Captain Ed replies to VFRís criticisms

I had sent to Ed Morrissey of Captainís Quarters blog my first two posts about him, and he wrote back (this is posted with his permission):


Thanks for both messages, and I mean that.

First, when I blog, I follow my own conscienceóI donít take polls. My opinion is that Miers is not a bad enough candidate to split the party and wind up losing several close Senate races next year. Itís just my opinion, and I could very well be wrong. If I am, you know I will admit it, if you follow my blog. Sheís unknown to most people except George Bush, whose had her around for long enough to know her temperament. My objection to Miers has never been that she is the Second Coming of Souteróitís that sheís underqualified for the position, and we have much better candidates sitting on the bench. My biggest objection, though, has been the absolute ineptness of the White House in generating this nomination and the PR on her behalf. I am still fried at the ďsexismĒ commentary, and that will change the way I look at the Bush administrationóbut thatís secondary to us keeping control of Congress. Bush canít run again, and thereís little we can do to hurt him, except to make sure heís the last Bush that ever occupies the White House.

I remain convinced that the Democrats will do anything they can to push Miers through, and that Miers will never withdraw her name from the position. Under those circumstances, opposition is useless, and even more, itís destructive to the party. I donít feel like operating the Senate under Harry Reid as Majority Leader next year. If you read my blog, that has remained my consistent position.

Thank you for the courtesy of copying me on your posts, and I hope you continue to read CQ, even if (especially if) itís to criticize me. Your criticism is substantial and interesting, and itís always welcome.

Edward Morrissey

My reply:


Thanks for the thoughtful explanation. Though we disagree on this, I appreciate it.

It still seems to me that based on what you said last night about rethinking your support for the president, you came back too easily to supporting him and Miers.

Also, to say that your ďobjection to Miers has never been that she is the Second Coming of SouterĒ is, I think, to miss the real issue. She doesnít have to be another Souter to be another OíConnor, or another Kennedy. Thus, by your own account, what you objected to was not that she was not conservative enough. What you objected to was that she lacked high judicial qualifications and that the White Houseís presentation of the case for her was incompetent. You were not moved by the fundamental issue that moves most conservatives, the need to reverse the liberal, un-Constitutional direction of the Court.

On other point, even if most of what you say is true, it seems to me that if the conservatives rose up against this nomination, that would strengthen them for future elections, not weaken them.

Finally, even if most of the conservatives/Republicans, like you, end up supporting her, it seems to me that from this point onward their political marriage with Bush will be dead, dead ashes in the mouth. It is a reasonable prediction that Bush will then move even further to the left to form a governing coalition with the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. While Iíve always known that Bush is not a conservative (that took no prescience, since he was plain about it in 2000 when he called himself a compassionate conservative and supported open borders and group rights and the Hispanicization of America and multiculturalism), Bush has now revealed that he actually has contempt for conservatives. Thatís what his nomination of Miers is: an expression of contempt. Therefore, now that this is out in the open, I will not be surprised if he makes an accommodation with the Democrats.

We already see the outlines of such an accommodation in the disturbing information you provide that Miersís nomination is assured because the Democrats are pushing for her.

Best regards,
Larry Auster

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 13, 2005 01:15 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):