Monday, October 10, 2005

OK, Hugh, now you're starting to get irrational

I've been watching the unfolding conflict in the center-right of the blogosphere over the Miers nomination and have commented a bit on it myself. I am struggling to lend any credence to Hugh Hewitt's position on the matter - that the Miers nomination is wonderful and any of us who support Bush on any matter whatsoever should be supporting him now - mainly due to my respect for the man and his contributions to the blogosphere and political thought in general. Mr. Hewitt has, unfortunately, lost me big time with this small post:

::::::::If those disappointed by the Miers nomination want to assure that a Michael Luttig or a Michael McConnell never get nominated much less through the Senate, they will pursue tactics that will diminish the Senate majority so that the constitutional option is off the table.::::::::

...combined with this closing comment in another post:

::::::::To put it bluntly: There is zero advantage and plenty of harm in defeating Miers, including the very obvious encouragement of the previously fever-swamp argument that Bush was a lame duck. It is also certain that a crucial slice of the evangelical base will perceive in the rejection of Miers a rejection of their status as equal partners in the governing coalition. Even if that slice is small --and it does not appear small to me at this point-- it is strategic.

Concern over the direction of SCOTUS --an issue second only to winning the GWOT-- counsels support of Miers. Even those convinced it is a blunder ought to now turn their attention to the Iraq elections and away from Miers until the hearings are underway.
::::::::

Illogical. Condescending. Want this translated? Here you go: you idiots are making Bush look bad so you all need to just run along and let the grownups (ed.: like Hugh) handle this incredibily important decision and don't bug us until it's over.

Apologies to Hugh, but President Bush has had 2 chances to nominate Luttig or McConnell and hasn't done it either time. What proof does he have that the President would do so given a 3rd chance? Or a 4th? Or an 8th? And may I also point out that we - all of us, including those of us who think this nomination wasn't the right choice and, by the way, who don't happen to be members of the knighted evangelicals - worked very hard to put a clear majority of Republicans in the Senate along with a Republican President in the White House so we could get judges both nominated and confirmed that would bring the judiciary back from the unelected legislature it's become? That Senate majority has had nominations before it that would have done this and they, also, didn't make the right choice. Is there proof that they will suddenly grow the spine we worked hard to allow them and confirm either of those 2 worthies even if they had them as nominees? To advance the theory that speaking out in opposition to this kind of decision is the cause for the bad nomination makes no sense whatsoever.

I would also ask Hugh Hewitt to advise us as to when we're supposed to speak our minds on this matter, if not now? Harriet Miers won't be coming up for election in 2008 or 2010. Once this decision is past, it will be impossible to undo and it is our right and our responsibility to both oversee and to speak up on decisions such as these. If Harriet Miers is a person who will judge the law of the land through the lenses of "racial diversity" by allowing universities to discriminate against whites or by thinking that political speech needs to be regulated, then she's the wrong person for the job and defeating her grants a helluva lot more than zero advantage. My recommendation to someone who is arguing that opposition to this nominee smacks of elitism is for that person to avoid elitist commentary themselves.