George Will Takes The Gloves Off...

Defending The Indefensible

"Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Miers's advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College."

As always, George, you are as correct as you are incorrect, but one must of course bow to your indefatigable championship of conservatism as monocular. The problem arises when the bifocal crowd has, of all things, a different idea, and defending Mz Miers is defensible if only for the premise that ALL people are worthy of being in some way, shape, or form, defended. Indeed, there is a gross misunderstanding of the conservatism that George W. Bush declared to when he was seeking election, as opposed to the conservative he appears to be at this particular point in time and with this particular nomination. One thing you really have to work on, George, is getting over the idea that George Bush is or should be Ronald Reagan. Reagan didn't care WHO he offended if the cause was just, but was always careful to at least try to placate the little person as often as possible. And while "W" shares SOME of his traits, there was only one Ronny, and that mold, sad to say, is no longer available. But let's continue:

"...Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material."

The gallantry part is absolutely correct; there's a world of difference between being a gentleman and being a sexist disguised as one. "Protecting the little lady" can be either depending upon the part of the country one has spent one's formative years, and I do believe that there ARE men who appreciate all that a woman has to offer but retain a certain level of gallantry that can be misinterpreted as sexism.

Now, I'm also certain that there will be Republican Senator's aplenty who will still consider themselves conservators of the judicial branch's integrity even after voting FOR Miers, and that has as much to do with being a successful politician as it does a true conservator. All one has to do is evince a genuine, heartfelt agreement with Mz Miers' demeanor or abilities, and in the face of adversity vote for her to MAINTAIN his or her sense of honor for doing what they felt was the right thing. Politicians are good at this, George, and can get away with it easily enough.

"Presidential material" is another thing entirely, and it WILL be hard to attract the uber-conservatives such as yourself when having gone on the record FOR Miers. That doesn't require the skills of a good politician, that requires the skills of a GREAT politician.