October 25, 2005

Quag-Miers Watch Update

I've not commented on Hugh Hewitt's rah-rah support of the White House's defense of Harriet Miers, but I have to say that this jumps the shark:

Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what?

Is the GOP incapable of governing as a majority?

Is Hugh really suggesting that knee-jerk Clintonista wagon-circling is a model the GOP should want to emulate? Especially on an issue as incredibly important as a SCOTUS nomination? Or that as a party we've no right to say, "Great job on Iraq, sorry you got screwed over Katrina, but you don't get a bye on Miers - go back and try again"?

Sorry, but if we've stooped to the level of wanting to hold on to the White House merely for the sake of holding on to it without being able to examine and debate the wisdom of what we're doing with it, then we don't deserve to be governing as a majority.

Yips! to Weapons of Mass Discussion, who put the hurt on Hugh.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse suggests that the White House might be getting ready to toss Miers a la the Krautheimer Exit Strategy we praised a couple days ago. Here's hoping.

Clenched-Fist Yips! to the Commissar.

UPDATE DEUX: Oh, and just to make it O-fficial for N.Z. Bear, we're opposed to the nomination.

Posted by Robert at October 25, 2005 12:48 PM | TrackBack

I'm afraid Hugh makes the mistake of assuming that just because many of us passionately supported the re-election of the President over a fabulously inferior opponent, that somehow that makes us "his ... supportive pundits" alleged or not.

I do not remember ever pricking my finger and taking that oath.

The great thing about being a modern conservative is that we have principles against which we measure thoughts and deeds, ours and our leadership. Believing in republicanism, we select leaders who we believe represent our thoughts and ideals. When they disappoint us, we are required to re-examine our ideals and question whether we are still being properly represented.

Blind obedience to people in power crying, "Trust us!" is not healthy. Dubya is a smart man. Perhaps this episode will teach him that there are limits on how far you can push your base. You cannot take it for granted; you cannot insult its intelligence. The Miers nomination does both.

Perhaps Hugh is too worried about preserving the illusion of unanimity rather than actively working for the real thing. A good nominee would heal the breach rather quickly.

Sorry this is so long.

Posted by: Dave at October 25, 2005 01:35 PM

Remember Colossus' dream--Ken Starr confirmed on a 50-50 split, nuclear option vote with the Vice President putting it over the top.

Posted by: LMC at October 25, 2005 03:31 PM

I think if you want to be counted by NZ Bear, you need the exact phrase: I oppose the Miers nomination.

And, man, there's got to be a better candidate than Miers.

Posted by: owlish at October 25, 2005 09:32 PM