David Frum is Not My President
Beldar is not impressed by David Frum’s petulant petition, nor by the National Review generally for its failure to distance itself from it as an institution, but declines to set up a counter-petition of his own. Too bad.
UDPATE: Patterico, unsurprisingly, disagrees.
October 13th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Geeze, X, I didn’t think the petition was petulant, but Beldar’s post sure was. “Oh, dear, I’m so disapointed at those big meanies at NR. They won’t even wait for the hearings. Can’t we give the poor girl a chance?”
Does he really think people are that stupid that they don’t realize that the best chance to keep her from being confirmed is to keep her from getting to the hearings? Beldar is like a nearsighted hunter imploring the deer to come closer so the hunter has a sporting chance.
His arguments against this petition could be made against any non-legally-binding petition whatsoever.
And the pathetic, “I already cast my vote back in the election.” And, yeah, since Bush was elected, that means we shouldn’t try to influence his decisions. He’s the PRESIDENT. Why don’t we just sit back and let him do his job?
Geez.
I found not one respectable argument in that post, and I’m still on the fence about whether she should be confirmed.
October 13th, 2005 at 6:59 am
Well, I’ll grant you this much: it’s not as bad as Michael Graham’s petition, which alleges that Miers’s mere appointment “would put our Constitutional rights in immediate danger.”
October 13th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Irrespective of National Review’s petition, Harriet Miers will not withdraw and the President will not pull her nomination.
Hugh Hewitt asks the question as does Flap previously “What is the advantage of carrying on the attack from the right?” Answer: None.
Those folks over at NR, NRO and the Corner need to MOVEON.
October 13th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Flap: Harriet Miers may not withdraw, but she still may not be confirmed. All public arguments made now have the potential of swaying a Senator’s mind, so they are not futile.
Then even if she is confirmed, there is a strong possibility that Kennedy will retire while Bush is still in office and “those folks over at NR, NRO and the Corner” have hopes that whoever replaces Kennedy will not be another Miers. By stridently voicing their opposition to Miers, they hope to influence that nomination as well.
So contra your answer of “None”, there is advantage to be gained from opposition to Miers.
Now you (and Hewitt) might believe that the negatives outweigh the positives, but that doesn’t mean that there is no advantage to be gained from opposing Miers, even if withdrawal is not an option.
October 13th, 2005 at 11:55 am
What Jody said.
And besides that, Flap, Bush has withdrawn nominations before (two that I can recall) in response to opposition from his political adversaries. Are you saying that Bush’s adversaries have more influence over his decsions than his supporters do? And if so, what good is he to his supporters?
October 13th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Doc, I don’t think Bush ever withdrew a nomination for reasons as flimsy as the ones given by Frum & Co. over Harriet Miers. If he did, he ought to be criticized for that, not for refusing to cave to the (alleged) polls now. Weren’t you the guy who was skewering Bush in a previous thread for supposedly not doing enough to stand by his nominees?
October 13th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I suppose you are talking about the comment where I suggested that Bush didn’t try hard to get his nominees past the fillibuster because he wanted the issue hanging around until after the election.
Are you suggesting that I’m being inconsistent here? That’s like saying that I would be inconsistent for bashing a football coach one time for going for it on fourth and one, then another time bashing him for not going for it. But if the first time it was in the first quarter and he was in long field-goal range, and the second time he was down by six points with two minutes left in the fourth quarter, then it wouldn’t really be inconsistent, would it?
The point being that I don’t care whether Bush fights for his nominees or not. What I care about is whether he gets strict constructionists on the court. Sometimes that calls for fighting for the nominee and sometimes that calls for dropping the nominee. In the Miers case, I strongly suspect that it calls for dropping the nominee.
October 13th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Jody,
It is obvious that you do not know or understand Republican Party politics. Harriet Miers will be confirmed by the Republican majority in the Senate.
As for Justice Kennedy….. woulda coulda shoulda…. all speculation. the President will appoint HIS nominee not NRO, Fund, Noonan or the rest of the beltway pundits.
Please you and Doc give me some valid arguments as how this intra-party and RIGHT fighting benefits anyone?
October 13th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
It benefits the entire country if it forces Bush to actually act like a conservative once in a while.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
What would be the conservative argument against President Hillary appointing John Podesta or Sid Blumenthal to the Supreme Court?
Can anyone think up a reason why the Bush family might like a crony on the Supreme Court?
How many GWB appointees will still be in place after he leaves office, and would that be advantageous to, for instance, a presidential run by Jeb or P.?
Perhaps it’s time for Republicans to evaluate their priorities.
As for Beldar, here’s a post from 11/28/04: Note the “hat-hair” — Dubya’s been wearin’ his Stetson, but hung it up upon entering (probably on a deer-antlers hatrack). Grandson of a senator, son of a President, Yale College and Harvard Business School — but this is a man who’s entirely comfortable, entirely at ease, meetin’ and greetin’ in a roadside diner.