Junto Boys

MIERS MUSINGS

On its face, the selection of Harriet Miers is a very curious choice. Hillary has been out there campaigning on the theme that Bush is carrying out an "unprecedented consolidation of power" that threatens everything that is good and decent about anything. And then Bush nominates his personal attorney from Texas for the Supreme Court. What's up with that?

Possible explanation #1. Bush knows her and trusts her and that should be enough.

That's well and good, but it sells out his base who wanted the fight. Conservatives wanted to take advantage of this rare opportunity to apply the chokehold to a weakened opponent.

2. Bush didn't want a tough Senate fight he feared he might lose.

See above, plus he wouldn't have lost.

3. Bush believes he can count on a conservative evangelical Christian to generally do the right thing with the cases before her.

If she is truly Christian (accepting Christ as Savior, serving Him as Lord, and seeking His direction in matters large and small), truly evangelical, and truly conservative, I would generally agree. Some say part of Bush's agenda is to keep America safe for Christianity. Personally I think that's silly. Christianity does best under conditions of persecution and difficulty.

4. All Bush wants is what he has always said he wants -- a jurist who will try to rightly apply the Constitution according to its words and original intent, with due regard for valid legislative process and without regard for her own preferred outcomes.

I could suggest, as others are doing, a number of other alternative explanations, but I think this one nails it. With Bush the simplest answer is usually right. He confounds his enemies and friends alike by saying what he's going to do and then doing it, without a lot of pomp or commentary. That is not how it's supposed to work in Washington, and it riles up the Beltway crowd. Where's the intrigue? The nuance!

Still there is real risk here for the GOP. It is a basic rule of strategy that, for it to be effective, your side must know what your strategy is. Bush violates that rule at every turn. Invested conservatives are steamed, which threatens the tremendous grassroots effort that propelled him to re-election. A lot of conservatives are feeling today like Bush sold them out by not nominating a purebred conservative and forcing the issue, and strong feelings go beyond right and wrong.

Bush's agenda in simplest terms is to shift the balance of the high court from activist to originalist. My first reaction to the Miers announcement was disappointment, but when all is said and done, I will not be surprised if Bush has succeeded in implementing his agenda by focusing tightly on that narrow objective. The framers got it right, and if the high court can successfully return to the real intentions of the framers (not the redefinitions the court, media, and academia have foisted upon us in recent decades), we will see saner decisions that reflect a more traditionalist view and that restore the original spirit of America.

I hope once the Bill Kristols of the world calm down and take a step back, they will agree. It may not make for good TV and may not provide the kind of fodder the political columnists were hoping for, but how 'bout we just get the result we wanted without all the drama? That would be fine with me.

UPDATE: The American Thinker caught up to me today in this excellent article.

In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.