| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| John Fund: Blogs Scuttled the Miers Nomination |
| 2005-10-31 |
| Thoughtful analysis from WSJ's John Fund. I think however, that the internet has only intensified politics, rather than redefine it. Here is the closing of the article: "The moral hazard of the new media is clear," says columnist Jim Pinkerton, an aide to President George H.W. Bush. "They can turn any discussion into a donnybrook, and any nomination into Armageddon." Such a development isn't inevitable--witness the civilized debate over John Roberts's appointment. But President Bush will have to consider that risk in picking a new nominee for the high court, just as Democratic senators will have to weigh how much they respond to Internet sites pressuring them to mount a filibuster against that nominee. Some folks don't get it. Meirs failed as an appointee precisely because she was a bad nominee, not the type of justice conservatives wanted. And I didn't see a donnybrook: what I saw was debate and a little tiny invective such as the "sexism" thing (whatever the f*ck that is ) and that was it. In the end cooler heads did in fact prevail and a new justice designee is to be announced Monday. Bush has dodged a severe split in the right, and so has his base. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #19 You're ALL missing the point! This is ALL part of the Karl's Secret Plan to ... um, ... to ... Well, we'll find out! By the first of the year, we'll all be marveling that Karl has pulled off another Rovian feat! Hey, it could be. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-10-31 14:28 |
| #18 No - not elitist, justthe insider syndrome. Insider groups aren't necessarily elitist, just exclusive. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 13:31 |
| #17 Orin Judd is right: there is now a right wing to the inside-the-deltway mentality and it kicked into play as soon as a not-one-of-us was nominated. Ah. The "elitist" charge. What a load. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-31 13:24 |
| #16 deltway, beltway .... sigh. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 12:58 |
| #15 Yes - and what is available of what she has written. She's mediocre at best -- but the vitriol started well before there was ANY conclusive evidence of that. Orin Judd is right: there is now a right wing to the inside-the-deltway mentality and it kicked into play as soon as a not-one-of-us was nominated. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 12:58 |
| #14 The vitriolic sniping from the right, the clear precedent that the hard right doesn't really care about minimalism on the court... Wow. Did you ever bother to read any of the critiques of Meiers? The biggest beef was she had no history of being a minimalist, that she was probably more of a weather vane. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-31 12:13 |
| #13 2b: that's a good line, I like it. The day before Miers withdrew, I still wasn't sure what I thought of her nomination. I had no problem with nominating a non-Ivy League person (I'm not Ivy League and have managed not to drool on myself in public), and I had no problem with having a justice with strong corporate and business law experience and little con law. But if you're going to put someone like that up, he/she had better be razor-sharp, and Ms. Miers, unfortunately, didn't rise to that challenge. Alito is going to provoke the war the hard right has been praying for. I'm just not sure the 'Gang of 14' will hold, and I'm not sure what that weasel McCain is going to do. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-10-31 09:48 |
| #12 I still hold that the 'Pubs pulled out the veto pen 'cos Bush can't even find his... Loyalty is more of a curse than a blessing :-) |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 09:07 |
| #11 too true. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 08:59 |
| #10 I wasn't impressed with Miers either (although I think I know why Bush nominated her). But I was deeply UNimpressed by the behavior of many on the hard right well before she had a chance to stumble. It made clear the fact that the hard right is no better than the hard left WRT acting on principle. Competance isn't a litmus test. But wanting an upfront guarantee re: overturning Roe v. Wade etc. is. Asking questions isn't out of line. The rabid snark that hit the fan as SOON as it wasn't one of the pre-ordained acceptable choices of the NRO / Coulter crowd was IMO. Out of line and very damaging in ways that some aren't seeing yet. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 08:54 |
| #9 I still hold that the 'Pubs pulled out the veto pen 'cos Bush can't even find his... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-10-31 08:17 |
| #8 well said, too true. And I share your disgust with the ideological purists who stamp their feet and say that a government of the people means me, me, me! However, I don't think held Meirs held sufficient moral high ground worthy of battle. The charges of cronyism were simply true and she seemed to me to be a lazy choice. Consultation and consensus is a hassle and too often those in charge get tired of going through the process. Bush IMHO made that mistake with Meirs in that he just made a lazy choice. It may suck to have to go through the process of consensus, but as a leader, it's his job. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 08:16 |
| #7 Everyone, everywhere has a litmus test. Mine is that a nominee for the court is qualified, and make decisions based on the law as written. Not make shit up on the fly. Miers, did not have any track record and the few interviews did not inspire confidence in her. She was dropped and never should have been nominated. Now we have someone who meets the above requirements. The MSM and libbies have their panties in knots because now they don't have a judge who will make shit up on the fly and push their agenda. If Bush had put someone up that was a religious nut and put the bible before the constitution, I would be howling too. Fortunately, he didn't. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-10-31 08:11 |
| #6 No, the real problem is the reality that allows the WSJ to write headlines like this: Bush Troubles at Home May Impair Power Abroad I don't care about any particular politician or party. But I care deeply about our country's future and the Bush administration has been deftly handling massive challenges overseas. The vitriolic sniping from the right, the clear precedent that the hard right doesn't really care about minimalism on the court -- they have their own litmus test and want to impose it on the rest of us, starting with Roe v. Wade repeal - the public humiliation aimed at Bush and Miers from prominent pundits and the off-the-charts hysteria from the bloggers .... that has undercut us abroad at a time when Bush was making serious progress at reining in Euro trade subsidies and barriers, putting pressure on Syria and undermining Iran's stature. Now that the right has publicly had their little destructive tantrum over Miers, a whole lot of people outside this country figure they can wait out Bush and get a more amenable president in 08. And they're probably right on that, because the hard right is more interested in ideological purity tests than in governing --- and especially than in governing during difficult, challenging times. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 08:57 |
| #5 I'd like to third 2b's comment. Apart from the problems with Miers, the real problem is how the MSM and politicians still believe that they are all-powerful and can pull fast ones on the American public. Not so anymore. This is a constitutional republic, and blogs are helping make sure it remains so. We're also helping the MSM cockroaches self-destroy by shining a bit of light on their habitual dishonesty. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-10-31 08:34 |
| #4 how so? Good article. The bottom line is that the MSM and lobbyists can no longer use lies and distortion to frame the only discussion that will be considered. Bloggers can shoot down their lies so quickly that they don't know what hit them. They aren't used to it and they don't like it. Too bad. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 08:27 |
| #3 how so? Good article. The bottom line is that the MSM and lobbyists can use lies and distortion to frame the discussion. Bloggers can shoot down their lies so quickly that they don't know what hit them. They aren't used to it and they don't like it. Too bad. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-31 08:26 |
| #2 Both of you underestimate the damage done by the method and tone of the anti-Miers tantrum. I know you'd LIKE to think it didn't really make any lasting difference. You're wrong, tho. It has. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-10-31 07:52 |
| #1 Mr. Fund must read different blogs than I. The debate was pretty darn civil and concerned Ms. Meirs qualifications (or lack therof) for the position. I saw no ad hominem attacks (at least on the right) against her. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-10-31 07:16 |