Harriet Miers - Opinions on Nomination?

[Epee_Pox]

Uh, Slim?

Speaking as one right-wing type to another, I think I ought to step in for a second.

Keith said, basically, that you claiming to be the lone conservative voice in this watercooler, which is populated by quite a few solidly conservative posters, was as silly as a white person claiming to be an ethnic minority.

Let's not get into unnecessarily silly spats here. The regular silly ones are more fun.

[keith]

No, something quite obvious actually.

Really please share?

.....awaits the killer rhetorical blow.

[keith]

Uh, Slim?

Speaking as one right-wing type to another, I think I ought to step in for a second.

Keith said, basically, that you claiming to be the lone conservative voice in this watercooler, which is populated by quite a few solidly conservative posters, was as silly as a white person claiming to be an ethnic minority.

Let's not get into unnecessarily silly spats here. The regular silly ones are more fun.

Oh shush, you might confuse me into thinking some slathering conservatives are actually decent felllows.

Oh and apologies for leaving you of my list of conservative posters, forgive me

[Slim]

Uh, Slim?

Speaking as one right-wing type to another, I think I ought to step in for a second.

Keith said, basically, that you claiming to be the lone conservative voice in this watercooler, which is populated by quite a few solidly conservative posters, was as silly as a white person claiming to be an ethnic minority.

Let's not get into unnecessarily silly spats here. The regular silly ones are more fun.

That's not exactly what he said, but I'll let it go at that.

[Mr Epee]

So were you just playing dumb?

[Inquartata]

Surely there's a cute Latin expression for arguing against a point somebody didn't make, and language somebody didn't use.

There probably is. There's also one for irrelevant criticisms, I imagine.

Read my post above (even if it's the first time) and see the trope on limited/unlimited. I didn't refer to "compassionate conservative",

Your post:

How do you reconcile the conservative values of limited government, limited spending, limited foreign intervention with the neo-cons unlimited government, unlimited etc

As I said, I refuse to accept or use that term of disparagement for conservatives. I substituted a more appropriate one. You may pretend that I referenced a different perspective entirely if you like, but first you might read this piece, by a conservative, which explains the connection a lot better
( and certainly more quickly ) than I could:

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...0509230811.asp

Or, you could just acknowledge that when it comes to describing conservatism a conservative might know a bit more about the distinctions than a liberal...

which in any case (a) has nothing to do with the spending frenzy of this administration and (b) is Bush's chosen name to describe himself.

It has everything to do with it. See above. They are different words for the same broad perspective or philosophy. ( I don't like "compassionate conservatism" much, either, but it's better than surrendering the battle of names to the enemy. )

What I referred to was an administration which spends and intevenes more than predecessor liberal administrations. Some very notable conservative voices consider this a betrayal of core conservative values.

Yes, indeed. I am one of them. ( Well, a conservative voice, if not a notable one. )


However, the point was that we still share more values in common with this administration and its worldview than we do with those of the liberals....and the former are more amenable to reason ( from our standpoint ) than are the latter. That is why there is not civil war between traditional and modern conservatives. Criticism, sure. But not open warfare.

What does conservativism mean if limited spending, limited government, and limited adventurism are cast aside?

Is this ALL you think conservatism is? If so, you do not really understand it...

It's much more about attitudes toward each other, toward societies and their interactions and about economic and political ways of thinking than about specific policies.

And if they spend more than Democrats, increase government more than Democrats, they're still more compatible partners. I see.

Yes. Because their fundamental values and ways of thinking are still closer aligned than they are with those of the Dems. See above, again...

[jeff]

You needn't get so defensive, Inq. This isn't really a partisan issue. This is the exact same problem as faced separately by Clinton (Mr. Triangulation, 'ending welfare as we know it') and Gore that outraged the left wing of their party (causing defection to Nader, for example), by Bush I for raising taxes, by Nixon for "going to China" and signing the EPA bills. It's the same issue that caused WF Buckley to campaign against Republican John Lindsay.

When a leader of a party that espouses political philosophy X, and who self-identifies as personally espousing philosophy X, then implements policies totally contrary to philosophy X (and the examples I gave for Bush fit the profile) it leads to reasonable questions about whether or not that leader has sold out in order to be in office (or due to being seduced by power once in) or if philosophy X has "won" by having that leader in office. Watch: if Hillary Clinton runs for President, let alone wins, she will run as a centrist and it will provoke cries of "sellout" and generate navel-gazing of "did this person sell out our principles to win office, and does it help our Cause".

There's no reason for Republicans and conservatives to be exempt from the same kind of hand-wringing, and indeed they are not.

[Have At You]

Peggy Noonan posed the question this way in her column today:

===

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives.

The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he's indulging a desire to show them who's boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn't all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he's totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

[Inquartata]

You needn't get so defensive, Inq. This isn't really a partisan issue. This is the exact same problem as faced separately by Clinton (Mr. Triangulation, 'ending welfare as we know it') and Gore that outraged the left wing of their party (causing defection to Nader, for example), by Bush I for raising taxes, by Nixon for "going to China" and signing the EPA bills. It's the same issue that caused WF Buckley to campaign against Republican John Lindsay.

When a leader of a party that espouses political philosophy X, and who self-identifies as personally espousing philosophy X, then implements policies totally contrary to philosophy X (and the examples I gave for Bush fit the profile) it leads to reasonable questions about whether or not that leader has sold out in order to be in office (or due to being seduced by power once in) or if philosophy X has "won" by having that leader in office. Watch: if Hillary Clinton runs for President, let alone wins, she will run as a centrist and it will provoke cries of "sellout" and generate navel-gazing of "did this person sell out our principles to win office, and does it help our Cause".

There's no reason for Republicans and conservatives to be exempt from the same kind of hand-wringing, and indeed they are not.

All very true; but mine was a very limited point, in reply to a particular wondering about how the two schools, if you will, are compatible. Or how they manage to get along still. To which I say still, that it's because they still share more values in common than either does with their common "enemy"...

[achilleus]

Bush recently said:

People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.

Can anyone explain to me how her religion somehow qualifies her to interpret the constitution of the US? Especially when there is supposed to be a separation between church and state?

Anyone?

[YankeeRebel]

It's ironic that so many conservatives who rail against so-called "judicial activism" are now concerned that Miers isn't "fundamentalist enough" to ensure that she will rule the "right" way.

[Have At You]

It's ironic that so many conservatives who rail against so-called "judicial activism" are now concerned that Miers isn't "fundamentalist enough" to ensure that she will rule the "right" way.

What's the irony? Judicial conservatives opposed to judicial activism will by definition desire a judge who rules based on the law as it exists, rather than on what the judge may wish the law ought to be.

[YankeeRebel]

What's the irony? Judicial conservatives opposed to judicial activism will by definition desire a judge who rules based on the law as it exists, rather than on what the judge may wish the law ought to be.

The irony is this: nobody has accused Miers as being a "judicial activist." You would think that conservatives would be absolutely delighted at such a nominee. Instead, the far-right is disgruntled because there is no clear indication that Miers will use the federal bench to support and promote the conservative political agenda.

The far-right is upset because they fear that Miers won't be activist enough. That's the irony.

[Slim]

The irony is this: nobody has accused Miers as being a "judicial activist." You would think that conservatives would be absolutely delighted at such a nominee. Instead, the far-right is disgruntled because there is no clear indication that Miers will use the federal bench to support and promote the conservative political agenda.

The far-right is upset because they fear that Miers won't be activist enough. That's the irony.

Your first attempt was "fundamentalist". Second attempt is now "conservative". Funny how you interchange the two. There is a difference.

[Have At You]

The far-right is upset because they fear that Miers won't be activist enough. That's the irony.

Not true. They are afraid that she will turn out to be activist and disappoint them, just like they were disappointed by Warren, Brennan, Souter and Kennedy.

You appear to be very confused by what a judicial activist is. Please describe what you think it means.

[YankeeRebel]

Your first attempt was "fundamentalist". Second attempt is now "conservative". Funny how you interchange the two. There is a difference.

If you asked conservative fundamentalists if they were "conservatives," they would answer yes. Apparently they don't see a distinction.

This matter aside, the point I was making was that we have conservatives who are upset that Miers won't be activist enough in supporting and promoting the conservative political agenda from the bench.

[achilleus]

Not true. They are afraid that she will turn out to be activist and disappoint them, just like they were disappointed by Warren, Brennan, Souter and Kennedy.

You appear to be very confused by what a judicial activist is. Please describe what you think it means.

Whenever I hear the term judicial activist thrown around is usually when the republican politicians are upset about a ruling the Supreme Court made. Rather than accepting the decision as an interpretation of the consititution, they claim it is activist judges legislating from the bench.

Is that not the case?

[achilleus]

So, can anyone explain, how given no record, her best qualification for appointment is her religion?

Especially when Roberts specifically said that his religion would not affect his rulings and that he will not answer any questions on it...


Anyone?

[Gav]

Guys, I've been trying to start a decent discussion about fundamentalism over in another thread - why not discuss terms there?

[YankeeRebel]

Not true. They are afraid that she will turn out to be activist and disappoint them, just like they were disappointed by Warren, Brennan, Souter and Kennedy.

But that's the thing-- Miers' record doesn't show evidence of being an activist one way or the other. It doesn't sound fair to judge Miers on the actions of Warren, Brennan, Souter or Kennedy. She is being criticized by the right because of her lack of an activist history. Like I said before, conservatives who loathe a supposedly "activist" bench should be delighted with such a nomination.