ConfirmThem

By Paul Zummo Posted in Miers — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

It's been awhile. New job, less time to blog.

A couple of general observations. This blog was set up as a means by which to promote the President's judicial nominees. We are all, more or less, conservative activists seeking to influence the process and move the Court in a new direction. It is telling that a majority of bloggers and commenters have expressed their disapproval of Harriet Miers to the point where this site might as well be called stophernow.com or some such. Nothing is a more telling example of the political failure of this nomination than that the President's most loyal supporters have now become his biggest opponents, at least on this one issue.

Now that the damage is done, and the President has made his choice, some urge silence and acceptance. Such an action would prove to be even more of a political disaster in the long-run.

A sudden retreat by those that have already expressed their displeasure would severely damage the credibility of the conservative movement. We would look like political opportunists who have no desire to stand up to the political establishment. Suddenly we would all look like political cronies who lack backbone. Why would anyone pay attention to the conservative commentariat if it was obvious that we had no ability whatsoever to criticize the administration? Please keep in mind that I am not avocating dissent for the sake of dissent, but frankly I think it is a good thing that we do not reflexively circle the wagons around President Bush the way that the left did around President Clinton.

There is no point in silence, nor is there much point in "waiting and seeing." The confirmation hearings will disclose little about Miers' judicial philosophy, though they might be somewhat more revealing about her intellectual capacity. That's not to say opponents should not keep an open mind, but it seems rather naive to expect much of anything to come from these hearings.

So what should we hope for: withdrawal, rejection, or confirmation? Politically speaking, a rejection might be more politically palatable than some commentators realize. A withdrawal might make Bush appear politically weaker than outright rejection. Some would take it as a sign that Bush is a prisoner to his base (that's how moderates and liberals would look at it, not necessarily conservatives). Though on my own blog I categorized Bush as a "wimp" when I first heard of the pick, Bush has aptly demonstrated just the opposite quality. He made the pick, and now he's sticking to his guns. It was the wrong pick, but it was his nonetheless, and he is displaying a fierce independent streak that we might not like, but that might appeal to non-conservatives. (Again, that's not to say that the Miers pick was a Machavellian ploy to convince the public of his independence, or that such a strategy would work very well.)

A rejection might harm Bush politically, but it might help Republicans in general. Considering that Bush is a second-term President, the political viablility of the Party is more important than that of the President individually (though of course they are tied together to some degree). A Senate rejection of Ms. Miers would go a long way in stemming the tide of disaffection. The Congressional party would be resurgent (remember when there used to be a division between the "congressional" party and the "presidential" party? Ah, for old time political science), and would stave off a potential electoral nightmare in 2006.

An objection would be that the President still has three years left on his term, and he cannot be a lame duck. But I would counter that the short-term hit on Bush's political standing in the event of a rejection would be far less severe than the long-term impact on the GOP in general if Miers is confirmed. Bush's political fortunes are still more tied to the war in Iraq, the economy, gas prices etc. as far as the general public is concerned. In the grand scheme of things, his standing will rise and fall with these other issues. But with the base, things are a little different. A large chunk of the right is highly invested in the issue of judicial appointments, and they will not be in a forgiving mood once Miers is confirmed. Republicans could lose crucial close races if many conservatives stay at home on election night. And since mid-term elections are driven by turnout, it could make the difference in whether or not Republicans retain their majorities. And what's practically more important for Bush's future political success: his poll numbers or his party support within Congress? It's nice to have high poll numbers, but you need a governing majority to do anything with them.

Finally, one last note. I would hope that after months of decrying the use of the filibuster, those of us that oppose the Miers nomination will not suddenly turn around and advocate its use in this particular situation. A little intellectual consistency can go a long way.