EckerNet.Com

Even in defeat, Hugh Hewitt can\’t help but stoke the fire. A fire that should rightfully be burning out.

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

By whom?? Care to provide a single example?? No of course not. And I know why. There aren\’t any. Pointing out facts is not unfair treatment. The facts may not be pleasant but they are facts. Remember the old rule, \”Don\’t shoot the messenger\”?

If you disagree, provide facts to support that. Don\’t just play the victim.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country.

I agree. I don\’t think anyone has disputed that. Anyone.

But here comes the the blockbuster

She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

Deserved?? We elected a President, not nominated a dictator.

Much better?? Much better than polite disagreement? Hugh, we weren\’t the ones blindly tossing around words like \”sexism\” and \”elitism\”. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. If your view of how government should work is that we should blindly follow their lead regardless of whether we disagree, then may I suggest Facism?? I hear Syria and Iran are lovely this time of year.

If I disagree with something my elected officials are doing, especially if it\’s contrary to what they promised they\’d do, then I will speak up. I will do it politely and with the respect that all involved deserve. I will not freely toss around charges of \”sexism\” or \”elitism\”. I will argue my position using whatever facts I have available. If in the end I am wrong, then so be it.

I guess I consider that \”much better\”, Hugh.

My goodness. Probably the best news I could receive this morning. Miers has withdrawn herself from consideration for SCOTUS.

Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush ended his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court Thursday and promised a quick replacement. Democrats accused him of bowing to the \”radical right wing of the Republican Party.

Now hopefully the President actually selects a nominee that reflects the fact that we control Congress. There are a whole series of candidates that conservatives would find acceptable. And I think most that were part of the anti-Mier-pick crowd would be willing to support the president on any of them.

The rift in the part was deep. And I wonder how quickly and how completely it will heal. Certainly, many were shocked and hurt by the fact that the White House could so easily dismiss it\’s greatest supporters as elitists and sexists. The mud-slinging by some who supported Miers was a little surprising.

How quickly will some on the \”anti-Miers\” side let bygones be bygones? Certainly, most conservatives will support the president. But will they do it with the same zeal and persistence that has marked his base in the past? Or will they remain ever vigilent and wary that they will be betrayed again?

Certainly a good SCOTUS pick will go a long way in satisfying many of his former critics. Illegal immigration is another area where atonement can easily be done.

But for now the focus should be on the next SCOTUS pick. Then we heal the party in preparation for 2006 and 2008.

John Hawkins has a great roundup of rebuttals to common pro-Miers arguments. I think he pretty much covers them all. Check it out.

The great part is there is no pro-Miers argument that can\’t be easily refutted. So everything eventually boils down to \”Trust Bush\”. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Finally the White House seems to be accepting the fact that supporting Miers has become a futile gesture. I sincerely hope that isn\’t just idol gossip. I think if the Miers nomination is withdrawn, they will find that the conservative side of the Republican Party will be more than forgiving.

That\’s right…no Miers posts tonite.

[ Crowd erupts in applause ]

This weekend was sufficiently peaceful, minus the sounds of gunfire, that I\’m still enjoying residual feelings of contentment. When your only contact with the outside world is taking to a local farmer about how his harvest is going and what field he thinks he can get his combine into….well, things are much simpler.

Yeah for simple!

Well….that and not much is happening on the Miers front. The White House appears to be regrouping. The anti-Miers contingent seems to be lounging in the sun, scratching it\’s belly. My guess is the hearings in early November will cause another eruption of excitement.

So you\’ll get to read more irrational, rambling, deranged and possibly even correct rants on the Miers situation when more events unfold.

Until then…so the corn yield this year is especially good. But prices are relatively low. Best to keep it in the bin and contract with someone to deliver in January. Which is nice cause the fields are wet anyway. Beans are in good shape though.

Being one of many conservatives against the Miers pick has resulted in almost an enlightenment about the state of the Republican Party. For years I\’ve put up with politicians I supported making decisions that go against my beliefs. Republicans have gotten away with it for years. After all, who else were their conservative supporters gonna support?

Now when finally we\’ve had enough (and say so), we\’re met with righteous indignation. The reaction by some in the White House seems to scream \”How DARE they question my leadership?\”. No, I think the better question is how dare YOU. You\’ve abused your conservative base for far too long. Don\’t act surprised that the pressure cooker exploded after you\’ve been turning up the heat for years.

The Miers pick is an important enough issue in itself to cause a protest from any conservative. I think it\’s plainly clear to those who want to be honest with themselves, that she is NOT the best pick possible…even if you want to limit the field to female non-judges. For that reason alone this outcry is justified.

But many will cry out that the price of such an outcry is not worth it. The damage we do is not justifiable. The damage?? To whom??? To the President\’s administration?? Good.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch…on the War on Terror, foreign policy, and tax cuts, conservatives are going to support any Republican willing to take the lead regardless of any rift in the party. You can take those off the books.

Now if you consider all other areas, conservatives haven\’t been too happy with the initiatives put forth by the White House anyway. So handicapping the President\’s Administration almost fulfills a conservative goal….especially if the President continues to ignore the wishes of his base. And ESPECIALLY with the fight over illegal immigration just over the horizon. And we all know which way President Amnesty is going to go on that issue.

So damaging the President I don\’t necessarily see as a bad thing. Especially if it doesn\’t bring him back into the fold of the people that put him there in the first place. And if he does so, he\’ll find his conservative base supporting him again with great enthusiasm.

But I can already hear the cries, \”The Party! A split in the Republican Party!! Oh the humanity!!\”. What party? Can you honestly call this a party of conservative ideals lately??

The party that enforces quotas over qualifications (SCOTUS pick)? The party that uses personal attacks over logical debate (You\’re All Pro-Hillary). The party that plays the victim rather than defending their view in a rational manner(Sexism and Elitism). The party that spends rather than saves(No more pork in the budget). The party that placates rather than taking a stand for ideals (Gang of 14 and the latest SCOTUS pick). That party that would prefer to court a non-voting block than defend their voters (Illegal Immigration).

If the collective actions of many Republicans are indicative of the direction of the Republican Party then we\’re going the wrong way. I think it\’s worth letting the driver(s) know we think they should have taken a right turn a few blocks back. Screaming at the passenger to just shut up and be quiet doesn\’t make you any less lost. If conservatives have to bail out and catch a cab, then so be it…at least we\’re not gonna end up in San Fransisco.

So I\’m supposed to keep my mouth shut over an important issue because it will result in a political battle that will harm that which I value??? On the contrary, I see a political battle as my best option for a better future. If that reality bruises a few egos then that\’s too bad. I guess I just assumed everyone that was of voting age could be an adult about it.

Is it a good sign when even the MSM finds it worth writing about a major split in a party? Well, according to RNC national spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt :

\”There is widespread support from conservatives around the country,\” Schmitt said.

Really?? Is that so. Perhaps you might want to come down from your castle madam, because amongst the serfs things are looking pretty grim. Not saying the torches have been lit yet, but I know someone was asking around to see if anyone had a lighter.

Widespread support huh?

[former Bush speechwriter David Frum] pointed at the president\’s 37 percent overall approval rating in the latest CBS poll, which is down from earlier polls.

\”In the week since [the poll] … we\’ve seen almost every leading conservative opinion leader, jurist, come out against this nomination,\” Frum said.

37%?? But there is widespread conservative support?? The conservative base seems to have shrunk if that\’s the case. Or, as is probably more likely, the new RNC definition for \”conservative\” is \”Anyone that supports Miers\”. I mean after all, apparently if I don\’t support Miers, I\’m pro-Hillary.

[Washington Times columnist Bill Sammon] said that despite the fact that conservatives are obviously unhappy about the Miers nomination and other issues, he has no questions about whether Bush is truly a conservative and sees no sign that Bush has lost all or even most of his support.

That may be true, but it completely misses the point. He doesn\’t need to lose all his support, or even most of it. Races these days are decided by a 1-2 percentage points in many cases. It\’s not gonna take that many pissed off conservatives to swing the results.

Looking at Bush\’s presidency historically, Bush has survived many political storms — the war in Iraq, embarrassment over Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, a tough 2004 re-election, among them — and this just looks like the most recent, Sammon said.

Exactly. One difference…for those he had a united and loyal conservative base behind him and supporting him. Now he has a fractured and disillusioned base…half is supporting him, half is attacking him. Meanwhile the Democrats wait in the wing to cast the finishing blow.

Which is why I say, even if Miers proves to be the most conservative person on the planet and has the most strict interpretation of the Constitution imaginable, it\’s still a bad choice.

As you may have guessed I\’m amongst the anti-Miers crowd (which apparently infers anti-GOP and pro-Hillary). To some this seems to be a mortal sin. I\’ve heard we should have loyalty to our President and therefore should simply just trust him. Ask no questions, simply follow with absolute loyalty and blind trust.

Loyalty?? LOYALTY?!? You sure that is a word that you want uttered?

Sure, let’s talk about loyalty. After all Bush is known for his loyalty to his croniesfriends.

You would think that his loyalty would also extend to the thousands of people who have helped him get elected in not one, but two tough elections.

You would think there would be loyalty to the conservatives who voted for him in record numbers.

You would think there would be loyalty to the conservatives who gave up hard-earned cash to help him fight off not only the Democrats but also the likes of MoveOn.org and George Soros.

You would think there would be loyalty to the people that, even though we disagreed with quite a few bone-headed decisions, continued to actively support him.

You would think there would be loyalty to the thousands of conservatives, who not only supported him, but helped build a Republican majority in both the House and Senate so that he could put forth his agenda with relative ease.

Yes you would think that his loyalty would extend to all of these people. Oh yes you would.

But I tell you what. I haven’t been appointed head of FEMA. I haven’t been appointed head of the INS. I haven’t been appointed an appeals court judge. I wasn’t named CEO of Halliburton. But you know what? I’m not bitter because I’m not qualified for the above. It’s understandable. I would expect people to be pissed if I was.

However, since I haven’t received any of those, and because of my continued loyalty, I at least expected a decent Supreme Court candidate instead.

So yes, let\’s talk about loyalty. For instance, why is it a one-way street?

The following is a recreation of me reading through today\’s various news articles regarding the Miers nomination.

In lieu of cards and flowers, please send a clue to GWB.

I stopped listening to Hugh\’s show because frankly if I didn\’t I would drive my vehicle off the nearest bridge. So I felt it best not to.

But today Speed Gibson posts some excerpts from today\’s show. Among them was this beauty :

If you’re anti-Miers, you’re anti-the President. If you’re anti-the President, you’re anti-the GOP. If you’re anti-the GOP, you’re pro-Hillary. If you’re pro-Hillary, you might as well just appoint nine Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. That’s where you’re headed. Does that make it simple enough for you? Hmmm? Do you want to give the Senate back?

If this is to be the voice of the Republican Party, if this is to be the approach of the GOP, if this is what the party has become….

…

…then yes, today, you can consider me anti-GOP.

Good job guys. Way to \”save\” the party. How many more members do you have to drive out to meet your goals?

And don\’t even give me this Pro-Hillary bullshit. Dammit I\’m pissed.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has polled right-of-center bloggers on the Harriet Miers Nomination. Would encourage you to check out the results, but for those of you that are too lazy I\’ll summarize as follows :

About half of conservative bloggers feel it was a bad decision, and they view Bush less favorably as a result. It\’s fairly split on whether Bush should withdraw his nomination, although a slight majority favor his continued support of Miers. But it\’s an dead-even split on whether the Senate should reject the nomination or not.

Now this is significant in that it\’s not just a few loud mouths who are pissed. It\’s a fairly large percentage. Although I\’ll admit this is only a poll of bloggers, not the general public. But it\’s worth noting that bloggers have already made their presence known on a wide range of issues and events.

Now while this is all interesting, and no slam on John Hawkins, I really would have preferred had he taken this poll one step further.

I want to know how a confirmation of Miers would affect their continued support for the GOP. Because really this is all academic until you can come up with an end result. Cause ==> Effect, if you will.

Half of them aren\’t happy with the pick. A third want the nomination shot down at some level. How many would withdraw their support of the GOP in the event of a confirmation??

What if for instance 10% of the base was so turned off by a confirmation of Miers that they withdrew support. We\’re not just talking about funds lost. We\’re not just talking about volunteer hours disappearing. I\’m talking about votes. Say 10% of the base decided either they weren\’t going to vote in 2006 or 2008, or worse would vote in protest.

Now granted, depending on your area, that only translates into a few percentage points of the overall electorate. But how many races have been decided by a few percentage points these last few years??? 2000 and 2004 come to mind??

It\’s clear that the Miers outrage isn\’t an minor outburst by a few vocal individuals. It\’s becoming a movement all it\’s own. Denying it doesn\’t make it go away. And worse, it ignores the possibility of how serious the consequences may be for the future of the GOP.

You ask us doubters to consider trust Bush. \”Wait and see\”, you say. My point is that in the meantime, this nomination may have dealt the GOP a fatal wound from which it will not soon recover.