Can the Conservative Rebellion End Well?
By California Yankee Posted in The Courts — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
At the Weekly Standard, William Kristol writes "What Is To Be Done?" and joins those calling for Miers to withdraw:
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?
Kristol argues that if Miers does not prove to be impressive in her confirmation hearings, conservative senators can do the conservative cause, the Republican party, and the Bush administration a favor by voting against confirming Miers.
This counterintuitive argument puzzled me at first. All week I have been listening and reading the rage of conservatives I admire. My reaction was different than Kristol's. I thought I was witnessing the meltdown of the conservative movement. I was beginning to believe that conservatives' maniacal rage and refusal to accept President Bush's nomination of Miers would result in making President Bush a lame duck and returning the government to the liberals.
In support of his argument Kristol claims the conservative congressional opposition to the 1990 budget deal was a key to Republican success in 1994 and conservative opposition to Nixon's policy of détente was crucial to laying the groundwork for Ronald Reagan's success in 1980.
Kristol is a very smart man, and I agree with his commentary more often than not. This time he has not convinced me. I still fear that this conservative rebellion will not have a good ending. Absent a Miers withdrawal, there is no stopping the conservative rebellion, so I hope Kristol is right.
« BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law — Comments (21) | Don't argue with me - argue with him. — Comments (38) »
Can the Conservative Rebellion End Well? 24 Comments (0 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Who is also anti Israeli, Pro Palestinian, pro blame America first, pro just about any socialist anti-American group.
but if the movement is to splinter on a semi-permanent basis, it will be because of President Bush, not Harriet Miers.
And in that case, Howard Dean can work at keeping the conservative coalition together by flapping his lips, and a threat of a President H. Clinton after 2008 might do it nicely.
Remember, the movement does not need Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer if they choose to splinter. ("Let their ships burn!") I hold that the modern conservative movement, in its current state, is still President Reagan's baby. He taught us better than than a factionalization laden with acrimony, with animosity.
A Harriet Miers withdrawal will solve nothing. The questions about President Bush for nominating her in the first place will remain with those upset with whole business. And rightly so, as their concerns will not have been addressed.
The die is cast. One of our leaders (who has yet to fail us in judicial battles) has crossed the Rubicon to clash with our judicial foes. The only question is whether to sally forth to join battle with your friends & allies or sit this one out.
The time to argue is amid the war council during strategy-making and plans, not during execution. That council has public reps from each conservative camp: former WH Counsel C. Boyden Gray (business/establishment wing), ACLJ Jay Sekulow (religious/moral wing), Federalist Society Leonard Leo (intellectual/thinktank wing)
See Inside Bush's Supreme Team http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_17/b3930120.htm
Do NOT fight against your friends. The rebels do not know her and must divine the future with even less certainty than supporters trusting Bush and those who do (know her). Rebels mustn't shoot into what they think they see in the twilight. Friendly fire isn't.
one particular peace mom, not peace moms in general. Or did you?
Just one specific "Peace Mom" at this point, who has exposed the "Blame America First" point of view. I include any future of the ilk who wish to "Blame America First".
...while criticizing its leadership, you know. I'm not defending Sheehan (I'm guessing that's who you're talking about), but I don't think it's accurate to label to people who oppose and speak out against our country's actions as "anti-American". They love their country, I'm sure, they just don't want it doing things that their value system indicates is wrong -- same as you.
cause we espouse Freedom of Speech as a prime principle doesn't mean we can actually permit people to say whatever they want! I mean, look at that lady who tried to get on a plane with an anti-Bush T shirt! They put HER in her place right quick!
Just exactly what did the shirt say? When people talk about these things, they seldom tell the whole truth about it. For example: If the shirt said "Let's kill president Bush," that definitely would be illegal and the person should be stopped.
It was the profanity on the shirt that got her booted, not the anti-Bush sentiment.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and express it, but there are limits to speech in public places based on the concepts of good order and exposure of children to profanity.
If for instance her shirt had said "Bush is an Idiot", instead of "Meet the **ers" she would have been OK. I support the right for people to the express the latter, not the former, free speech cuts both ways.
Bill Kristol is at least as smart as Patty Murray. Mainical rage? I was down in the basement, must have missed it, the mainiacs may have been parially sedated. On the other hand the only way conservatives get attention in "their" own party is by tossing an occasional chair thru the window. Or maybe they've decided to act like Tom Lantos and sound like Ted Kennedy, hell it works for them.
Is not what we think we see - the issue is that the nominee's opinions and qualifications should have been as clear as a bell. Moderates did not elect this President. What good is a majority if you choose not to use it?
Kristol's doing it right for one approach*
His polite call for her to 'do the right thing' , crafted in such a way as to potentially elevate her, and actually create greater esteem for her dedication, is a quick-witted move.
*other approaches ?
Yes, because we still need :
1.) The continued snarkyness about her nomination in the blogosphere (my choice for most detestable word of 2005) - which causes the MSM to pick up and report, creating feedback to already disconcerted conservatives - leaving a nice little self-widening loop in its wake.
2.) Public naysaying by (R) Senators, who're interested in re-establishing base affiliation (for what may ultimately in some circumstances be unaltruistic reasons - such as campaigning - but so what )
3.) Other ones I haven't thought of, but others are.
"It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display here involved of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be."
Last I checked, South Worst Airline was a private business, with the right to refuse service to anyone. In this case it would seem, "Meet the F***ers" was a bit too much free of speech for them and they chose not to serve a customer, I agree.
...airlines are chock-full (pardon the pun) of federal regulations. It's not like a taxicab.
Heck you don't even get peanuts or a meal anymore, so it is just like a cab. Except for you don't have to take your shoes off to get in a cab, and you better hope the cabbie don't.
it's just Comrade Stalin referred to this particular type of American who consistently found reasons to side with their country's enemies as "useful idiots."
We don't take advice from our enemies on who we should vote/support, either.
People have a right to voice disagreement with their country's leadership; after all, unlike China and such, the U.S. is not a dictatorship, and if people don't like the direction in which the country is heading, they can say so.
I'm not talking about porno or threats to the presidents or anything. Not am I saying I agree with Sheehan and others. My point was that just because someone does express disagreement with U.S. administration, that doesn't mean they're anti-American. They love their country just as much as you do when, hypothetically speaking, you campaign against stuff Clinton did, or against what some Dem senator proposes.
You wrote: "I was beginning to believe that conservatives' maniacal rage and refusal to accept President Bush's nomination of Miers would result in making President Bush a lame duck and returning the government to the liberals."
And that would be a bad thing? The Republicans have abandoned the party's core principles. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to the party is for Hillary Clinton to win in 2008 and bring the House in with her.
KJH
Maybe once Miers is confirmed, the Social Conservative wing of the Republican party will launch their own limpieza de sangre ("cleanliness of blood") or as it is more commonly known, the Inquisition.
Ah but who will play the roll of Tomás de Torquemada ? It looks like Senator Santorum is headed for scrap heap, and with designs on moving on up to the big house as President, Senator Mitch McConnel may not wish to play the roll of Grand Inquisitor, hard to look moderate as you pursue those who do not support the true social conservative agenda.
Or perhaps the SC wing of the Republican party will take a deep breath, realize who their true friends are and more importantly who the real opposition is, hint; something to do with donkeys, New York carpet baggers, billionaire financers and peace moms.
After all, it's far easier to convince a friend that they may be wrong on an issue than trying to talk to a Jack A**.