Threats!!???
Over at Confirm Them, this post references a "former White House official" who allegedly told Time magazine that conservatives would be "crazy" to take on Bush over the Miers nomination.
Please. Let's all take a deep breath here. Who is this "profile in courage" who's supposedly threatening the conservative intellectual priesthood but won't go on the record to do it -- and is he someone who's really speaking for the Bush Administration? Probably not. Because anyone can see that the President will need conservatives to get things done, and the conservative intellectual priesthood will need Bush to get things done.
Is it possible that Time magazine is trying to fan the flames of internecine warfare within the conservative movement and the Republican Party? Nah, they're journalists -- which must mean that they're studiously nonpartisan and are reporting only "the facts." Right.
Let's all of us -- on all sides -- stop being so eager to take offense. We are not enemies, we're allies. Let's not let this 1% area of disagreement overshadow the 99% where we agree. As Rush Limbaugh writes today in The Wall Street Journal, conservatives can be as strong as ever coming out of this nomination.
But we must resist the impulse to do what the Democrats have been unable to do -- that is, divide our movement. Apropos of this topic, my column is posted over at The One Republic. This week's offering? "A House Divided Against Itself . . . What Conservatives Owe Each Other in the Debate Over Miers."
Please. Let's all take a deep breath here. Who is this "profile in courage" who's supposedly threatening the conservative intellectual priesthood but won't go on the record to do it -- and is he someone who's really speaking for the Bush Administration? Probably not. Because anyone can see that the President will need conservatives to get things done, and the conservative intellectual priesthood will need Bush to get things done.
Is it possible that Time magazine is trying to fan the flames of internecine warfare within the conservative movement and the Republican Party? Nah, they're journalists -- which must mean that they're studiously nonpartisan and are reporting only "the facts." Right.
Let's all of us -- on all sides -- stop being so eager to take offense. We are not enemies, we're allies. Let's not let this 1% area of disagreement overshadow the 99% where we agree. As Rush Limbaugh writes today in The Wall Street Journal, conservatives can be as strong as ever coming out of this nomination.
But we must resist the impulse to do what the Democrats have been unable to do -- that is, divide our movement. Apropos of this topic, my column is posted over at The One Republic. This week's offering? "A House Divided Against Itself . . . What Conservatives Owe Each Other in the Debate Over Miers."
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:53 AM
1 Comments:
Carol - the 1% disagreement statement misleads as to how serious a rift this is.
Many Republicans saw judicial nominations as the entire rationale for supporting Bush. "Betrayal" is not too light a word to be using for their (our) feelings. And "arrogance" is not too light a word to describe the president's reaction.
I won't name-call, but the WH has an extremely serious problem. (Your blog, OTOH, rocks.)
Post a Comment
<< Home