Wednesday, October 12

PATTERICO SAYS "WOW" (AND NO WONDER)

Let me add my own "WOW!" to Patterico's -- "Protein Wisdom" does indeed "nail" the mean-spirited Miers' nomination apologists and then proceeds to offer some insightful analysis on what Bush should have done and why. And, as I have indicated in a number of previous posts, I supported the selection of Janice Rogers Brown, which would have hardly been an "elitist" or "sexist" pick.

These are his concluding paragraphs:

Bush’s poll numbers show him at 42-44% approval; but where he has taken his hit is among Republicans, who are giving the President a 76% approval rating. Were that number to return to earlier figures, Bush’s overall approval rating would likely move back into the 52-53% range—quite in keeping with what one would expect in the current political climate.

And the way to do that is to rally conservatives by actually—publically, openly, and without fear—nominating conservative Justices and then standing behind both them and the judicial philosophy they represent.

Choosing instead a stealth nominee—though possibly quite a pragmatic political decision—suggests that the minority controls the power, and that there is something untoward about pushing for the kind of openly conservative Justice that a Republican President should be nominating to the Supreme Court.

John Roberts was, in my estimation, the perfect stalking horse. He was clearly legally conservative, and those who voted against him did so under the pretense that he didn’t give them enough to go on. So why not nominate someone every bit as conservative who has a track record? Force Schumer and Feinstein and Kennedy to reject conservatism on the record, rather than allowing them to deliver dissents on pretenses that are laughably disingenuous.

If not now, when?