Conservatives rethinking President Bush:
From one clear-eyed and whip smart conservative to The Note, regarding our work from yesterday:
"Bingo as usual for The Note: The [George] Will column is big. We are in uncharted territory on this. Bush has never had to go into battle with most of the base actively opposed to him. Even BCRA and all the spending bills were largely inside-the-beltway subjects. This isn't. The White House did know in advance that this pick would get a bad reaction from the base."
"Larger consequence, I think, is that W's tenure as head of the conservative movement ended at 8 a.m. Monday."
"The whole Miers fiasco reminds me of the scene in 'Lost in America' in which Albert Brooks confronts his wife, who has just lost their nest egg gambling in Vegas. 'You're not supposed to lose the nest egg,' says Brooks. 'That's why it's called a "nest egg!"'" This nomination was the nest egg for the base. It was why a lot of people held their noses over many issues and stuck around. No more. I think we are now in for 3+ years of gridlock and not much out of Washington other than lobbyist-driven legislation. What a waste."
"The best thing that could happen to Bush now is a Miers scandal that forces her to withdraw and gives Bush a do-over."
For the second consecutive day, the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial page is showing no love for the Bush White House, today questioning the President's conservative credentials. LINK
"Is President Bush a conservative? That depends on what the definition of conservative is. He certainly is a social conservative. But if a conservative is someone who believes that government should be as small, lean and local as possible, then it is hard to argue that President Bush is one. If he is, he has a most peculiar way of showing it," concludes the editorial board.
Bob Novak writes that conservatives are asking two questions: "Is this what we fought for?" and "What was he thinking?" LINK
Nut Novak graph: "Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination."
Novak goes on to write that Bush was seriously considering Priscilla Owen, but some Republican Senators advised they didn't want to fight for her again so soon.
Novak also includes some Bushology: "Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers' predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales." Erick Erickson of RedState.org posts this on his blog: LINK
"Let me say that if I were forced to pick between Gonzales and Miers, I would go with Gonzales."
"On both we are told to trust the President. On both we are told that they are "right on life." But, Gonzales has a resume that, I think, would make him more qualified."
"That is heresy for many, perhaps even Hugh, I realize. But, that's where I am at with this. If we're to trust the White House with a nominee, at least give me one with a resume that I think demonstrates a more qualified person for the highest court in the nation."
"After all, there are potentially 49 other women who have been the first female president of a state bar. But there are not so many men or women who have served on a state supreme court, worked as White House Counsel, and gone on to be Attorney General of the United States."