Blogotional

In my continuing discussion with Watchman's Words on the Miers nomination, I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter. But let me give you some great links first.

Austin Bay and Beldar have accumulated some great material on what precisely are her qualifications. They are not shabby.

Ally, Hedgehog Blog has two great posts here and here on how unseemly this has all become.

There is even a debate between two Godblogging theology heavyweights - JollyBlogger and Gadfly's Muse on the matter.

And now, on to the heart of the matter. Here's what Watchman said

Finally, John says the time to speak out is before the nomination. Afterward we should just "Cowboy Up" and support the President. I couldn't possibly disagree more. The President does not deserve our unquestioned support and loyalty. He deserves our support when he is right. When he is not, we should oppose "the leader of our party." Otherwise we are placing party over principle, and that's no fit position for a conservative. Yes, it may weaken his position if we do not blindly fall in line behind him. But if he's wrong, we're all better off in the long run if he doesn't win. To use Rush's tactic of illustrating by being absurd, let's take this example. President Reagan has decided to sell arms for hostages. Horrible idea, but he's the leader of our party, so we should just cowboy up and get behind him. Doesn't make much sense does it? The truth is that conservatives did speak out--did write memos and emails and make phone calls--before the President picked Miers...he just didn't listen.

Are you really sure about that Bob? In the first place, your absurd analogy is based on an illegality and of course, we should not back the President, even one of our party on an illegality, but this nomination is not illegal. But it is the legality that is the breaking point.

I love the way the Gadfly's Muse answered some of this

First - WE are not the ones who are tasked with the responsibility of judging Harriet Meirs' qualifications. WE live in a Republic and the essence of republicanism as opposed to democracy is that we elect men whom we trust and the we ask them to exercise their judgment on our behalf.

I think we Evangelicals are being a bit presumptuous here. We elect the man to represent us and then we say that we want him to check with us first before he does the job we elected him to do. As far as "verifying" - David is mixing his apples and oranges here. The Berean elders checked Paul's words because they were the ones who had to accept or reject what he was doing. They had to act on Paul's words not simply just hear them.

We are not the ones who have to approve President Bush's nomination and it is not up to President Bush to prove her qualifications. The burden on the congress is to accept her unless she is proven to be disqualified.

But, let me answer with an analogy of my own. It's 3rd and 2 and you are the fullback (I know, nobody runs formations with fullbacks anymore, but go with me on this) you come to the huddle just knowing your number is going to be called. This is important. You're ahead by a touchdown in the third quarter, this first down will put you in scoring position, giving you the opportunity to take a much more insurmountable lead. You arrive in the huddle and the QB calls a short pass to the tight end in the flat -- your job, block for the QB. What do you do, walk off the field in disgust, leaving the QB open so he gets sacked? No, you do your job and know your number will get called with Offense Coordinator thinks its time.

I'm sorry, at this point it's just pouting. The rhetoric has reached a level where it sounds like everybody knows this woman is Souter and she is without question going to make stupid decisions. Either we trust or we don't, but one thing is for sure. If we don't, we leave the QB open to get sacked.

Our number did not get called. That's unfortunate, but whining, complaining, pouting and prevaricating doesn't just mean we lose, it means the team loses. And if the team loses, then we lose even the opportunity to win again another day. Think about that when we are preaching principle over party. With party, principle has a chance, without party, principle is so much rhetoric.

Hurts not to get your number called, hurts worse to lose. Hurts most of all not to get to play.

We can drive even deeper into the heart of the matter with this post from Powerline pointing to this post at Peace Like A River. PLAR contends, and Powerline second by their link that "Bush's betrayal" of conservatives with the Miers nomination is somehow analogous to the type of betrayal or injury to which Hugh refers when he asks the question at OneTrueGodBlog, "When injured by a friend or colleague, what ought a Christian to do?"

PLAR wonders if in his question, Hugh is referring to the many ad hominum attacks he has suffered for his defense of the Miers nomination, but then goes on to state they conservatives against the nomination felt a similar injury.

I have to say, this troubles me deeply. That a legitimate action by a President just trying to do his job can create an emotional response which some feel is comparable to a personal attack tells me that some people are taking their politics waaaay too seriously. That this same emotional pain would be referenced in a Christian setting tells me that not only are some conservatives taking their politics too seriously, but that those politics have become for some, just as we so often see on the left, a substitute for genuine faith.

It certainly means that there is no legitimate debate to be had here. Over at The Corner, Podhoretz had this to say Saturday night

We shall see what we shall see. From here on in there's really nothing to be said until the confirmation hearings actually begin (save for the unexpected bit of information). And so, as Wittgenstein said, "Whereof we cannot speak, therefore we must be silent"

I have to agree -- if the bigs like Powerline are sinking into emotional discussion and my debating partner Watchman's Words, while not getting emotional or ad hominum, is claiming "principle" - also an unarguable stand - it is time to stop debate. Therefore, absent the "unexpected bit of information" this is likely my last post on this subject until the hearings.

An ugly, deep, and surprizingly emotional rift inside the Republican party and conservatism has been exposed. This does not bode well for 2006 or 2008.