Thursday, October 06, 2005
Miers: The Conservative Discussion
Win a radio, get a discussion partner -- Watchman's Words. Bob and I are trying to work through this whole debate on the conservative side of the aisle concerning the Miers nomination. Here's Bob's latest.
Bob makes three essential points in his latest entry in the conversation. For the first, he quotes Patrick Henry and says
Bob;s second point is that from a conservative point of view, Bush is not all that "trustworthy" and he cites several pertinent examples, from spending to immigration. I don;t have the time to challenge each of the examples Bob cites let's consider the essential point. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative." I, for one, understood that to be more centrist than perhaps even my tastes would allow. I think he has been quite trustworthy in comparison to how he ran and how he was elected. I had reservation, based largely on his father's record, when he first came onto the scene. He is definitely to the right of his father, but more centrist than say, Limbaugh. Back to this in a minute.
We established in the previous point that the essential issue is will she judge as I would wish -- which is in a strict constructionist manner? Well, as this OpinionJournal piece illustrates, she certainly has the legal credentials. Her personal faith would indicate that she is conservative by nature, and may in fact be the biggest arguing point. Which brings up an interesting possibility to me.
There is nothing the Dems can attack this woman on save for 1) a lack of information, and 2) her faith. Now, might it not just be possible that part of the political strategy here is to put the Dems in a position where they have to reveal themselves for the faith haters that they are? They have no place else to get any traction against this nominee, as the lack of information angle proved to have no traction against Roberts. Sun Tsu also said
Bob's final point is that he is a conservative first, a Republican second. To this I respond, how does a conservative get things done in this country? Through the Republican party, that's how. The fact of the matter is that getting things done in this country is a question of compromise, not principle. This goes a long way to explaining the gap on this issue between pundits and elected officials.
Now, we have yet to establish that this woman is a compromise on the essential issue -- which is getting a court that rules as we would like it. The only thing we do know is that she is a compromise in terms of getting the kind of debate about the role of the judiciary that many feel we need to have.
But the other thing that is important to remember is that those that are "conservative first, Republican second" do not represent the core of America -- it is largely centrist. The core of the country is in fact, "compassionate conservative," which means big government that is socially conservative -- Bush to a "T."
Face it conservatives, Bush is what he is, he was plainly stated about it when he ran, and he is who we voted out of the primaries in 2000. There were more conservative candidates on the ballot, but we elected Bush. Well, those primaries were five years ago. Our job is to back our man until we can have primaries again. We've lost some, but we are in a better position now than we were when Clinton was in office. The nation has definitively moved to the right, that's a good thing.
I would remind those disappointed that even the much worshipped "Ronaldo Maximus," to borrow a Rushism, ended up with a profligately spending government. Was Reagan "untrustworthy?"
Bob makes three essential points in his latest entry in the conversation. For the first, he quotes Patrick Henry and says
I am not in favor of fighting for the sake of fighting (well, at least not most of the time), but if we're not willing to fight for a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, what battle is ever going to be worth it?But what is the goal here? The goal is to get a court that is strictly interpretive, not evolutionary. The goal, stated at its basest, is for a court that will rule as we think it should. To accomplish that we could have a nominee known to all as that kind of judge, which will result in a a huge debate. But, if we can win the war, that is to say achieve the goal, without the debate, is that not a wiser strategy? Sun Tsu said
Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.NRO's Buzz had an interesting post yesterday linking to some opinion data
As you can see, the substantive split seems to be between conservative writers/pundits and elected Republicans.One is forced to ask, in light of such data, who is receiving what benefits. Those elected are interested in getting the job done, the punditry is interested in have a story to tell. Thus it is in the punditry's best interest to have a fight, but the punditry's interest is secondary to reaching the goal.
Bob;s second point is that from a conservative point of view, Bush is not all that "trustworthy" and he cites several pertinent examples, from spending to immigration. I don;t have the time to challenge each of the examples Bob cites let's consider the essential point. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative." I, for one, understood that to be more centrist than perhaps even my tastes would allow. I think he has been quite trustworthy in comparison to how he ran and how he was elected. I had reservation, based largely on his father's record, when he first came onto the scene. He is definitely to the right of his father, but more centrist than say, Limbaugh. Back to this in a minute.
We established in the previous point that the essential issue is will she judge as I would wish -- which is in a strict constructionist manner? Well, as this OpinionJournal piece illustrates, she certainly has the legal credentials. Her personal faith would indicate that she is conservative by nature, and may in fact be the biggest arguing point. Which brings up an interesting possibility to me.
There is nothing the Dems can attack this woman on save for 1) a lack of information, and 2) her faith. Now, might it not just be possible that part of the political strategy here is to put the Dems in a position where they have to reveal themselves for the faith haters that they are? They have no place else to get any traction against this nominee, as the lack of information angle proved to have no traction against Roberts. Sun Tsu also said
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.This remains a religious nation. Nothing would do the Dems more damage than to be forced to decry religion directly, on this nomination they cannot wrap it up in church/state separation -- they will have to attack her directly for her faith. If they do it, it will be political suicide -- we'll have won a big one without firing a shot.
Bob's final point is that he is a conservative first, a Republican second. To this I respond, how does a conservative get things done in this country? Through the Republican party, that's how. The fact of the matter is that getting things done in this country is a question of compromise, not principle. This goes a long way to explaining the gap on this issue between pundits and elected officials.
Now, we have yet to establish that this woman is a compromise on the essential issue -- which is getting a court that rules as we would like it. The only thing we do know is that she is a compromise in terms of getting the kind of debate about the role of the judiciary that many feel we need to have.
But the other thing that is important to remember is that those that are "conservative first, Republican second" do not represent the core of America -- it is largely centrist. The core of the country is in fact, "compassionate conservative," which means big government that is socially conservative -- Bush to a "T."
Face it conservatives, Bush is what he is, he was plainly stated about it when he ran, and he is who we voted out of the primaries in 2000. There were more conservative candidates on the ballot, but we elected Bush. Well, those primaries were five years ago. Our job is to back our man until we can have primaries again. We've lost some, but we are in a better position now than we were when Clinton was in office. The nation has definitively moved to the right, that's a good thing.
I would remind those disappointed that even the much worshipped "Ronaldo Maximus," to borrow a Rushism, ended up with a profligately spending government. Was Reagan "untrustworthy?"
