Misunderestimating the Furor Over Hurricane Harriet
By Chuck Muth (10/09/05)
The White House's spinmeisters are either ignorantly misreading or
intentionally mischaracterizing the general conservative opposition to
Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. They continue
"misunderestimating" the furor at their own peril.
It's not that conservatives think she's "unqualified." We accept the fact
that one need not have been a judge to sit on the Supreme Court. We accept
the fact that many a fine Justice had no judicial experience before joining
SCOTUS. On the other hand, a lot of really lousy former Justices had no
judicial experience either.
We also accept the fact that Miers is an accomplished lawyer who won't
"legislate from the bench." And we're fairly comfortable that she won't "go
Souter" on us.
And it's not that she isn't "conservative." Conservatives not only accept
that she's a conservative, but is most assuredly a social conservative, as
well. We also accept that she's probably a very nice, but tough, lady who
"has a good heart" (whatever the heck that means to one's ability to
interpret the Constitution).
And it has nothing to do with the fact that she didn't come from an Ivy
League school. Most of the other individuals on the short-list of nominees
who would have been warmly embraced by grassroots conservative activists and
leaders didn't come from Ivy League schools either. In fact, NOT coming
from an Ivy League school is probably more in her FAVOR among rank-and-file
conservatives who are not exactly enamored with Harvard and Yale ivory-tower
liberalism.
And it's not that we don't "trust" the president - although after
McCain-Feingold, Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind program, LBJ's
prescription drug bill, that pork-filled highway bill, his federal Marshall
Plan for New Orleans, losing his veto pen, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.,
etc., etc., perhaps that trust SHOULD come into serious question.
And it's not that Ms. Miers is a close, personal friend to the president.
Although the charge of "cronyism" is, indeed, a legitimate point, that
really isn't what all the hubbub is about.
No. This is about Republicans never blowing an opportunity to blow an
opportunity.
The visceral objections to Harriet Miers have more to do with the fact that
many conservative activists have been toiling in the political trenches for
MANY YEARS to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate for the
expressed purpose of being able to seat individuals on the nation's highest
court who have the conservative judicial and intellectual star-power and
brain-power we were denied by the Left when they "borked" Robert Bork. The
fact is, with Republican kiesters warming 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, a
superior Bork-like nominee COULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED to join Justice Thomas
and Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court of the
United States of America.
Instead, we get...Harriet Miers?
We could have had filet mignon. Instead we got hamburger. We could have
had Dom Perignon. Instead we got Pabst Blue Ribbon. We could have thrown a
touchdown. Instead we ran it up the middle for a two-yard gain. And then
to rub salt in this open wound, the president insulted the nation's
collective intelligence by claiming, laughably, that he "picked the best
person (he) could find." Perhaps he should have extended his search beyond
arm's length.
It's not so much that Harriet Miers is "bad," but that we had an opportunity
to do SO MUCH better.
There are only nine seats on the Supreme Court. Vacancies don't occur very
often. Why settle for a second- or third-stringer when there were so many
experienced, bona fide super-stars sitting on the bench waiting to get into
the game? With the World Series on the line, why send an untested,
inexperienced rookie to the mound when you have the likes of Roger Clemens
or Randy Johnson at your disposal? This nomination is the sort of decision
which would get a major league manager fired on the spot.
Nevertheless, there are still some GOP partisan loyalists out there who are
blindly accepting the president's nomination on faith and disparaging anyone
else who dares voice objection as not being a "team player" or a "true
conservative." These Bushophiles need to wake up and smell the coffee. For
the record, here's just a PARTIAL list of prominent, bona fide,
card-carrying conservatives who have expressed reservations, if not open
hostility, to the Miers nomination over the past week:
Former Judge Robert Bork, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene,
columnist Charles Krauthammer, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, columnist
George Will, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute,
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, columnist Thomas Sowell, columnist Mona
Charen, former ACU executive director Richard Lessner, Sen. Sam Brownback
(R-KS), Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), columnist Robert Novak, columnist Bruce
Fein, columnist Peggy Noonan, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, columnist
Terrence Jeffrey, columnist Michelle Malkin, the Wall Street Journal, Manny
Miranda of the Third Branch Coalition, the Federalist Patriot, columnist
David Limbaugh, Gary Bauer of American Values, Alan Keyes of Renew America,
columnist Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
All of these people are wrong and the president is right? All of these
people aren't "true conservatives"? All of these people aren't "team
players"? Come on.
George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible. He made a mistake. But it's
a mistake which can and should be rectified. The nation need not settle for
second or third best with this lifetime appointment. President Bush should
take a "mulligan," withdraw this nomination and appoint someone such as
Judge Janice Rogers Brown instead. Absent that, Ms. Miers should take
herself out of the game - for the good of the conservative movement and for
the good of the nation.
Copyright 2005 Chuck Muth
(Printer friendly version) Email: Chuck Muth
