White House class warfare

By Aussiegirl

It seems tiresome and wearying to have to refute the baseless charges of elitism and racism that have been hurled at Miers’ opponents by the White House’s Ed Gillespie, and taken up with great relish by Miers’ supporters, but I’ll add just a few more thoughts on that subject.  

Scores of conservative pundits, columnists and commentators have been called every name in the book by Miers’ supporters, from spoiled brats having a hissy fit, to mindless ideologues spoiling for a bloody battle, to – perish the thought – “elitists” from “Ivy League” East Coast ivory towers who are scornful of the “little people” or the “real world”.  It is telling that the White House has been unable to muster more of a defense than that of creating a class war within the Republican Party.  I halfway expect that re-education and self-criticism camps may be next, where repentant or unrepentant people such as Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, John Fund, and most of the writers from National Review, will be forced to stand in abject humiliation as scorn and abuse is heaped upon them by “the people” for having the temerity to express an opinion which differs from the party line.  Will they have to admit to their heresy before they are pardoned and admitted back into the fold?  I thought this kind of ideological fascism was a hallmark of the left.  When did this become the party of George Bush and his fanatical and undying cohort?  When did it happen that the president took on the aura of infallibility such as that which surrounds a papal pronouncement?

Conservatives have supported many worthy, qualified and able candidates, many of whom have been mentioned on numerous occasions.  They include Patricia Owns, Janice Rogers Brown and Edith Jones, just to name a few women.  A number of (gasp) white men were also on the list, but were apparently not in the running in a White House which seems to have accepted the liberal necessity of “diversity” and “affirmative action”.  Indeed the vacancy being filled has been called “The Sandra Day O’Connor Chair”, presumably to be henceforth always held by a woman, although preferably one who is qualified.  Perhaps her chair could sport a brass plaque bearing her name.  

These people were distinguished by having spent a lifetime thinking, writing and working in the field of law, and specifically Constitutional law. They made brave choices to fight for conservative and strict constructionist principles of jurisprudence at a time when it wasn't fashionable, and indeed dangerous to your career to do so. They joined the Federalist Society, which Miss Miers deliberately avoided in order to avoid the "taint" of membership in an openly conservative organization. She seems to have had no compunction however, about joining the openly liberal ABA.

Harriet Miers seems like an able and intelligent person who has distinguished herself as a corporate and political lawyer. She seems to have gone out of her way to avoid revealing her political or Constitutional opinions throughout her life. She also seems to have been content to go along with whatever group or people she was working with at the time.

When she was with the ABA she pretty much toed the ABA line, supporting homosexual adoption and the formation of an International Court, two things that conservatives are opposed to.

When she was on the City Council she supported affirmative action, racial quotas and reduced height and weight requirements for firemen so that women would be able to join - also something that conservatives oppose.

Our opposition to her nomination has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman -- absolutely nothing to do with her failing to have the required “elite” or “Ivy League” alma mater, or any of the other labels placed on our so-called "preferences". Conservatives recognize that it takes a very strong and well-developed outlook on the Constitution, as well as character, to withstand pressures to remain a conservative once on the court. Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist possessed such intellects, strong characters and developed philosophies. Miss Miers seems to have no developed views except those reflecting the people she is working with at the time.

On the court she will be surrounded by people of powerful intellectual abilities who will use their superior experience of Constitutional law to influence her -- after all, argument is what it's all about on the court -- and many of them are liberal. With a known conservative who has been unafraid to place his or her outlook out for all to see and who has a developed judicial philosophy and been able to argue it successfully for years, we could be sure that the conservative argument would be well engaged. With Harriet Miers it is a leap in the dark, because no one knows what she thinks.

As such, I do not engage in ad hominem attacks and throw nasty labels at those who in all principle choose to believe that George Bush has made a good choice because he knows her well and because he has asked us to “trust him”  (I hasten to add, I do not place my esteemed colleague BonnieBlueFlag in this category.  She has laid out her case ably and admirably without resort to name-calling and personal attacks, as I would only expect from her fine character and mind.)  

I can only point out that George Bush has done little to earn the trust of conservatives -- he has spent like a democrat, has left the borders open, has instituted steel tariffs, passed a huge drug entitlement for seniors, involved the federal government in education where it doesn't belong -- and the list goes on and on.

I thought conservatives could argue the merits of a case without resorting to name-calling. And it saddens me beyond all measure that the White House has chosen to defend their nominee by engaging in the basest kind of class warfare by introducing the red herring of "sexism" and "elitism" -- that is a Democrat tactic and is unworthy of our party -- or indeed of any argument.