Dynamist Blog

Why the Anger?

I don't think the activist rage over the Miers nomination stems primarily from fears that she'll "vote wrong" on the Court, as though the Supreme Court were a legislature. If you're a results-oriented conservative, she may very well do fine, just as Fred Barnes assured viewers on Fox a couple of nights ago. (If only there were some evidence of how she'd come to the "right" results...)

No, I think people are enraged in large measure because, given a terribly important appointment opportunity, Bush has made himself look like the dumb, parochial, cronyist hack that his enemies have always said he was . That makes anyone who actively supported him look like a fool. (I would distinguish between "actively supported" and "voted for," since, unlike a president picking a Supreme Court justice, voters didn't have much to choose from.) David Frum, who is taking some unfair abuse for questioning Miers's qualifications, posts the following reader comment, among many others:

You just gave a laundry list of "why Miers" with a negative point of view. Why on earth did you not apply the same principles, questions and concerns about W?

He appointed a loyal friend because that's what he knows and understands. He has never been required to perform, has never been held accountable, and has rarely, if ever suffered any negative consequences he actually earned. This character forming lifestyle began in his youth and continues.

You supported the most unqualified, unaccomplished, unremarkable man who has probably ever even considered running for major office.

I think that last line is hyperbole, but, in light of this nomination, it doesn't look like a complete slur.

ArchivedDeep Glamour Blog ›

Blog Feed

Articles Feed