pageok
pageok
pageok
Ponnuru on "Why Conservatives Are Divided":
Ramesh Ponnuru has a very interesting op-ed in the Monday New York Times on conservative reaction to the Miers nomination — and to the Bush Administration more broadly. (Link via How Appealing)
David Hecht (mail):
Well...Ponnuru is right as far as he goes. But I'm curious...who are these conservatives who supposedly "oppose the conduct of the war"? And what do they have to offer as an alternative?

I voted for Bush because I thought he'd be sounder on foreign and security policy than the Democratic alternative. So far I haven't been disappointed. As far as I'm concerned, everything--and I mean everything--comes second to that. "Salus Populi Suprema Lex"

In 1976, my first choice was Reagan. My second choice was Senator Henry M. ("Scoop") Jackson (D-WA). I think those choices speak for themselves: and--as I've told my friends, liberal and conservative alike--if it takes a Hillary Clinton presidency to anchor the Democratic party back into a pro-America, pro-forward defense mode, then that's a price I am willing to pay.

Is Harriet Miers a "bad" choice? Possibly: I don't know yet, and I probably won't find out for sure till after she's confirmed. But in this game, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
10.17.2005 2:18am
The General:
Harriet Miers is not a judicial conservative, which is what Bush promised in 2 presidential elections. She does not have any type of record of being one because if she did, it would have been produced by now. Moreover, she isn't going to morph into a judicial conservative at the committee hearings, and even if she did, a few days in front of those blowhards isn't a replacement for that missing record.

Those of us trusted Bush to hold the line of judicial nominations have no choice but to be upset by this nomination.

Do I like the foreign policy? Yeah, for the most part, but not immigration. But Bush didn't run as a closed border conservative, so we're getting what we voted for on that.

But the SCOTUS is of premium importance and failure to deliver a nomination of a judicial conservative is not only a disappointment, but a betrayal of the worst kind!
10.17.2005 3:08am
Justin Kee (mail):
I hope for the sake of the nation that she is a closet liberal. Then again, if the center cannot hold....so be it.
10.17.2005 3:21am
OpposeMiers (mail) (www):
CARLSON: OK. Here's another one. "More and more the intractable problems in our society have one answer, broad based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment to fix many problems." The point is, look, this is not clear writing. It does not reflect clear thinking.

HEWITT: No, Tucker, that's wrong. There is broad-based consensus right now about intolerable conditions concerning New Orleans after the levees broke. That's exactly what she meant.

CARLSON: That's how dumb people write. Come on. That's garbage, and you know it. I mean, let's be real.
10.17.2005 5:15am
Cornellian (mail):
Hilarious! Is the "Carlson" Tucker Carlson? He's got a point. David Brooks wrote an article making a similar point, but with more extensive quotations from her writing. He said her writing didn't even rise to the level of pedestrian. Frankly to me it reads like the kind of mush you'd expect from some former bureaucrat running for school board or some such position who has to draft his or her own campaign press releases.

CARLSON: OK. Here's another one. "More and more the intractable problems in our society have one answer, broad based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment to fix many problems." The point is, look, this is not clear writing. It does not reflect clear thinking.

HEWITT: No, Tucker, that's wrong. There is broad-based consensus right now about intolerable conditions concerning New Orleans after the levees broke. That's exactly what she meant.

CARLSON: That's how dumb people write. Come on. That's garbage, and you know it. I mean, let's be real.
10.17.2005 5:32am
Nunzio (mail):
As someone who's probably not much of a conservative (I voted for Clinton and W. Bush twice), I find conservatives like Ponnuru are over-the-top. C'mon, this "but Bush promised he'd nominate a Scalia or Thomas," is really naive.

Bush, like Clinton and every other president, has more important priorities than appointing Supreme Court justices and will break campaign promises when it's expedient.

Bush knows he can't appoint someone who's on-the-record as against abortion, see Michael McConnell, because he knows most Americans, including many of those who voted for him, support abortion rights and are perfectly content with Roe v. Wade.

There's not enough juice to get some known conservative on the Supreme Court, and Bush knows this and knows he has other priorities. Reagan had the same problem with Bork, and we ended up with Kennedy.

Bush can no more appoint a known anti-abortion Supreme Court justice than Clinton could appoint a known anti-death-penalty justice, no matter what the extremes in both parties want.

If it's not Miers, it will be someone pretty similar.
10.17.2005 1:38pm