Michael Meckler of Red-State.com hits on this idea a bit as he explores the depths of the discontentment on the right about the pick of Harriet Meirs to SCOTUS. I think he may be on to something.
It is no secret that the WMD team are no fans of the presidents immgration policies. We haven't exactly been cheerleaders for a good deal of his domestic agenda. The Medicare prescription plan created a whole new entitlement. And we definitely feel abandoned by the dropping of Social Security reform from the agenda. The Katrina spending. McCain-Feingold. No Child Left Behind. The list goes on and on and on...
Bush built up his account with foreign policy and national security. Those are the issues by which he was elected and re-elected. The idea of stopping judicial activism was a theme to his campaign and most conservatives thought they could trust the president to do the right thing on this issue.
When the O'Connor seat came open and Bush nominated John Roberts, most conservatives were content to let it ride. The fifth seat is the one that really mattered and Roberts had sufficient enough a trail to calm the initial fears. When Rehnquist died and Bush moved Roberts to his seat; subsequently nominated his lawyer who has no constitutional law experience. That was the last straw for a good many conservatives who had been seething just below the surface.
There is a tremendous disregard for respecting the opinions of the other side in this debate amongst conservatives. I myself had had enough a couple days ago and started my own campaign against one particular cheerleader who has displayed a level of obnoxiousness that I could no longer take sitting down. The disrespect is the hardest thing to understand about this argument.
Conservatives are supposed to be able to have a difference of opinion and be able to refrain from slingging arrows at each other. Perhaps we are seeing a breakdown in civility as a side effect of instant analysis.
Perhaps the president managed to overdraw his account.
Mark's Remarks
Hold on just a minute, Matt. I do not feel betrayed by the President over NCLB. While I dislike the increased spending on the department of Education, I do think that the overall plan and its goals has merits. The implementation of actually following the state standards and tying it to "extra" money is a good incentive. Having Ted Kennedy write the part about funding mandates was a bad idea. However, the overall program is showing promise and merit.
Now, back to this trust issue. While I do not like all the spending overruns, what could the President honestly do about increased spending for Katrina? Nothing. As for McCain-Feingold, I blame the moderate Republicans for slick marketing to get constituents behind it. The public was not adequately informed about what was going on in the legislation nor the ramifications. I am upset that the President has not sought a solution for it. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will end this joke.
I do not think George W. Bush has overdrawn the account. I think we are having a discussion within conservatism. Those of us who want fiscal responsibility and conservative values of small government and constitutionalism are fighting with the more, for lack of a better term, "politically pragmatic" folks on the other side.
What frosts me is Krauthammer and Kristol and others who now have decided to assault the President on other issues that they formerly supported him vehemently on. Now that GWB has not kowtowed to the mighty Kristol or Krauthammer, they are now criticizing his handling of the war, the military effort, and other avenues in which I distinctly, distinctly remember their unwavering support. This is what I, and that unabashed cheerleader Matt refers to, cite as the elitism and hypocrisy of SOME in the conservative/Republican family.
It is one thing to have a discussion and disagreement on a SCOTUS nominee, fine. It is another to decide, 'well, you didn't pick who I wanted, so now I am going to trash everything.' Kristol and Krauthammer and a few others have done that. Most people against the Miers argument, I believe, are sincere and concerned. The elitist intelligentsia of the conservative movement, I believe, are just mad they were not infinitely consulted.
Jonah and many over at NRO's the Corner make great points. I, too, am wary of "stealth" nominees. However, we know little yet. I, for one, still like to believe in the process. I am hopeful that the hearings will do some to show one way or the other. However, I do not, as the cheerleaders do, simply say, this is great because she is supposedly religious or has the President's trust. That is infantile,in my opinion. She has to have some qualifications, and some philosophy, and has to be able to show them in the hearings.
Regardless, the President still has my trust...I just hope he finds his veto pen.
