Circling the Wagons on Miers

Gerry Daly has posted an entry at RedState titled Advice For Conservative Republicans, which essentially advocates that conservatives keep their mouths shut over the Miers nomination in order to protect the Republican party:

This leads to my advice to those conservative Republican pundits and bloggers who are grousing about the nomination of Harriet Miers. The President, and by extension the Republican party, is in dangerous waters at this time. From a public opinion perspective, the only thing differentiating his standing from those previous examples [of sinking presidential approval rates] that were harbingers of significant defeats for the party in question is in-party support. There is a substantial risk right now that, in fighting against a nomination with which many are unhappy, Republican support for the party itself will fracture, with long term consequences. Was it imprudent for the President to put himself in this position? Absolutely. But it does not follow that it is wise for Republicans to abandon ship.

So is the advice for conservatives to simply shut up and go down with the ship?

I voted for President Bush in 2004 not because he had an R next to his name, but because I believed him when he lied and said he would govern like a conservative and would fill any Supreme Court vacancies with someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. What Daly essentially says is that those of us who feel betrayed by the president should stand by him anyhow, lest Republicans will lose elections.

Yet Republicans deserve to lose elections. And when it happens it won’t be because we abandoned them in their time of need, but because they abandoned us in ours.

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, Political Theory, Supreme Court, , ,
Leopold Stotch
About Leopold Stotch
“Dr. Leopold Stotch” was the pseudonym of political science professor then at a major research university inside the beltway. He has a PhD in International Relations. He contributed 165 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and February 2006.


  1. FurtherTour says:

    I voted for President Bush in 2004 not because he has an R next to his name, but because I believed him when he lied and said he would govern like a conservative

    You hadn’t figured that out by 2004? His entire first term was a textbook case of a Wilsonian foreign policy coupled with an LBJ embrace of big government and an activist state!

    Bush has never been a conservative–that much was clear from his entire biography which was well hashed-out months before the 2000 primaries. He is the epitome of a self-absorbed Ivy League elitist and opportunist who never worked a day in his life and depended on his blue-blood family connections for his entire career advancement.

    The gratest genius of Karl Rove was to pull off the image of the guy as some kind of normal “everyman.” He is the exact opposite.

    The reason he thinks Harriet Miers has such a good resume, is that–when compared to his “hard-winned” accomplishments–she is a superstar.

  2. ken says:

    He is the epitome of a self-absorbed Ivy League elitist and opportunist who never worked a day in his life and depended on his blue-blood family connections for his entire career advancement.

    This is about as good a description of what a conservative republican is, or aspires to be, as any I’ve ever seen.

  3. ken says:

    I voted for President Bush in 2004 not because he had an R next to his name....

    Yea, right. Who is going to believe that? By 2004 everyone knew what Bush was all about. You voted for him anyway.

  4. anjin-san says:

    Party & President before Country. Now there is something Bushites can relate to…

  5. DL says:

    Why should loyalty be such a one way street?

  6. lunacy says:

    All the conservative republicans I know worked their asses off to get an education and support their families. They just want to keep what they earned and trust their own decision making process more than Ted Kennedy’s.

  7. DaveD says:

    I love these threads where the condescending liberal leaners are admonishing us more conservative folks for voting for Bush. I voted for him cause I just couldn’t see the merit of making him do all that work of moving the furniture out of White House for another “self-absorbed elitist who never worked a day in his life”. Both kind of looked the same to me so why change!?

  8. whatever says:

    Yes, yes, we GOT IT after your first half dozen posts: you don’t like Miers and are pissed at Bush. So, vote Democratic next time or stay home. Whatever. We understand. Okay? Can you now post on another topic? This one is getting boring.

    Does anyone else want to hear Leopold vent his spleen anymore over Miers? Anyone?

  9. Leopold Stotch says:

    Whatever: If you can’t see the distinction between what I’ve written here and previously, perhaps you should simply skip all my posts or maybe even consider another blog (perhaps one of your own where you can dazzle us with a broader variety of topics not seen here).

  10. An Interested Party says:

    My goodness! You’re acting like…like…Democrats! It ain’t pretty, all this infighting, but it is fun to watch…oh, and nice to see that conservatives (except for the ones who have their lips permanently attached to the president’s ass) finally wake up and see what an incompetent cretin we have in the Oval Office…

  11. RA says:

    Bush has been conservative on tax cuts and the national defense (two of the most important issues we face). He has been a liberal on over all spending and illegal immigration.

    He better be a conservative on picking all the Supreme Court justices. If Roberts, Meirs and any othr picks don’t vote to overturn the pleathora of unconstitutional opinions on the books today (Roe v Wade being one of the first) Republicans will loose conservative and pro-life support in 2006 and 2008.

    Jerry Daley is a liberal on as many issues as he is a conservative. He travels with many out right liberals who regularly pat him on the back for “growing” and being so “Opened minded”. If Bush will not give us conservative justices then screw Daley and the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

    Personally I am in a wait and see mode. We will know how effective Bush is well before 2006.

  12. Denton says:

    Not having open and honest debate is what the liberals often accuse conservatives of. They are wrong and this is a good example. To base the approval of a supreme court justice on the potential outcome of the next election would be insane. Not speaking out would be dishonest.
    Is Bush incompetent? No – he is well qualified for the job.
    Do I agree with everything he has done? NO!
    Would I vote for him again? Yes – against Kerry anyday.
    Will we come together before the next election and support a candidate? Yes – assuming we can find one.
    Is Harriet Miers competent for the supreme court? I’m not sure, but I know this: the extremely competent sitting justices cannot all agree on almost any decision, especially the controversial ones. Obviously the law is not black and white and philosophy becomes the deciding factor. Based on that, Harriet Miers is probably a good conservative nomination.

  13. An Interested Party says:

    “Is Bush incompetent? No – he is well qualified for the job.”

    OTB’s version of stand-up comedy. George Bush is about as qualified as Mike Brown was…

  14. Marcia L. Neil says:

    It is possible that Harriet Meiers is not with-drawing her candidacy because she was escorted onto the Justice Department laff track. Will press-time also be scheduled to discuss the support team?

  15. Herb says:

    I wish these liberals would soon learn to get over it. They are like broken records singing the same song over and over again. Thay are so used to letting the elite liberals do their thinking for them, that they don’t have a clew of what an honest days work is about. They are so accoustomed to letting the government take care of them, pay their bills, etc, etc. that could not survive it on their own.

    Have you ever noticed that most of them are environ(menatal) wackos that will never accept or take responsibility for anything they do or say.
    Their only ambition is to become “Wards of the State”

  16. Beldar says:

    This isn’t all about you, Mr. Stotch. It’s about the Court and the country. If you are indulging in feelings of betrayal, you’ve already closed your mind to the nominee’s potential. I don’t suggest that anyone who’s concerned about, or even who objects to, the nomination has a duty to hush; by no means.

    But you haven’t yet heard a line of the nominee’s testimony. You appear to have drawn irrebutable conclusions about how she might compare to some other Justices, while simultaneously complaining that you don’t have enough information to draw conclusions.

    I respectfully counsel not silence, nor slavish devotion, but an open mind, sir. For the Court and the country.