Read Previous: “THE SUPREME COURT GUMP” (Miers as “…the little horse who could.”)
Harriet Miers bolted just before the home stretch. Or, was prodded and then bolted, but more realistically, was chased by a pack and the bolt is predictable as effort to pasture. She’s not the little horse who can but the little horse who couldn’t — I don’t use the horse metaphor lightly, nor in disrespect, and ask anyone who loves and honors horses, their strength, courage and beauty, and you’ll know that it’s among the finest metaphors going, to be referred to as the winning horse, or even as to being in the same field with one. Among the finest achievements, metaphors aside, is to finish the race and win it.
But Miers is no horse nor does the metaphor ring truest here because the issues are about the race and strengh in running, and not about which celebrity athlete gets to pose with the roses after a run through the mud. But we’re humans or are supposed to be and metaphors are prosaic works for people who are willing to be fancier than usual and when they aren’t, there’s just mud and prodding and jumping off into space without regard for where the landing point is.
And that’s where the last few weeks has found some among us Republicans — we expect Democrats to be there already, there’s no disappointment, speaking frankly here, when Democrats go about the bad behaviors of prodding and jumping and lynching the right ideas, ideals even, but I am not accustomed to reading and hearing Republicans behave likewise and I admit this morning that I am just about as disappointed in a group of people as can be as I am with various so-called “conservative” media personalities who have made Harriet Miers and President Bush for nominating her out to be lumbering donkeys.
And, disappointed in the Democrats because their newest low muddy here is in the pursuasion that “conservatives” and the “right-wing” among Republicans are responsible for running Harriet Miers out of Supreme Court land. It hasn’t been “conservatives” nor has it been from among the “right-wing” that the blasting yipping has come but from the moderate, Libertarian interests from among Republican voters who have brought the end to this one particular race and done so by pretty much spilling crud all over everyone who had the misfortune to be seated anywhere near them in the stands during.
The list is sadly populist:
— there’s been Ann Coulter, about the Harriet Miers nomination (“it’s embarrassing, it’s just embarrassing” and later equating Harriet Miers with “a cleaning woman”); if Miers can be described as “a cleaning woman,” then Coulter can be described, in kind here, as “a tiny, biting insect,” not that I am describing her so, just saying, Coulter’s reasons here — what, specifically, are they — are embarrassing if anything is, while Miers, I conjecture, is not feeling social reticence about herself and her work ethic;
— there’s been Bill Kristol, who has emphasized his “disappointment” in the nomination of Miers since seemingly two seconds after he heard it announced and he hasn’t stopped throwing popcorn since;
— there’s been, most disappointing of all, Robert Bork (“Constitutional law can’t be learned in a crash course” and that Miers “isn’t qualifed”), Bork’s focus on degeneration of what qualifications were and who had them compared to who did not that has caused me to revaluate Robert Bork as the academic powerhouse I have previously found inspiring, mostly still do, just saying, I’m on pause about his formulation of disagreement on this issue particularly since, as with others, it’s one that sprang forth nearly instantaneously in response to the nomination of Miers and bespeaks more of emotional disapproval than an academic one, given little time in the formulation of disagreement specifically to the person nominated, if any at all; HOWEVER, perhaps the learned Bork knows more about Miers the individual than I have become aware of by reading limited media about her (which means, I know very little about Miers because the Liberal media hasn’t written much that’s informative about her); and,
— there’s been Charles Krauthammer, who has been the most sensibly consistent about why he disagrees with the Miers nomination, the most gentlemanly in his words in expressing his individual opinions, this issue, and yet I was surprised at his disapproval of Miers based upon Krauthammer’s perception that Miers (“her obscurity”) was not as profoundly or substantially qualifed as were others — the same argument generally as Bork’s, but the point by both has been that they found her background not significant enough, her educational history not stellar enough, and it reduces to, literally, an argument (theirs) of status, of someone unacceptable based upon the perception of prestige, position, “power” of influence and those who label that an “elitist” argument are correct, in my view.
Since, as I just wrote, the Liberal media has not published too much to anything that is informative to any depth about Miers, my opinions (such as they are) about her are limited to relying on President Bush’s opinions about her — he’s confident in suggesting her for the Supreme Court, so I’m taking that on faith that she’s worth the consideration. I have found it, however, dismaying that she would be so denigrated so quickly right out of the gate while there’s been no opportunity nationally to even explore who she is.
In the better behaved areas of the stands is and has been found the good manners of Fred Barnes: “What Might Have Been” is an excellent column by a reasoned conservative who doesn’t throw food to make his points known, contrary to some. Barnes expresses my perspective about Miers almosts to a parallel and that is that the criticisms about President Bush for nominating Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court and about Miers as a candidate is exceptionally, to be blunt, and literally unfair. It’s unreasoned and imbalanced and has disallowed so much as a Senate Hearing for Miers and has been the chase vehicle on the course toward the Supreme Court by which issues as to Bush’s entire Presidency have been ridiculed.
At this point, this is where the Democrats have managed a stealth capture of this issue, in media, in perceptions: by majority publicized opinion by Democrats endorsing Miers and actual opinion by Democrats remaining the prize for today’s after-the-race-is-voided announcement (Miers withdrawn as candidate for the Supreme Court), we get to see numerous Democrats posing with brooms and dust buckets and suggesting that if only a moderate was nominated, that if only the “right-wing” and “conservatives” among Republicans had given them a moderate to consider, if only Bush had not been influenced by “the right-wing among his party…”
So, they get what they want: a moderate nominee (Miers, I am guessing) is moved into the reject pile, and the goal post is again moved farther to the Left. It has not been the “right-wing” who have denigrated her as possible Supreme Court justice, but the liberals among Republicans (on my list above, Barnes and Kristol might qualify as the most Liberal among the Right).
However, this is more of that Letwing talkie-talk, yackety-yack (and I quote Senator Barbara Boxer, very liberal Democrat from California): “right-wing criticism did Miers in…what we all said was that she wasn’t qualified…what we need is someone from the mainstream (and Boxer used the word with emphasis three times in but a few sentences, “maintstream”)…the Senate is a mainstream body…(President Bush) has an opportunity now to pick someone from the center and not someone who is going to start these divisions…”
All that in one big breath just moments ago by Boxer on FOX News, live from the United States Senate. Never mind that it was Harriet Miers who researched out and located the remarkable John Roberts as nominee for Supreme Court Justice to his now-confirmed position as Supreme Court Chief Justice.
And so, the Senate Democrats — with the help and assistance of the liberal-wing of the GOP — get to capitalize again upon the distorted reality of what is-is-what and further advance the finish line as to just who is “conservative” and who is “moderate” (as also of issue here is that the Democrats’ wars-upon-persons-of-pro-choice-opinions can now continue to be blamed upon “divisions” brought about by ‘the right-wing” and not upon their moral failures and legislative presumptions) and who the Democrats will “accept” into the Supreme Court and who they won’t, their reliance that the Supreme Court is to remain the territory of the liberal legislators-from-the-bench and their ludicrous, inaccurate opinions that nary a reasonable, “moderate” Republican thinks differently.
What a lie, but what a reality. What a cheat at the gate, what a cheat at the finish, from the stands and in the mud along the way. It seems my keen irritation about Miers’ nomination is that it’s allowed the Right to be denigrated (again) by the Left, she hasn’t rallied anyone, Bush has taken a loss in confidence for nominating her and it’s created a lot of shifts within the Right as to who means what.
My hope is that it will, at least, lay way for a Conservative to be the next nominee, so we can position the definitions of terms right where they need to be and, in reality, are, when not picked up and moved by the Left.