The Incredulity of St. George Will (Extended Version)

'The Incredulity of St.Thomas' by Caravaggio ca.1601, at the Neues Palais, Potsdam

Let me say this out loud and clear. I support the Miers nomination, and I am fully behind Hugh Hewitt, Marvin Olasky et al. For all of you doubting Thomases out there who at this point are saying "what others?" I quote : Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell and Fred Barnes. And against are: The Corner, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George ['The Rude and Crude'] Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and Charles Krauthhammer. And yes I like those odds too.

Marvin Olasky @ Worldmagblog, one of my absolute favorite reads, and someone whose opinion I respect a great deal, sends me  into a complete warpath spin against George 'The Rude and Crude' Will who published in WaPo 'Defending the Indefensible'. Olasky has this to say:

'Crude!!!!!!'

"The Washington Post once stated that evangelicals are poor, dumb, and easily led. Now columnist George Will argues that "Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself." Maybe Will is right to think that some Miers supporters put their elbows on the table and drip gravy on their shirts, but there is a good reason to note piety in reading the Bible: it can also be a leading indicator of humility in reading the Constitution."

Olasky provokes an almighty 'David and Goliath' battle over at the comments section.

Grenfell Hunt, agrees with me, that Harriet Miers is an originalist, which I have been saying from the beginning, despite the President describing her as a strict constructionist. Hunt’s argument is that Will’s tone was inappropriate and that he misses the important point that Miers’ evangelicalism is code for judicial originalism, which Miers advocates, in the view of some, in fact, more articulately than does Chief Justice Roberts.

Hunt @ President Aristotle goes on to question Will's authority which he so readily asserts at all times: "Mr Will can claim many educational credentials, but not apparently a law degree. And he chooses not to discuss those of Miss Miers' defenders who do have law degrees, who have worked with her personally, and who state that she is both a first-rate lawyer and an originalist--exactly the sort of person that thoughtful conservatives might think about supporting."

Hugh Hewitt who does happen to have one, deals with Will's article, @ Townhall.com, where Will launches a similar attack obviously timed to coincide with the one published in WaPo.
Hugh on the WaPo article:

"First, I have to note that Will allowed his love of language to cripple his argument. "Incense defense" sounds wondeful, but is so bizarre in the context of an evangelical nominee as to raise the question of whether Will intentionally set out to offend.

But so do his missiles about "crude" people. Who are they? James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, Lino Graglia, Ken Starr? Four out of five are evangelicals. Does Will equate evangelical faith with crudeness?

And what, exactly, does "crudely obsessed with abortion" mean? Rod Dreher of NationalReview.com's The Corner thought this Will column quite devastating to Miers' nomination supporters. Does Rod agree that seriousness about abortion is "crude?" Does K-Lo? Does William F. Buckley?"

Make sure you read the whole article.

The American Spectator‘s Jed Babbin also disapproves of Will’s tone, but for different reasons:

“Though his points are compelling, they are stated before conclusions that are, in turn, petulant, condescending and threatening. And the solution Will proposes—though theoretically sound—is stated in terms that can be used by the Dems to destroy one of the most important limits on the confirmation process.
[...]
But Will, and other Miers critics, seem willing to give up too much to sink her. We won, in the Roberts confirmation, the ability to ensure future justices against the political pressure on specific issues that senators eagerly impose to mandate their own litmus tests. Will's solution is stated in sufficiently loose terms to knock down that barrier and enable Biden and Co. to drive through at high speed: "As Miers's confirmation hearings draw near, her advocates will make an argument that is always false but that they, especially, must make, considering the unusual nature of their nominee. The argument is that it is somehow inappropriate for senators to ask a nominee -- a nominee for a lifetime position making unappealable decisions of enormous social impact -- searching questions about specific Supreme Court decisions and the principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America's present and future.
[...]
We, as conservatives, must not allow the Miers nomination to destroy the immunity court nominees must have against political litmus tests. At this point, her advocates and her opponents seem to have sunk to the same ad hominem level. A pox on both their

The Truth Laid Bear has posted an invitation: 'Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers'.,

Which I duly have. My posts:

Harriet Miers and Her Royal Family
The Harriet Miers Loyalist Army

Updates:

Media Lies gives me a nice compliment, and so does Jeff Goldstein.

From Media Lies who has been having a debate with Jeff Goldstein, who is against the nomination:

"She has twice been named one of the 100 most influential attorneys in America by the National Law Journal. (Notice I did not say "100 most powerful female attorneys.) The list includes people like David Boies, Barry Scheck, Janet Reno, Robert S. Bennett, Joseph Jamail, Richard Epstein (University of Chicago Law School), Joseph Grundfest, Kathleen Sullivan and L. Lawrence Lessig (Stanford Law School) and Charles Ogletree, Jr. and Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School). Those aren't exactly lightweights in the law. Miers was one of only eight women chosen for that list. It's reasonable to assume, then, that she was considered one of the eight most influential female attorneys in the entire country. That's lofty territory, rarified air. Oddly, I can't find Owens, Brown, Luttig or any of the other conservative favorites on that list. (I don't know that that means anything.)

Pundits and bloggers, on the other hand, have labeled her a "third rate" lawyer from "a third rate law school" and "mediocre" (among many other things), charges that would be laughable if they weren't so scurrilous. Yet they are gleefully repeated throughout the blogosphere and punditry as if, somehow, their mere repetition gives them credibility."

Don't miss his entire argument here, where he goes into detail about Miers' education and accomplishment accolades. In any event anyone that can hold their own with Jeff, and can give him a good run for his money needs to be appreciated and above all read. I looked at some of the exchanges, and all I can say, way to go Media! We need more of you on our side.

Jeff Goldstein, is someone whose opinion I respect a great deal. Although we do not always agree, he is certainly someone you should be reading instead of George Will, if indeed the anti-Miers opinion is of interest. Prolific and extremely eloquent, Jeff unfortunately remains unpersuaded, and I must say at least in my humble opinion is someone sorely missed on our team. Follow the links below which will give you his complete view :

"As I’ve argued all along, this entire controversy is, in an important respect (and judging from the information available about Miers’ political leanings, which stand in lieu of a judicial track record, and which Bush has assured us mirror his own), a battle between pragmatism and idealism—or better, a battle between a results-oriented approach to jurisprudence, which tends to be political, vs a procedural approach, which relies for its force on consistency of ideology and fidelity to certain immutable legal principles."

On Jeff's side is James Joyner @ Outside The Beltway with 'Miers and The Defence of Excellence' , attacking our unseemly arguments and suggesting we can do better, but conceeding:

"While sufficient evidence exists to put the burden of establishing "excellence" falls on Miers and her boosters, it is not out of the realm of possibility that she could perform brilliantly before the Senate and win the day."

Beth @ My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, is getting down and dirty, but what the....she's pro-Miers so it's O.K.
Don Surber, is voicing his 'Right on Harriet'

Michelle Malkin is calling for bloggers to take their stand, not surprisingly pointing to anti-Miers links.

Newsweek's 'Gathering Storm' are as usual quoting sources who decline to be named because 'the  sessions are secret', creating more hype and adding atmosphere to the anti-Miers campaign which will together with the rest of the MSM spin doctors put further pressure on the White House:

"Behind the scenes, however, the comfort level is very low. Some White House officials are already worried that Miers's rehearsals for her hearings are not proceeding smoothly, according to current and former administration sources who declined to be named because the sessions are secret. Whether the White House now prevails with its nominee says as much about its qualities under fire as those of Harriet Ellan Miers."

And finaly, I am still trying to understand why Hugh Hewitt is urging us not to cancel our National Review subscriptions, first there was the pettition for the withdrawal of the nomination and then this and now this. But then I guess The Editor William F. Buckley saves the day, and the subscription is fished out of the waste paper basket:

"Ms. Miers is now pursued because in 1989 she said that she believed in the right to life, which means, presumably, that she does not believe that Roe v. Wade was persuasively reasoned. Well, neither did Justice White or Chief Justice Rehnquist, both of whom dissented in Roe v. Wade. Is there any evidence that such a dissent contaminated their judgment when serving, as they continued to do for years, as members of the Court? Is there the least suggestion that to have dissented from the reasoning in Roe commits a new member to voting to reverse it?

None whatever, and Ms. Miers will certainly make that point when she is questioned in November. One worries about the quandary she is in — an open invitation to traduce her own thinking, in order to gain favor. That is cause for individual concern. There is reason to fear for the community of critics who seem willing to believe that a Christian justice will pursue Christian doctrine to the point of ignoring the evolved thinking of the Court. And the broad offense is to think of all religions as “equal” in their bearing on judicial conduct. The moment has not come, but it is around the corner, when non-Muslims will reasonably demand to have evidence that the Muslim faith can operate within boundaries in which Christians and Jews (and many non-believers) live and work without unconstitutional distraction."

Read Marvin Olasky's calm and positive review of where we stand:

"Here's where I stand: As a professor, I've learned to be skeptical about theorists and to value practical experience. I don't know Harriet Miers, but I've heard very positive things about her from trustworthy people. Her character seems exemplary, and I'm not worried that her degrees are "only" from SMU. I've studied and taught at Yale and Princeton, so I'm unimpressed by ivy and concerned more with arrogance: Intelligence without humility is a big part of the Supreme Court's problem.
[...]
Let's reason together about this nomination, instead of calling each other names. It's not surprising to see bitterness emerge, since great expectations concerning Anthony Kennedy and David Souter quickly were dashed. But let's hope that conservatives will come out of the trenches by Thanksgiving and be thankful that we have Republican nominees to discuss. The alternative is the beginning of a long war among GOP factions that will decimate all of them and give Democrats the nomination power."

I just received an e-mail from one of my readers Katie Ewing, from Dallas Texas, who very kindly sent me this link, 'SMU Law Dean Writes to Support Nomination of Harriett Miers' (as you know Miers attended same):

"DALLAS (SMU) – SMU School of Law Dean John Attanasio has written a letter to Senate Judiciary leaders endorsing the nomination of Harriet Miers as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, Attanasio summarized Miers’ “high-powered legal career” and cited her experience dealing with “the most complex of legal issues, both constitutional and statutory – issues which resemble those that Justices of the Supreme Court continually face.” In addition to serving as dean of SMU’s Dedman School of Law, Attanasio is the William Hawley Atwell Professor of Constitutional Law at SMU. “As a constitutionalist, I have no doubt that Harriet Miers is extremely well qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

As a distinguished member of the national legal community, Miers was on a path to become chair of the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates. This position “generally leads to [becoming] president of the ABA, the most notable which Lewis Powell held before being appointed to the Court,” Attanasio said. Miers withdrew her candidacy when she joined the White House staff.

In addition, Miers “rose to positions of authority despite the barriers encountered by professional women,” the dean wrote.

As a graduate of the SMU School of Law, Miers “stands right at the top,” he said. Fellow graduates include nine federal District Court judges and two members of Congress, six alumni who have served on the Texas Supreme Court and one on the Supreme Court of Missouri, and numerous others who have served as state judges. “Three SMU law graduates have been justices on the Japanese Supreme Court and others have served on the highest courts of the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, Egypt, and Korea. Our graduates work in over 70 countries. Many have become CEO’s or presidents of major corporations…, bar association leaders and managing partners and named partners of some of the largest law firms in the country and the world.”

The letter written by Dean Attanasio to the Judiciary Committee Chairman: Download Attanasio-Specter-Letter.

Media Lies: "Alexandra urged me to read Dean Attanasio's entire letter (pdf) regarding Harriet Miers. I did. I came away convinced that this is an extraordinary individual who will not only enrich the Court with her unique experience but will elevate the tenor and the scholarship of the Court as well."

David @ The League of David has spent serious quality time checking out what they are actually teaching at the  'elite' schools in the country: "However, since Mr. Will and his supporters in the opposition adorn their elitism as a defense of excellence, I thought I'd continue my exploration of what is being taught at our nation's "elite" schools, where grade inflation and "legacy" students (read: nepotism) are standard practice. I began the other day at Harvard, now I'm turning my attention to the English Departments at Princeton and Yale."

David you better put Oxford on the list, just for George Will's sake.

Big Lizards has 'George Will:The Old Maid in The Popcorn Bag', don't miss it. He describes the Will article: "The cherry bomb that fizzled. One of my mother's sneezes, where she gasps for air, teary eyes as wide as millstones; she flaps her arms and turns fire-engine red -- then nothing more than the squeak of a deferential churchmouse."

George 'Trey' Berryman III is Deconstructing Will, and has a scary picture of him. George, where did you guys find it? Tell me in my comments...I won't tell I promise....

Hot off the press from The Washington Post, The Judiciary Panel May Ask Dobson to Testify. Yeah, let's engage in some more conspiracy theory pontificating, adding to the superficially induced hype by the MSM.

Two great articles from Hugh Hewitt, lengthy and very thoughtful, representing in essence the gist of our arguments at present as we defend the various attacks coming from all sides, and specifically dealing with Rich Lowry, Roger Clegg, Stanley Kurtz, Jonah Goldberg, and the sharp tounged Andrew McArthy. We sorely missed Hugh who has just returned from Italy, and phew, good timing. His posts today 'here' , here, here, and the latest here. 

No sooner had Hugh unpacked his suitcases, when he got jumped on by Patterico, with Jeff Goldstein in tow via the comments section, Paul Mirengoff @ Powerline, Paul Zummo @ Confirm Them (Patterico names it Don't Confirm Her, ummh ), calling it Hugh Hewitt's Last Stand.

Why is it that people always feel the need to compliment you, before stabing you hard in the back? Compliment your intelligence and then shred your arguments. Paul starts with: "He is by all accounts a genuinely nice guy. He’s an optimistic conservative - a seeming contradiction, but then again, I think he supplies a much needed respite to the general pessimism that is natural to our ideology. He has been an open advocate for this blog, and he has been a good ally in our fight against left-wing obstructionism"

Then he launches into a scathing attack, taking each paragraph at a time. I shan't deal with them all, they will no doubt be dealt with by the more equiped such as Hugh himself, but one of the attacks he makes, relates to this paragraph in Hugh's article:

"The majority of commentators who are not lawyers - there are many - are simply not equipped to judge Harriet Miers’ competence. Mark Levin is a big exception. As is Judge Bork. But against these two are arrayed Professor Graglia and Dean Starr. There is disagreement among the ConLaw superstars. Perhaps lesser mortals in this field should wait for the hearings?"

Paul's comment: "Does this paragraph strike anybody else as being, oh, what’s the word? Elitist? [UMMH...NO!] Yeah, I thought so. Luckily for us, Hugh can turn on a dime from elitist snob who thinks only lawyers can have fully formed opinions on the matter, to man of the people...." quoting another paragraph where

Hugh expresses concern: " American conservatism is deeply suspicious of aristocracy, even among pundits. I have even seen warnings that the GOP is becoming populist! God forbid that, like TR, we actually excite the public’s imagination and approval and keep our majorities intact."

Paul then, by his own admission goes off on a tangent with the explanation of how conservatism and populism are contradictory terms, which I don't quite understand as I read Hewitt's comment not to contradict that statement in the least. Furthermore he gives explanations why history places the Framers of the Constitution far away from being populist, giving extensive reasons in support, which again I don't comprehend as Hewitt merely says 'becoming populist", and going back to our forefathers is entirely irrelevant in this context. If you wish to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject, then of course it makes sense. And so the critique goes on, in my opinion most of the time missing Hewitt's nuances and points altogether. But then what I do read into Paul's comments is a great degree of some sort of inherent  'underdog complex' which is alien to me and often goes hand in hand with a large chip on at least one shoulder. But who am I to say, I am not still struggling with the Thomas Jeffersonian tensions with what the Framers originally intended, and reading 'Reflecting on Revolutions in France'. Even though a conservative from birth, perhaps Paul is a closet socialist, and doesn't even know it?
And just as Paul has an aversion to elitism, I have an aversion to populism.

Orin Kerr from The Volokh Conspiracy jumps into bed with Paul Zummo naming his piece 'Hewitt v. Hewitt', accusing him of contradicting himself in his pre and post - holiday view on elitism. Again he also misses Hewitt's point which in his prior comment relates to trial lawyers ability to adapt to being judges, and in his latest comment relates to the commentators' ability to ascertain Miers' ability to be a judge. Hewitt's first claim is that being a Supreme Court Justice does not require a lawyer who specializes in Constitutional Law, but simply a very good lawyer. His second claim is that non-lawyers are generally not qualified to judge whether a lawyer has been a really good lawyer or not.

Rather than disputing both claims which is obviously possible in principal, Orin attacks the inconsistency, which is entirely incorrect. Hewitt did not say that all claims to expertise amount to elitism, he simply claimed that Constitutional Law experts demanding that one of their own be placed on the court is not justified.

Grenfell Hunt comes to Hewitt's defense: "One of the parts of Hewitt’s book, “If it’s not close, they can’t cheat”, that I really like is a simple sentence: There aren’t enough targets that you have to shoot at your friends?

If we can remember that, then the GOP and the conservative movement will be a lot stronger."

And Mark Noonan in Margolis' Blogs For Bush steps up in defence of Hewitt: " I hope that we'll learn a valuable lesson in this, if nothing else - that you don't turn on your own side the moment is steps off your straight and narrow. If straying is to result in flogging, who among us will 'scape whipping?"

Stan @ Two Minute Offense tells us why Bush will not withdraw the nomination.

My favorite Canadian liberal Michael Stickings over @ The Reaction is on the Miers Withdrawal watch, and alas of course bats for the other team. He quotes: "On Monday's Daily Show, Bill Kristol predicted that the Miers nomination will be withdrawn within two weeks".

One of my other favorites Ann Althouse in '"Harriet Miers is — is an extraordinary woman', quotes a question and answer exchange with the President a few moments ago and comments:

"I'll concede to the influence of wishfulness, but I read this as a sign that the nomination WILL be withdrawn: he's setting up the Krauthammer exit strategy with the documents; he did not address the question that was asked directly; and he fuzzes things over with irrelevant assertions about what a fine woman Miers is."

Having read the transcript myself I disagree, the President simply said that he is not willing to debate the issue or give in to demands for any paperwork relating to Miers, especially as it may breach confidentiality, we will all have to wait for the due process to take place and the hearings to take their planned course. He said he was not willing to cross that red line.

Jack Kelly's article predicting the withdrawal is very worrisome, in light of the fact that he has been giving Miers the benefit of the doubt thus far:

"It is one thing to give the president the benefit of the doubt in the absence of evidence, another to continue giving him that benefit in the face of evidence."

Michael Gaynor, over @ The Conservative Voice has an incredibly long and well researched article and weighs in:

"Would Ms. Miers have had a friendlier reception is she were Harry Meyers, a Jewish man, instead of Harriet Miers, an evangelical Christian woman who is pro-life?

Secular extremists loathe, and fear, evangelical Christians. They blame them for President Bush’s elections in 2000 and 2004 over Democrats who capitulated to and cooperated with secular extremism and championed abortion as a civil right instead of opposing it as a tragic wrong. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein would not even vote to confirm now Chief Justice John Roberts (whom elitists could not criticize, because he a Harvard Law School valedictorian), because he would not assure her he would uphold Roe v. Wade.
[...]
And I think that much of the opposition to Ms. Miers is based upon the realization by secular extremists and pro-abortion people that she is not one of them, resentment and envy among elitists on the right who are determined to force President Bush to pick a person on their list (an excellent list), and residual sexism on the part of those who sincerely, but wrongly, believe that only men are the best qualified.
[...]
Harriet Miers is not well known outside the White House and Texas legal circles, but as Americans learn more about her in the confirmation process they will see that Miers is qualified by experience, intellect, integrity and temperament to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Finally adding (don't miss the article in it's entirety it's brilliant):

"If she is confirmed, HURRAY!

If not, another non-Ivy league, non-top tier law school, qualified woman should be nominated. To show that elitism and sexism will not be rewarded."

Latest Update: Another breathless article in the Washington Post 'Conservatives Escalate Opposition to Miers', reporting that a group of Conservative activists intensified their opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers launching two Web sites and planning radio and television advertising aimed at forcing her withdrawal. Don't these people have anything better to do with their money?

It comes as no surprise to me that one of the participants is Brian Burch, vice president of Fidelis, a Catholic antiabortion organization, again proving the fact that this is at the end of the day predominantly a Roe v Wade issue. Yes we all know she needs to perform well enough at her hearings to overcome the negative assessment that has led up to them, but can we just let her get there. What happened to the innocent until proven guilty?

Charles Krauthammer, a Miers opponent, concedes that much of the opposition is mistaken:

“[W]hile I remain as exercised as anyone by the lack of wisdom of this choice, I part company from those who see the Miers nomination as a betrayal of conservative principles. The idea that Bush is looking to appoint some kind of closet liberal David Souter or even some rudderless Sandra Day O'Connor clone is wildly off the mark. The president's mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and yet exceptionally well known to him.”

Slate pus Miers chances of confirmation at 75%.

I am concluding by including the comment from one of my prolific readers Kenny Pierce, in case you don't venture into my comments section and miss it. It pretty much identifies what we all find so aggravating with Will's article, other than of course some of us who so vehemently disagree with his argument in its entirety:

"Will would probably complain that Olasky "et al" misrepresent his intent, and that his repeated use of the term "crude" was meant only to imply intellectual crudity (that is, crudity in the sense of lack of precision, not in the sense of vulgarity) and an inability to make those fine distinctions that, as G. K. Chesterton famously observed, are often flat contradictions. I actually have a great deal of sympathy for his emphasis on the process as a matter important in its own right, and I do think that the Miers defense has been very heavy on "she'll the vote the way we want" and very light on "when she produces her opinions they will be based on the Constitution rather than on Republican partisan axioms and platform planks." In particular the Bush team's defense of Miers has been the defense of people who think that as long as the conservative base thinks Miers will overturn Roe v. Wade they won't care what her reasoning is, even if her reasoning is "George Bush wants it overturned and I have to justify his trust in my loyalty."

But Will's rhetoric is itself so heavy-handed and, if I may put it this way, so crude, that it can hardly help but convince people that Will's intent is in fact pretty much what Olasky represents it to be, and that if Will tries to defend himself by parsing the term "crude," he'll just be adding hypocricy to his arrogance. When Olasky throws a fit about Will's supposed implication that evangelicals can't keep from farting in public or whatever, Will can <em>say</em> "that's not what I meant," but in truth, such an implication is pretty much faithful to the contemptuous, self-adoring, intellectually masturbatory tone of Will's column. This is a man who is writing a column to put <em>hoi polloi</em> in their proper place, which is to say, very far down the conservative banqueting table from The Intellectual Eminence That Is George Will.

Hell, I probably agree with Will's actual points, insofar as he has any point to make other than, "I'm much smarter than my opponents." But I don't walk away from his column saying, "Ah, yes, great minds do think alike." I walk away saying, "That man needs to be punched soundly and squarely in the nose."

I'll tell you one other impression that column made on me. It sounded very much like the writing of a man who secretly is afraid that there's somebody out there who can prove that a conclusion to which he has precipitately leapt, is in fact wrong; and who is therefore trying not to understand or to persuade his foes, but simply to intimidate them into silence. Most people who spend that much time carrying on about how obvious it is that they are right, and how anybody who disagrees with them is too stupid to deserve for anybody to waste time with their arguments, are people who very much don't want the undecided to hear their opponents' arguments. This piece is would-be intellectual intimidation from start to finish; it is meant to silence discussion, not to enhance it. And people who try to silence discussion, usually are people who are afraid of what would happen if other viewpoints besides their own were to be heard"

This post will be updated throughout the day, and so far is getting way out of hand in length...

Comments

[North by Northwest]

Or will he in his turn feel resentful and betrayed and respond by trying to strike his own blow against the "traitors"?

I'm afraid resentful and betrayed. And yes, he'll want to strike back all right!

Consider it: Of all public decisions, this is surely the most personal! And what's much worse for Dubya both politically and personally, this is yet another first, much extended example of how this emerging media ecosystem, the 'Blogosphere', is capable of delivering painful, if not mortal blows hitherto unimaginable in political processes such as the Presidential Nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

Actually, don't get me started on a rant about how revolutionary this whole affair actually is - I mean here we are, thousands of little political/economical nobodies, sitting in our respective abodes, expressing our views in completely unfettered and unchecked forcefulness. AND IT MATTERS; IT REACHES FAR AND WIDE; IT PENETRATES THE IVORY TOWERS EVERYWHERE.... And the argument, uttered by those who'd like to refute political blogs as insignificant, that 98% of the population won't read a single line, is of course utterly misconceived: First, their popularity and penetration is expanding continuously and second, journalists and members of the established media ecosystem/MSM do take note and are involved, thus influenced in their reporting, ergo reaching and influencing the population at large.

So, back to Dubya, and his emotional state: He's hurting. His wife is hurting. Most importantly, his mother is hurting. That's dangerous! Don't scoff, matriarch Barbara Bush matters, she being the equivalent to patriarch Joe Kennedy; she'll want blood, a là Lady Macbeth. I hope someone close keeps reminding Dubya that sound reason, not an emotional knee-jerk response, is the best recipe for making decisions. We shall see...

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

I ought to say here that I personally think the War on Terror does in fact trump domestic policy at this point, and also that one of the areas in which Dubya's performance had been stellar -- right up to the Miers nomination, at least -- is precisely in his revolutionizing the federal judiciary. On balance I approve of Dubya's performance and don't regret voting for him (for the first time ever) in the last election. And while I think Miers was an inappropriate choice, I don't necessarily think she's a bad choice (well, obviously she turns out politically to have been a disastrous choice, but politics are momentary and the Supreme Court is for life). My complaints are largely procedural rather than personal, and if Miers winds up on the bench it will cause me no apoplexy, much less apocalypse.

But then I'm not part of Dubya's base; so my approval or disapproval doesn't matter. It's the part of his base that he's ignored for the past several years that is his problem now. And it looks to me like that neglected part of his base is going to have its revenge. The question is, will Dubya understand why "his own" suddenly turned on him (not really suddenly, of course; it's been building for a long time) and will this rebellion force him to shift his domestic policy to the right on critical domestic issues? Or will he in his turn feel resentful and betrayed and respond by trying to strike his own blow against the "traitors"? The Rebel Alliance thinks this is their chance to force him to govern domestically as an actual Republican rather than as a "compassionate conservative," which phrase many of the cynics among us think means "someone who likes to give the Army something useful to do whenever possible, and doesn't like taxes, and is against abortion and for school prayer, but who in other respects is generally speaking a Democrat." If they're wrong, and if the end result of this is a long-running schism in conservative ranks, then...well, the Hillary years ought to be ver-r-r-y interesting.

[North by Northwest]

That kind of leadership ruins everything given time.

Even the inspired choices are ruined over time given that kind of lack of attention to detail. This is certainly been a lot of the critcism of the Bush administration. Delivering soundbite promises, dealing behind closed doors with whatever pet projects they were interested in at the time and letting the bureaucrats make the day-to-day calls on implementation. That's your perfect recipe for disaster. Unchecked bureaucracy....

[North by Northwest]

UTTERLY DEPRESSING

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

>
Now, Kenny, I am intrigued to know where in your opinion Bush has been "very non-conservative in ways that are significant to quite a large number of people in the big conservative tent".
>

Well, with the caveat that I'm giving other people's opinion on their behalf and without their permission (since I am myself much more squarely in the libertarian camp than in the conservative one and would therefore start with, "He hasn't called off the War on Drugs yet"), here's a quick list off the top of my head:

1. He never saw a spending bill he wouldn't sign. For that matter he never saw a bill he wouldn't sign, period. Literally. Alexandra's "porkers" picture is a great one. But consider that part of the function of the executive veto is to allow the man who has been elected by the entire country to step in and control the locally-partisan spending of the regionally elected Congressmen. This role -- historically more cherished by conservatives than by liberals -- has been absolutely abdicated by Dubya. If Alexandra can find a picture of George Bush in costume as Nero, complete with fiddle, as a herd of Porkers Rampant set fire to Rome in the background, she'll capture the sense of indignation many small-government conservatives feel regarding Bush's prodigal spending habits. (And if there's one person in the world capable of finding such a picture, it would be Alexandra...)

2. While we're on the subject of the President's inability to veto legislation no matter how appalling, let it be noted that this President signed McCain-Feingold...and did so, if I remember correctly (I may not), within a few days of saying that in his opinion McCain-Feingold violated Constitutional freedom of speech.

3. There aren't very many people living in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona or California who believe that George Bush has any interest at all in antagonizing the Hispanic vote by making any honest effort whatsoever to control illegal immigration from Mexico. You don't have to be Patrick "Aryan Nation" Buchanan to think that in the age of terrorists who aspire to nuclear jihad, sealing the borders so that people don't wander freely back and forth without our permission, would be relatively high on a genuinely "conservative" President's list of priorities. But do you know anybody who lists, "Took aggressive action to get control of our southern border," as one the accomplishments on Dubya's curriculum vitae to date?

4. This President's administration does not appear to be very motivated to put a stop to reverse racial or gender discrimination. (Harriet Miers in particular is taking heat -- whether fairly or not I can't tell -- for endorsing something resembling gender and racial quotas in the hiring of lawyers; and of course the Bush camp done little or nothing to dispel the idea that Bush made up his mind that men need not apply for this particular seat on the Supreme Court.)

5. On education -- which is critical to the health of a democracy and which we have been doing very badly indeed ever since the Baby Boomers got their hands on the wheel -- the guy is just a disaster. The whole conservative message on education has been for years, "Get the parents back into control instead of the bureaucrats and the National Education Association," but Bush comes in and announces that what our educational system needs is a historically unprecedented level of federal-government interference in your local kindergarten's attempts to give your kid an education. (Obviously this is, as well, yet another burr in the small-government-conservatives' communal saddle.)

How's that for starters?

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

I'm not sure that Will is wrong in that piece, but I'm quite sure that he's insufferable. That's not a man saying, "My opponents are mistaken and I am fortunate enough to be correct." That's a man saying, "My opponents are morons and I can use more big words per sentence than they can and you certainly don't want to disagree with me or I'll insult you too."

Will would probably complain that Olasky et al misrepresent his intent, and that his repeated use of the term "crude" was meant only to imply intellectual crudity (that is, crudity in the sense of lack of precision, not in the sense of vulgarity) and an inability to make those fine distinctions that, as G. K. Chesterton famously observed, are often flat contradictions. I actually have a great deal of sympathy for his emphasis on the process as a matter important in its own right, and I do think that the Miers defense has been very heavy on "she'll the vote the way we want" and very light on "when she produces her opinions they will be based on the Constitution rather than on Republican partisan axioms and platform planks." In particular the Bush team's defense of Miers has been the defense of people who think that as long as the conservative base thinks Miers will overturn Roe v. Wade they won't care what her reasoning is, even if her reasoning is "George Bush wants it overturned and I have to justify his trust in my loyalty."

But Will's rhetoric is itself so heavy-handed and, if I may put it this way, so crude, that it can hardly help but convince people that Will's intent is in fact pretty much what Olasky represents it to be, and that if Will tries to defend himself by parsing the term "crude," he'll just be adding hypocricy to his arrogance. When Olasky throws a fit about Will's supposed implication that evangelicals can't keep from farting in public or whatever, Will can say "that's not what I meant," but in truth, such an implication is pretty much faithful to the contemptuous, self-adoring, intellectually masturbatory tone of Will's column. This is a man who is writing a column to put hoi polloi in their proper place, which is to say, very far down the conservative banqueting table from The Intellectual Eminence That Is George Will.

Hell, I probably agree with Will's actual points, insofar as he has any point to make other than, "I'm much smarter than my opponents." But I don't walk away from his column saying, "Ah, yes, great minds do think alike." I walk away saying, "That man needs to be punched soundly and squarely in the nose."

I'll tell you one other impression that column made on me. It sounded very much like the writing of a man who secretly is afraid that there's somebody out there who can prove that a conclusion to which he has precipitately leapt, is in fact wrong; and who is therefore trying not to understand or to persuade his foes, but simply to intimidate them into silence. Most people who spend that much time carrying on about how obvious it is that they are right, and how anybody who disagrees with them is too stupid to deserve for anybody to waste time with their arguments, are people who very much don't want the undecided to hear their opponents' arguments. This piece is would-be intellectual intimidation from start to finish; it is meant to silence discussion, not to enhance it. And people who try to silence discussion, usually are people who are afraid of what would happen if other viewpoints besides their own were to be heard.

Is that what's going on in Will's column? Lordy, I don't know; I don't know the man; for all I know he's just self-impressed to a degree that borders on self-parody, and nothing else is going on there. There may be no fear at all; mere fatuous self-conceit may be the true explanation. All I'm trying to say is that, while Will clearly intended the column to make people think, "My God, that man's smart," my own instinctive reaction was, "My God, that man's scared."

[North by Northwest]

George - saw the picture. Interesting how they make him look 'respectable' over at the WaPo. But be that as it may, I was re-reading his article and couldn't help but admire his eloquence, his craft. Cold, measured and deadly precise; I mean of course in pursuing his chosen victim. But yet devoid of a soul - oops I nearly wrote "just like the picture"; how terribly judgmental of me, tsk tsk...

[North by Northwest]

Kenny, one thing seems certain, Bush certainly prefers to make 'gut' decisions. And as I have been saying repeatedly, that was the very qualtiy needed following 9/11 - and it was refreshing to see how in fact the checks and balances did work(!).

And staying with Churchill, clearly another example for a shrewd and buccaneering politician if ever there was one in the 20th century. History is only too often just interested in the results, and Bush clearly has set his marker in that department. Chancellor Helmuth Kohl virtually 'bought' East Germany and thus achieved the reunification in record time, thereby largely crippling German economy to this very day. 10-25 years from now however, he'll be heralded a great statesman and visionary (and the fact that he was more or less booted out of power when the short term pain grew too hard to stomach will be relegated to tiny footnotes - and that is how it should be...). So, I guess that's the added problem: short-termism.
It will take a lot of luck, but IMHO, Bush has actually a real chance to reap some of the glory of his actions during his lifetime....

Which brings me back to Miers: I of course can't say with any kind of certainty, but I believe, that Miers will come through as one of those success stories for which Bush will rightfully receive a lot of praise in years to come.

Now, Kenny, I am intrigued to know where in your opinion Bush has been "very non-conservative in ways that are significant to quite a large number of people in the big conservative tent".

[Alexandra]

Kenny,
My original intent was that George Will was Doubting Thomas, and Miers a Christ like figure. She is being poked around, probed and tested with St.George being the lead protagonist, and the onlookers are the disciples that attempt to explain to Thomas the truth, but he remains unconvinced.
I am not however saying that she is a holier than thou figure, it's simply an analogy, that by default places her in that position.
But Kenny, whilst you are on I am very interested in what you think about George Will's comments or should I say insults, regarding the religious aspect of the choice.

[George Berryman]

Hey there Alexandra. That George F. Will picture... I wanted to try and find something with a little color in it. Found that one off of a UK site. For anyone curious it is extremely hard to find a picture of Will where he's smiling. I find that oddly telling.

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

So, I was just playing with the implications of your choice of Doubting Thomas as the analog for the anti-Miers crew. Do you intend your analogy to extend to the identification of Bush with Christ? (Merely a point of curiosity; not taking a position on whether that would be a good or bad identification.) Or would you instead slot Bush into the role of "disciples who tried to tell Thomas the truth about Jesus but Thomas wouldn't trust them" (which would seem to push Harriet herself down the road to Christlike-figure status)?

[Kenny Pierce]

NxN,

>
I think that after a few moments of such reflection, it must appear to be a sound nomination by all reasonable accounts
>

See, that's precisely what has caused the split. There are many different perspectives that are accustomed to being labeled "conservative" just because all those perspectives agree that government by the Democratic Party is A Very Bad Thing. But to be a small-government anti-immigration conservative with a deep distrust for the Religious Right, is to be something very different from, say, James Dobson.

Hugh Hewitt had a post awhile back in which he reacted to someone's saying that Bush wasn't a conservative by blustering about how that was "like saying Winston Churchill wasn't a conservative because all he did was beat Hitler." That said very little about President Bush, but it said a very great deal indeed about Hugh: it told you which parts of "conservativism" Hugh considers to be The Really Important Parts. If Bush has come up to snuff on the elements of conservatism that somebody personally happens to think are The Really Important Parts of conservatism, then he almost certainly trusts Bush, he almost certainly supports this election, and he is very likely to find it "unreasonable" for other conservatives to disagree.

But Bush has been very non-conservative in ways that are significant to quite a large number of people in the big conservative tent. I think myself it was a major mistake for him to expect conservatives in general (rather than those conservatives whom he has genuinely made happy) to go along with whomever the hell he decided to nominate on the grounds that Father Knows Best.

In a word, if you consider the President's conservative credentials to be up to snuff, then that places you as a certain kind of conservative, whose definition of "conservative" would be rejected by a significant number of self-described conservatives. (I think that "significant number" is still a minority, but it is a significant minority, and the President was an ass to have had no better plan for pacifying that minority than he seems to have had going into this process.)

[North by Northwest]

If only it was so easy for the doubtful in the case of Miers... Much more difficult to get to know Miers' position than to poke your finger in the flesh.

All the more reason to reflect on (1) are the President's conservative 'credentials' up to scratch (how does he want his nominee to act for the next 10-20 years; what does he hold dear; what values does he like to see upheld) and (2) how well does he know Miers. I think that after a few moments of such reflection, it must appear to be a sound nomination by all reasonable accounts.

The soundbite 'Trust Me' may well be like a red rag to a bull, but ultimately, will always be the bottom line. That, it seems to me, is the very nature of the current procedure; the way Supreme Court Justices are being nominated. Maybe it is time to address that very procedure as inadequate and begin making suggestions as to what alternative procedures should be considered.

[Semanticleo]

I have reservations about the qualifications of Ms Miers, but am even more disinclined to agree with Will's sentiments based on a byte from the past.

George Will is the stuffed moosehead that looms out over the patrons at your local saloon.

He’s the one that originated the idea of brother/sister marriage between press and gov't, hiring himself out to the GOP to prepare Reagan for the debates with Jimmy Carter.

We have him to thank for breaking ground in the incestuous relationship between the Washington Press Corps that, hopefully has reached it’s zenith in Judith Miller, and the hacks in WH and the Hill. He should be relegated to snarking because he is the Bullwinkle of B>S. Let the imperious little twit spend the rest of his overblown talent writing his memoirs from the island of Elba.

[lilly]

Wonderful! What a fantastic choice of painting. A picture that speaks a thousand words. I find all the visuals on this blog are so incredible. Very impressive.

As for Miers, she's in whether they like it or not!