). No wonder conservatives are taking the whole thing so badly. It apparently was too much for George Will, who is almost openly urging Republican senators to Just Say No to Miers and, by extention, to Bush.
The second interesting thing is this:
2) First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office. Miers is deeply loyal to Bush and understands that Bush needs social conservative support to survive. She will do what she can to ensure that. Loyalty runs both ways between Miers and Bush. In addition to the loyalty, Miers did take a role in fighting the ABA abortion position and has contributed money to pro-life causes in the past. Every indication is that Miers will be right on the key issue for social conservatives -- life.
And that's almost certainly true. Miers is almost certainly anti-choice. But they're all -- even McConnell, even Gonzales -- screamingly anti-choice. That's why this stuff gets talked about so much during elections. But it's already next to impossible to get an abortion if you're poor in America and easy (to the extent that abortion can be "easy"; it's the hardest thing I can imagine ever having to do) if you're rich. For a bunch of reasons, I don't want to see Roe overturned, but even if Miers is pivitol in overturning it, it isn't going to change that fundamental dynamic. That doesn't change until liberals gain control of the levers of power and hold them for a long time. The question for me is what Miers thinks, or feels in her gut, about the legislative scope of the Congress. And specifically whether she shares her crony's contempt for it.
That's the bigger issue here, and one I hadn't fully contemplated before I read the piece at RedState. The fact is that, for all my sneering at Bush's renewed small-man syndrome yesterday, the cronyism factor has a downside for liberals beyond just embarrassment. On the bright side, Bush's cronies are more likely to be old blue dogs than firebreathing libertarians. They're likely to share his nominal and probably occasionally genuine concern for the poor and for the still-not-equal footing suffered by racial minorities. But on the downside, Bush's cronies aren't likely to be Souters because they'll be worried about how voting like Souter will impact on Bush's legacy. Surely it would hurt Harriet Miers, some time after the Dems retake the White House (which they will, in two election cycles at most), to hear Bush trashed in rightwing circles for having blindly trusted her. Maybe, travelling in the legal and ideological circles of the court, that personal concern, that personal connection to Bush, would weaken over time. But it will haunt us for awhile and it's one reason for liberals not to get too excited about Miers' potential as a justice. It's probably a lot like Bush's potential as a president.
Last Miers thought unless something exciting happens: my most loyal reader asks in an an email if it's possible that Senate Repubs will bork her. George Will is certainly hinting he'd like to see it. Senator Brownback (R-KS) is also sending up a flare. All I can say is: oh please, oh please, oh please. Miers is an appealling figure, a nice Christian lady with quaint fashion sense. Yet at the same time, she's also the sort of feisty female who climbed her way from relatively humble beginnings, through the hierarchy of the Texas legal Old Boys Club, to a place close enough to the top that Bush could reach down to pull her the rest of the way. She's a great middle-American story. Watching her get trashed by a bunch of old white male reactionaries on CSPAN (read the last third of that Will column for a taste of what it'll sound like, minus the eloquence) while the Senate Dems, following Harry Reid's lead, defend her or plead for decorum would be frickin lovely for liberal prospects methinks. Sort of like the 1992 GOP convention all over again.
1) I disagree with the nomination of Harriet Miers. I think there are more qualified conservatives out there. And, I agree with Armando to a large extent (quick, is that a pig flying?). John Roberts' career tells me that conservatives should not have to hide in the closet until after they are on the Supreme Court. By picking a stealth nominee, Bush has, I think, set us back a bit.
That's, of course, assuming that Miers is in fact a "stealth nominee". The editors of The American Prospect think so too, and they know more than me about these things. But I still don't think that "stealth" is a factor here, at least not intentionally. Why stealth? Bush has never indicated that he cares what the Senate Dems think, or, really, what anyone outside his little circle thinks. He's got the votes to confirm almost anyone. And, even if the Dems can sustain a filibuster (which is pretty doubtful for anyone other than Rogers Brown and maybe Owen), Frist not only could but would need to detonate if he wants to keep his presidential hopes alive. And McCain, who has the most Beltway weight to throw around among the "gang of 14", would need to let Frist detonate if he wants to keep his presidential hopes alive. The Dems might win the ensuing PR battle depending on how unhinged the Republicans acted in the interim -- but right now they have a lot more to lose in fighting it.
And yet, conservatives and Republicans have to believe that Miers' nomination is all about stealth (either that or the Luttig-stalking-horse theory). And that leaves them in the position of having to feel a little bit insulted that, even with 55 senators (representing well under 50% of the popular vote over the past three election cycles btw), a majority in Congress, control of the White House and a prominent role in the national discourse, their movement's braintrustees still have to hide who they are if they're going to make it all the way in American life. Anyone who reads The Corner knows that conservatives revel in their intellectual persecution complex (as, to be fair, do a lot of people. It's a very human thing; it's just weird, when you basically hold all the political power and control the discourse in a country, to keep on with it). So supporting Miers means not just believing the dubious proposition that Miers is "stealthy" -- rather than somebody Bush just likes a lot personally. It means believing that Miers is stealthy but also that the fact that she's stealthy doesn't mean conservatives are being intellectually shafted. Or that that they are being intellectually shafted, but it's small potatoes relative to joys of seeing a female Scalia on the bench... which they could have had anyway, with just about any other potential female nominee.
That's a jagged little pill (sorry, gratuitous Alanis reference). No wonder conservatives are taking the whole thing so badly. It apparently was too much for George Will, who is almost openly urging Republican senators to Just Say No to Miers and, by extention, to Bush.
The second interesting thing is this:
2) First, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers would vote as a Scalia or Thomas -- at least so long as Bush remained in office. Miers is deeply loyal to Bush and understands that Bush needs social conservative support to survive. She will do what she can to ensure that. Loyalty runs both ways between Miers and Bush. In addition to the loyalty, Miers did take a role in fighting the ABA abortion position and has contributed money to pro-life causes in the past. Every indication is that Miers will be right on the key issue for social conservatives -- life.
And that's almost certainly true. Miers is almost certainly anti-choice. But they're all -- even McConnell, even Gonzales -- screamingly anti-choice. That's why this stuff gets talked about so much during elections. But it's already next to impossible to get an abortion if you're poor in America and easy (to the extent that abortion can be "easy"; it's the hardest thing I can imagine ever having to do) if you're rich. For a bunch of reasons, I don't want to see Roe overturned, but even if Miers is pivitol in overturning it, it isn't going to change that fundamental dynamic. That doesn't change until liberals gain control of the levers of power and hold them for a long time. The question for me is what Miers thinks, or feels in her gut, about the legislative scope of the Congress. And specifically whether she shares her crony's contempt for it.
That's the bigger issue here, and one I hadn't fully contemplated before I read the piece at RedState. The fact is that, for all my sneering at Bush's renewed small-man syndrome yesterday, the cronyism factor has a downside for liberals beyond just embarrassment. On the bright side, Bush's cronies are more likely to be old blue dogs than firebreathing libertarians. They're likely to share his nominal and probably occasionally genuine concern for the poor and for the still-not-equal footing suffered by racial minorities. But on the downside, Bush's cronies aren't likely to be Souters because they'll be worried about how voting like Souter will impact on Bush's legacy. Surely it would hurt Harriet Miers, some time after the Dems retake the White House (which they will, in two election cycles at most), to hear Bush trashed in rightwing circles for having blindly trusted her. Maybe, travelling in the legal and ideological circles of the court, that personal concern, that personal connection to Bush, would weaken over time. But it will haunt us for awhile and it's one reason for liberals not to get too excited about Miers' potential as a justice. It's probably a lot like Bush's potential as a president.
Last Miers thought unless something exciting happens: my most loyal reader asks in an an email if it's possible that Senate Repubs will bork her. George Will is certainly hinting he'd like to see it. Senator Brownback (R-KS) is also sending up a flare. All I can say is: oh please, oh please, oh please. Miers is an appealling figure, a nice Christian lady with quaint fashion sense. Yet at the same time, she's also the sort of feisty female who climbed her way from relatively humble beginnings, through the hierarchy of the Texas legal Old Boys Club, to a place close enough to the top that Bush could reach down to pull her the rest of the way. She's a great middle-American story. Watching her get trashed by a bunch of old white male reactionaries on CSPAN (read the last third of that Will column for a taste of what it'll sound like, minus the eloquence) while the Senate Dems, following Harry Reid's lead, defend her or plead for decorum would be frickin lovely for liberal prospects methinks. Sort of like the 1992 GOP convention all over again.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home