October 14, 2005

STIFF NECKS V. RED NECKS:

Conservatives can teach even Jews about ingratitude (Sam Schulman, 10/14/05, JewishWorldReview.com)

A stiff-necked people — that's what the L-rd told poor Moses we were, and since we left the Sinai we've earned the honor again and again. But after listening to the complaints of conservative writers, bloggers and politicians about President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, I think we may be losing our exclusive claim to the title of World's Biggest Ingrates.

Despite "all the goodness which the L-rd had done to Israel" — for having been led out of Egyptian bondage, been fed and clothed, and been given the Torah, our ancestors' ingratitude drove a tough customer like Moses almost to despair — not just once, but over and over again. We're experts. Every Jewish son and daughter, it seems, at some point repeats the drama of ingratitude with mother and father.

But among the conservative intellectuals and the blogosphere, there are no dayenus for poor President Bush. Since he nominated Harriet Miers, nothing he has done — no matter how unlikely or even miraculous — has been enough. Not his improbable election victory in 2000. Not that he even more improbably increased the Republican majority in the off-year election of 2002. Not that he increased his majority in 2004 in 48 out of 50 states — in Manhattan and New Jersey as well as in the "red states" — despite a hostile and mendacious press. Did he act decisively against the terrorists after two administrations before his — including his father's — preferred to dither? Not enough. Did he press ahead with the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and give openings to democracy in Egypt and Lebanon. Not enough.


There's more than a little overlap, no?


MORE (via Casey Abell):
DARK HORSE ... (David Frum's Diary, 7/04/05, National Review)

... in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all.

There are minuses too of course, beginning with that same discretion that recommended Miers as counsel: Supreme Court justices are often expected to have achieved a certain public profile before their appointment, while Miers has gone out of her way to avoid it.

But if the nomination process bogs down - or if President Bush's first choice of nominee should somehow stall or fail - then Miers might well be his back-up nominee. Scoff if you like. But if it happens, please remember that you read it here first.


Posted by Orrin Judd at October 14, 2005 11:14 PM
Comments

OJ: wash your mouth out with soap.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 15, 2005 1:41 AM

G*d bless brother Sam.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 15, 2005 7:14 AM

Here's David Frum's post regarding that very suggestion of Miers he wrote earlier:

SEP. 29, 2005: JUSTICE MIERS?

I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?

If you follow the link just scroll down until the september 29th post.

He says he was "mostly" joking which has to mean he was open to the possibility. Atleast when it was just theoretical.

Posted by: mc at October 15, 2005 8:57 AM

Gee, ain't it the truth! You pander to a constituency to get money and votes, and it's, like, they think they own you!

Posted by: Robert Duquette at October 15, 2005 1:04 PM

So I assume this means we now have to parce Frum's web postings like the U.S. used to scan messages from the Kremilm to determine when David's just joking about a person or issue and when he really believes in what he's saying.

Posted by: John at October 15, 2005 2:06 PM
« OOPS, THIS IS THEIR OHIO: | Main | RABBI, HAS YOUR YESHIVA FILLED ITS EVANGELICAL QUOTA YET? »