A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

A really amazing thing is taking place right before our eyes. The single nomination of a candidate to the Supreme Court is threatening to cause as much harm to the political right as the dKos/DU/Deaniac/Sheehan fringe is harming the political left in this country. Think about it -- one nomination. And she hasn't even had her week in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee!

Just eleven months ago, George W. Bush was re-elected with the largest number of votes ever for a winning Presidential candidate. Some of his biggest supporters then are his harshest critics now. A huge number of Bush voters in 2004 are now saying "you're on you own, W..." or, "...he's lost my support for good...". Support that a year ago no one would have guessed would turn out to be a mile wide and an inch deep.

So what did he do to deserve that kind of instant erosion of support? Did he commit a crime in office? No. Did he get caught diddling an intern? No. Did he lie? Cheat? Steal? Murder? No. No. No. No. His "crime" was submitting the name of one person for one particular vacancy on the Supreme Court. A name none of his "supporters" expected. Someone no one but he knew enough about to even form a rudimentary judgement, yet nonetheless, by the mention of her name caused those "supporters" to leave the reservation in droves. Woah! Who woulda thunk it?!!

I've been reading as many conservative pundits and bloggers as I could stomach over the past week. The "intellectual" reasoning of the vast majority of those "opposed" to the President's pick is amazing: mostly it has been just the same kind of emotional reaction usually found on the left! Finding any old excuse to use as a "reason" to support an emotional reaction. You've heard it from the left: "Bush lied, people died!" "He went to war for Halliburton!" "He'll overturn Roe v Wade!" On and on. Only this time it's from the right. "She's a second rate lawyer from a third rate law firm!" "Crony pick!" "He passed over plenty of GREAT candidates!" "How do we know how she'll vote on Roe v. Wade?" (Oops, sorry, that's their line -- isn't it?)

In reality all of that fuss boils down to "he didn't pick the one I wanted", or "how dare he choose someone 'we' don't think is qualified (or know)", or "just who does he think he is". Well, last time I looked, he was still the President of the United States. As such, HE gets to make those kind of choices, and not us. And once the choice is made, she's on her own.

Thank goodness President Bush doesn't govern by "polls" as his predecessor did, or he'd would have immediately reacted by withdrawing this nominee, then taken a poll, submitted another name, likely have had to withdraw that one because of a different set of "concerns", then taken another poll, etc., etc., etc. Is that what we want in a President? Absolutely not. Just think what that would do for the confidence of the American public, not to mention for that of those who wish us ill.

As for Roe v. Wade, since when did the right start acting like the left? The left wants to know how a potential judge views Roe, they have a litmus test for judges: if you're squishy on Roe, you're out. Abortion is the sacrament of the left (thanks, Rush). We criticize that in them. In fact, we scream it: "You can't ask how a judge will rule on a case that's likely to come before them!!!" Yet it's becoming clear in this week that overturning Roe is the sacrament of many on the right. It's an "unless you're with us, you're unworthy" sort of thing. How rediculous. And it's manifesting itself in the current "battle" over the Supreme Court.

Quite frankly, we don't know how ANY of the possible nominees would rule on Roe should it be reconsidered by the court. We can only suspect. But how does that suspicion disqualify any person who is otherwise qualified. I know: let's just go with "gut feel" from now on. No other requirement.

What most of the dissenters are actually saying (without coming out and saying it) is "we can't afford to take a chance on how she might vote". That's a sneaky way of saying just what the leftists were saying about Chief Justice Roberts, "we need to know how he stands on Civil Rights, women's rights and privacy rights". The only difference is the answer preference in the mind of the person making that demand.

I am NOT willing to "throw the baby out with the bath water" -- and pitch a selfish hissy-fit just because things out of my control didn't go my way. I freely admit I don't know anything in reality about Harriet Miers, either -- except for the few facts about her biographical history. What I do know is this: I want to know more, but I refuse to let others' uninformed opinions affect mine. I want to see her interaction and interplay when she appears before the Committee. Until then I'll hold my decision on whether or not she's a good pick.

I have followed Presidential politics as long as I can remember. I can vividly remember having a "Goldwater in '64" campaign button when I was in the 4th grade. I remember hearing hysterical reactions of people on the left then saying "Goldwater will kill us all!" and such. I also remember celebrating quietly with some of my friends in Junior High when Nixon won in '68. That was the beginning of what led us to where we are today politically. Nixon was not a conservative, but he was preferable to the liberal Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Those days did begat the change in climate that eventually led to Reagan in '80, though, so that was good, was it not?

What I'm getting at is that the political climate has changed over time to something I prefer. It's by no means perfect, but it has come -- and will continue if we let it -- in a series of small steps, with just a few (Reagan in '80, the '94 mid-term elections) huge ones. Yes, there have been a few steps back, along the way but progress has been made and remains. Maybe this is a bump in the road or a possible step back, but WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET. So, let's not act like little children. The left does that well enough for everyone. Besides, someone has to be the grown up.