Thomas Sowell On Political Weakness

Thomas Sowell's syndicated column yesterday addressed an interesting point, whether it was President Bush that was weak, or whether the font of Republican weakness was the party's Senate delegation.

Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.

Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Sowell notes that this nomination was made from a position of weakness, according to Rush Limbaugh, but thinks the weakness lies in the Senate.

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

So would Bush have been better off sending to Capital Hill a high profile and controversial, at least in the Democrats eyes, nominee such as Miguel Estrada, who has already been filibustered?  Or by sending up Harriet Miers, who was even recommended by Harry Reid, and whose judicial philosophy, should you feel that important, Mr. Bush would be in a position to know, has he put the Senate Republicans in a position where they can act more strongly than they had indicated they might?

Mr. Sowell also notes that the Democrats might have been in a tough position with their base had a high-profile and transparently conservative - but clearly qualified - nominee been sent up.

The Democrats cannot afford to huff and puff and then back down, or be beaten down, again. On the other hand, they cannot let a high-profile conservative get confirmed without putting up a dogfight to satisfy their left-wing special interest groups.

Perhaps that is why some Democrats seem to welcome this stealth nominee. Even if she turns out to vote consistently with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Democrats are off the hook with their base because they can always say that they had no idea and that she stonewalled them at the confirmation hearings.

With regard to the Miers nomination I would have preferred someone perhaps younger, and someone who perhaps put the hell-bent-to-filibuster Democrats in as difficult, or even a more difficult, position.  I'll have to take Mr. Bush's word with regard to her qualifications as they are not as readily recognizable as they were for John Roberts.  I'll part with Mr. Sowell on one issue.  As I've said before, I take it for granted that Mr. Bush, who ran his presidential campaign stating that he'd appoint conservative justices, would pick conservatives.  Having been elected that' his prerogative.  I believe the qualifications and intellectual strength of the nominee are the key now, to ease the passage through the Senate, as John Roberts journey showed.

Linked to Wizbang COTT XXXII and Stop The ACLU.

Comments

[The MaryHunter]

Quite well put. Sowell is a voice of reason here -- there are other issues swirling before us here, so knee-jerk Bush-bashing from the right (!) is simply not called for... bordering on conservative elitism. *gasp*

Somewhere I read or heard that the gang of fourteen has already basically said that Miers is filibuster proof, but that of course would require senate Republicans to actually support her. Whether or not that's the case, I still agree with Rush's assessment that the army Bush has to do battle for him in the confirmation hearings is not a reliable one.

[49erDweet]

Sowell's POV is compelling. GOP organizations and voters in PA and VA certainly should hang their collective heads in shame for visiting upon the US Senate such smarly, weak-kneed, watered-down versions of real men as those two examples cited by TS.

But what else is new? The same group in CA have for years been pathetic. When we continue to face disappointment after disappointment, when our borders are so porous as to render the term "national Security" a motto rather than an intended state of being, when other nominally conservative goals are simply 'flushed away' by POTUS, it is understandable that at some point frustration kicks in and 'rebellion' occurs.

To not plan for this, and to be surprised when it occurs is to play into the left's Alfred E Neuman view of him. I am convinced if the rest of this term is to be beneficial to the country, his 'inner circle' of personal advisers needs to be seriously expanded, and then once again pared down of old, dead branches.

[Giacomo]

What's always been interesting to me is the degree to which Democrats have a relative unanimity of opinion and vote as a monolithic block, and the relative lack of unanimity and number of votes that stray from the party in both the House and Senate. Even when the outcome is pre-ordained the Democrats tend to keep to the 44 votes as a baseline, then add Republicans who stray.

I'll agree with you on Mr. Bush. He needs some new blood in the inner circle of advisors, someone with a fresh perspective.

[jpe]

GOP organizations and voters in PA and VA certainly should hang their collective heads in shame for visiting upon the US Senate such smarly....

Voters in VA and PA obviously think that the "real men" of the GOP are insane. They vote accordingly (in keeping with this, it's looking more and more likely that Santorum will get the boot).

Democrats have a relative unanimity of opinion and vote as a monolithic block

That's what minority parties try to do. If you recall the Clinton years, being the majority party brings out the fissures in policy. So, for example, many dems think Bush's trade policies are terrible. When the dems are in position to advance their own policies, however, the disagreements between the no-traders, the fair-traders and the free-traders are rancorous and vicious.