« Two Cents More | Main | We Are Winning, Liberal Media Notwithstanding »

October 11, 2005

Final Two Cents(on the Miers issue)

I thought I had said all I was going to on the issue of the Miers nomination, but then I ran into the following:

In yesterday's Opinion Journal was a column featuring reprints of letters from Republican readers who are not in the anti-Miers camp for any number of reasons, such as,

While I agree that I was underwhelmed with the Miers pick, I am of a mind to blame Congress--more specifically, the Senate. They have consistently shown no backbone, even as the party in power. I realize it takes some time to get used to the majority status, but come on. They have always dodged any fight with the Democrats. Even after Tom Daschle lost, you would have thought that they would have at least felt a little more powerful. I mean, he lost on the filibuster issue! Still, the senators forged a compromise. No fight, compromise. The Democrats had promised to bring business to a halt in the Senate. Did anyone but our leaders believe them? If a hog goes on a hunger strike, will he garner much sympathy? Not until he actually looks thinner. Those hogs weren't going on any hunger strike, they like sending money home too much.
The pick doesn't get me excited, but after our Senate leaders' behavior, I don't blame Bush for dodging a fight.

and, on a more aggressive note,

I and my friends in Orlando, Fla., are very happy that 1,000 conservatives at National Review's dinner are not happy with Harriet Miers. Political disaster is not a phrase we use.

We all moved to Florida from Maine, New York, Ohio, Minnesota, Indiana, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and we were all attracted to the Democratic Party by JFK. Most of us were in high school and could not vote for him. Most of us graduated from colleges that could not measure up to Southern Methodist. We do not feel intellectually inferior, but we are not nuanced. Most of us are ex-military and after Khobar Towers and Black Hawk Down in Somalia we all changed parties and registered as Republicans. Democrats do not represent any position we have. Few of us voted for Reagan, and we are all embarrassed by that fact.

However we are very tired of "It's President Bush's fault" and the lack of support he gets from republicans in the House and Senate and the 1,000 conservatives who attended your dinner. If you want him to wage war with liberal democrats what are you and your 1,000 friends going to do? So far you have done nothing to help him. You are all wimps. We watch Fox News and we do not hear any republican or conservative using the same rhetoric that Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al., use to describe President Bush. Whatever Pat Buchanan or Bill Kristol are for we are against because they are lukewarm in supporting President Bush. If all 1,000 of you are so important and powerful, then why is federal spending so of control? Our philosophy is appoint no one from any Ivy League School. Appoint no one from the Northeast. We don't care what your friends in Washington or New York say or feel.

Read the rest of the reader comments.

A lot of the above is true, many of these same senators, media people and high profile pundits, all on the right, who criticize the President for nominating a "stealth" candidate like Harriet Miers rather than someone with a long record as a fire breathing, two fisted, to-the-death conservative, need to look at how dumb they're being.

These folks all yell that we have the power in our Senate majority to ramrod through any confirmation we want, yet when Bush has nominated good conservative people with any controversial baggage in the past, these same Republican senators have given the President little vote support, giving in to the Democrat minority.

Why should Potus nominate someone who will require a fight to confirm when the track record of his Senate "back-up" reads more like French than American? And who are these loud mouths that haven't supported him in the past to demand that he trust them now?

Posted by Seth at October 11, 2005 01:50 AM