Well, I'm not shocked, exactly. Bush is likely looking to keep his own party busy thinking about the next candidate while the Dems celebrate.
But unlike most people, I don't think this is going to improve the next candidate's chances. Open dissension is a factor now in any decision, and that puts the blood firmly in the water. Also, who's got credibility left?
I'd at least like to think that the Religious Right has now somewhat discredited itself with its open hypocrisy--the litmus test(s) are clearly there, and they can't just hide them now. They can't argue for a judge who won't legislate from the bench because the saliva trail is still fresh from their drooling over thoughts of overturning Roe, Griswold, and anything smacking of a woman's right to choose.
The people who supported Miers (and thus will support anyone whom Bush picks) like PowerLiner Scott Johnson now are not really trusted by a large portion of their own party and look like fools to just about everyone else.
As for the "elitist" academics who opposed Miers--Bainbridge et al.--well, to be harsh, the only reason they were being listened to was because their legal opinions gave weight to the purely ideological reasons of the Religious Right. If they oppose a candidate the evangelicals favor or support a candidate the Jesuslanders loathe, their opinions will not factor into the voting of people like Brownback.
Ah yes, the voting. For a second, I was acting like the blogosphere confirms the nominee. Isn't it so that if Bush nominates basically anyone that most of the base supports, that person will go through now sheerly by the Republican majority?
Well, ideally, senators like Specter or even Chaffee might break ranks, but even if they don't, Harriet Miers has put the filibuster back into play. Democrats will have a much easier time filibustering an ideologue now, and the pressure will be ratcheted up on Republicans not to use the nuclear option. Then the strategy is clearly, hold on until the midterm elections. It could work.
And if Bush gets two candidates foiled...pandemonium among conservatives.
a small portion perhaps, but an important one, i think.
ReplyDeleteI think before this, many moderate conservatives were skeptical of the left's claims about a radical religious right wing agenda--the left has been acting so paranoid about it, it seemed like it couldn't really be true. Now, I think many may be more willing to re-think that, even if they sorta sympathize with the actual aims of the agenda or don't find it as dangerous as we do.
But recognizing that there is a religious agenda is an important step.
here's a good example
ReplyDeleteIt could be that radical Christians control the Republican party. Or perhaps the Democrats are too controlled by the secular leftists. Here's a good example of that view.
ReplyDeleteI really fail to see how the opponenets are now the "radical right." When you look at the people who opposed the nomination basically from the get go - looking just at the blogosphere - it was people like Reynolds, most of the staff at NRO, the Weekly Standard, Bainbridge, Frum, Volokh and the other conspirators there, etc. It really wasn't the radical right that opposed the nomination, it was the intellectual side of the right. Those who supported Miers - Hewitt, Dobson (initially) - I would say are more radical and fervently Republican.
ReplyDeleteBut I think two important things are being overlooked. One, GOP Senators did not approve of this pick. From the get go, there was none of the effusive praise as there was for Roberts. There was lots and lots of caution, not something that is needed when a President nomintates someone.
Two, what the hell was the deal with Harry Reid? I still don't understand his roll in all this. I've heard things like "This is what happens when you don't consult" but didn't they consult? And why did Reid support someone so horribly unqualified as Meirs? Any ideas?
anonymous #1 (?): This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up. And you expect me to believe anything this guy is saying? Bush--understand how to curb government spending? I realize this is outdated, but you shouldn't have used it.
ReplyDeleteanonymouse #2--the radical right i'm referring to was the sector who rejected Miers because she was not undeniably going to overturn Roe, she was not undeniably against affirmative action policies, she was not, in short, in perfect conformity with their agenda.
Brownback jumped on this immediately and many other senators (Lott, Santorum) had to follow suit. Specter and Leahy I think were legitimately concerned about her qualifications, but many senators stressed caution because they had to say something and they were waiting for a lead.
And actually, if I remember correctly, immediately upon hearing of the nomination, it was the radical religious blogs that jumped all over Miers while the academics were trying to figure out why Bush nominated her in the first place. For instance, Orrin Kerr on Volokh (I'm not going to find the post) had one of the first posts I can remember about the nomination, and it was directing people to the site confirmthem.com, which was in an uproar minutes after the announcement. These people had already vetted candidates and Miers wasn't on the list. Anybody not on the list was a threat.
As for Harry Reid, the day I know what's going on in his head, that's the day I'll start seeing a shrink.
oops--i'm not saying confirmthem.com was necessarily religious in nature, but was ideologically in concord with the evangelicals' agenda.
ReplyDelete