1. President George W. Bush has a very good track record for his decisions and appointments overall, but especially for his judicial picks. That suggests that there was a sound reason why he chose Miers for the high court. Insulting the woman by presuming she was just a crony, insulting Bush by claiming he feared a fight with Liberals, or insulting the Senate by pretending they would rubber-stamp anyone appointed for the Supreme Court without a reasonable review, are just puerile evasions of the main question - what did President Bush see in Miers that convinced him she was not only suitable for the post, but the best first choice?
2. Prior to the Miers nomination, most leading Republicans and especially Conservatives demanded that a Presidential nominee be allowed a vote - up or down - without attempts to ambush the candidate or obstruct a fair examination and decision on the nomination. When Miers was nominated, many Conservatives abandoned that principle and demanded her withdrawal before even a minute of hearings. What damage, if any, has this hypocrisy done to the Republican Party, and how might such equivocation show up again to the cost of Conservative plans?
3. A key difference between Democrats and Republicans in recent years, is the ability to debate internal issues and resolve them while still respecting minority viewpoints witin the party. That ability, while annoying at times, is alive in the Republican Party, but quite dead in the Democratic Party. For example, there are gay Republicans and there are Republicans who find the gay lifestyle offensive, but they can both support the party. No anti-gay Democrat has a voice in the party of ‘Tolerance’. There are pro-Life Republicans and there are pro-Choice Republicans, but there are no pro-Life Democrats willing to take a stand on that issue. There are Small Government Republicans and there are Big Government Republicans, but there are no Small Government Democrats. The list goes on. Has the Miers debate damaged the Republican Party in the eyes of most Americans, or did their ability to debate a Presidential appointment reinforce the character in the GOP which is so sadly deficient on the Democrat’s side?
1) Bush saw that Harry Reid liked her, and he didn’t want a tough confirmation battle. Any claims that she is either a brilliant Constitutional scholar or conservative are completely refuted by her record in Texas as a politician and a lawyer.
2) “Up or down vote” is about being against filibusters. It’s not about questioning the credentials of the nominee. Miers was not filibustered. If President Bush nominated a failed horse enthusiast for FEMA again, would you demand that he go through confirmation hearings and get “an up or down vote"? I wouldn’t. I’d be relieved when the administration realized its mistake and withdrew the nominee.
3) Most Americans won’t remember the Republican debate over Miers. It was a good thing for the party, though. It proved that some Republicans will stand up for principle and insist their leaders do the right thing.
Post a Comment