David Frum is persuaded -- but not convinced

By Aussiegirl

While taking into account Hugh Hewitt's principled reasons for not opposing Miers' nomination, David Frum makes some excellent points of his own. This is what real conservatism is all about, an honest and intelligent airing of differing views of basically like-minded people of principle and honor. There is nothing wrong with a good intraparty debate. The Republican party is more than simply swearing fidelity to George Bush. The party is bigger than any one person -- even if that person is the president. The Republican party has always been fundamentally a party of great ideas. Ronald Reagan brought those great ideas to a pinnacle of brilliance and wisdom and elucidated them to the American people in language every man could understand, because our ideas are about real things, and about important and weighty things -- like honor, patriotism, duty, commitment to excellence, fairness and reward of individual achievment and labor. Conservatives lived in the wilderness for years before Reagan's magnificent vision led us to that city on the hill of his benevolent and brilliant imagination, that place that he described which we could also see though his eyes and his words. As such, ideas mean a lot. Words mean a lot. And discussions and even arguments are not merely petty squabbles that need to be shushed and smothered, but are the very fertilizer of growing a thriving and burgeoning party. Be sure to read this excellent discussion, and also Hugh Hewitt's principled stance as well, as it is linked on Frum's site.

David Frum's Diary on National Review Online

Krauthammer and Kristol have both called for the Miers nomination to be withdrawn. Rush Limbaugh, George Will, and Laura Ingraham have expressed the gravest concern. Your ballots are running more than 15 to 1 against confirmation.

But all this raises the question: What Now?

There is at this point only one serious defense of the Miers nomination. (And no, I am not referring here to Brit Hume's and Fred Barnes' embarrassing repetition of Ed Gillespie's talking points: "Brawwwwwk-sexism; brawwwwwwk-elitism; brawwwwwwwwwk-Harvard; brawwwwwwwwwk; brawwwwwkk; brawwwwwk.")

The serious defense is offered by Hugh Hewitt: concern for the president's political position. Despite Kristol and Krauthammer's wise advice, President Bush will not voluntarily withdraw this nomination. That would be utterly out of character. So, as Hewitt argues,

"Continuing the assault on Miers means committing to her defeat...." And, according to Hewitt, a defeat of the Miers nomination by Republicans would be a self-destructive act.

These words need to be taken seriously. A Miers defeat, if it could be made to happen, would deal a serious blow to the Bush presidency. Conservatives need to think hard about that.

But Bush defenders like Hewitt need to consider this: A Miers win would also deal serious blows - to the Republican party, to the conservative movement, and, yes, to the Bush presidency.

[...]George Bush has again and again called on conservatives to sacrifice for the success of his presidency. Whether it was McCain-Feingold or racial quotas or immigration or "Islam is peace," conservatives were urged not to let petty personal considerations distract them from the big picture.

But when it was the president's turn to make the biggest domestic-policy decision of his presidency, to fill the swing seat on the US Supreme Court, did he sacrifice? Did he point the general good ahead of his own petty personal considerations? He did not. He abandoned his principles, his party, his loyal followers all to indulge his personal favoritism.

He has done himself terrible damage, and he cannot fix it until and unless he breaks free - or is helped to break free - from this bad decision.

[...]When President Bush chose Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, he put his own personal feelings and wishes ahead of his duty to his party and his country. This appointment to the swing seat on the Supreme Court is the most important domestic-policy decision of his presidency. It should have been made with patriotism, principle, and public spirit. It was made instead with pique and self-indulgence.

In the end, George Bush is just another public employee. He has a duty to do his best for the people who elected him, for the country that follows him, and for the constitution he swore to defend and uphold. In this case, he failed- worse, he refused. It would be best if this nomination were quietly and decently withdrawn. If not, it should be resisted.