The Right Coast

October 07, 2005
 
Anti? Or Anti-anti?
By Maimon Schwarzschild

Peggy Noonan has a thoughtful column on the Miers nomination. And on the Supreme Court generally. She wonders out loud about term limits for Justices. (There would have to be a Constitutional amendment, of course.) She is cool on Miers: but she keeps her cool. "If the American people decide she seems like a good person -- sympathetic, wise, even-keeled, knowledgeable -- she'll be in; and if not, not."

Hugh Hewitt is stalwart for Bush, and has been making the case vigorously for Miers -- and against the wave of unhappiness on the centre-right -- and linking to others who are thinking along the same (pro, or at least anti-anti) lines. Hewitt also calls Disraeli as a witness. ("Gentlemen, I am a party man.")

The pro-Bush (hence pro-Miers) meme, inevitably, is "Don't misunderestimate him" (or her).

UPDATE: But the indispensable Michael Barone says: "I'm in the position of the old politician who said, 'Some of my friends are for the nomination and some of my friends are against the nomination, and I'm always with my friends.'"

FURTHER UPDATE: Bruce Kesler sums up the case against centre-right disaffection and defection. The "anti's", he says, are wrong to go "outside the credo of sane, restrained choices upon which conservatism is based, and upon which successful power politics is ultimately based in a democracy."
Republicans really need to seriously consider whether the reaction by some stalwarts regarding the Supreme Court nomination has any chance of succeeding at either derailing it or of strengthening the party for its many other interests. I believe not.
Kesler also links to an interesting (if slightly snarky) Washington Post report on William Galston's and Elaine Kamarack's characteristically sensible advice to Democrats. Galston is a serious political philosopher -- his book on Liberal Pluralism is essential reading, and very readable; Galston was also a policy advisor in Bill Clinton's White House. Read Kesler's post.