If You're Ready for The Definitive Pro-Miers Post, Whether You Agree with It Or Not, You'll Find It Here
The first phase of the Miers nomination seems to be winding down. Conservatives are pretty much finished yelling at each other, many of them understanding, if not accepting, the other side's point of view. Mostly, people simply seem to be sick of the subject, at least until confirmation hearings get under way.
So now is a good time for this masterful post by Hugh Hewitt. In it Hugh synthesizes in on place the views of a great many conservatives who were not thrilled by the Miers nomination, but now support the president's decision. I understand and respect the other side's opinion, but am persuaded by the same considerations that Hugh lists.
posted by Lowell Brown at 2:42 PM
|
2 Comments:
This entire scene is a history replay of pre-revolutionary America. We have the loyalists to King George and the Patriots who believe that the cause is bigger than the King himself. When the real battle is engaged I suspect most will remember who the real enemy is, but much damage has been done, and the party has been wounded severely.
Bush has exacerbated the problem with the Laura (pro-abortion) insult of sexism, and next week his party will be subjected to a further divisive dog and pony show by the judicial friends of Miers.
It was all so unecessary and avoidable.
Posted by DL
DL, excuse me, but you are all wet.
It is insulting to suggest that a certain element of conservatism is the modern equivalent of our revolutionary fathers, while anyone who disagrees with them is like a royalist. "We represent the Cause of Truth. The rest of you are not true patriots." How arrogant.
The overeaction of your side of the Miers argument has done at least half damage to the Republican Party, and probably more. If you don't see this, you are blind to the truth.
Laura Bush is not pro-abortion and it is foolish to say that. Her comment about sexism is on the mark, unless you're willing to find Clarence Thomas less qualified to serve on the Supreme Court at the time of his nomination than Miers is, which a very reasonable conclusion to draw from his record. (See my post below.)
You don't know if this was "all so unnecessary and avoidable." The only way to avoid this was for Bush to nominate one of a select anointed few to the Supreme Court. You don't know why he chose not to do so, as Hugh Hewitt notes in his post below. In fact, one of the problems with those on your side of the Miers argument is that you all think you know a lot more than you probably do know.
Posted by The Hedgehog
Post a Comment
<< Home