perfidy

While still maintaining that I really don't care what happens with Miers, several things occur to me:

1. The personal correspondence is totally over the top, flamingly so, and should have been withheld as immaterial, embarrassing, or both.

2. Perhaps it'll be embarrassing enough that Bush, Miers, or both will consider taking advantage of the helpful suggestions of Mickey">http://slate.msn.com/id/2127853/&#face]Mickey Kaus, Peggy">http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007395]Peggy Noonan, or James">http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007399]James Taranto and politely exit stage left. (Or not, because, well, I still don't care)

3. I'm still processing the profundity of your concept that this could end up a "wet public fart of a Presidential legacy", and I think it's only fair that if Bush has, to continue the metaphor, tried and failed in a one-cheek sneak here, he deserves to have a serious skid-mark and the rash that I'd suppose goes with it.

But I fail to see how it could only affect that mythical wing of the Republican party who thinks this Miers thing (OK - let's be honest, it's a fucking joke) is "OK". There's no such clear dividing line to differentiate the schmucks from the putzes on the right side of the aisle, unlike, say, at MoveOn.org, DailyKos, and other such sites, overpopulated with what the Economist this week called (twice) "teenage scribblers", further describing them as "wedded to a suicidal strategy." (Sorry the article's behind a paid subscription wall, or I'd post a link).

There's a huge difference between the raving loonies on the left and their more reasonable co-partyists. Without such a vivid dichotomy on the right, it could be the entirety of the Republican party weeping and gnashing its teeth in 2008.

If, and it's a big if, the Democrats can find and articulate ANY sort of proposal on ANY sort of problem between now and then, that is.

On that score, I'm with the Economist - the Dems ought to "Hold the champagne". Or find another "Clinton", and no, I don't mean Hillary.

Patton, that's an interesting set of observations. And I gotta say, I only care about the Miers nom because I geek out on policy and political strategy from time to time, and right now that's the lurid caper that's caught my wandering eye. It coulda justa as easily been the Turd Blossom / Scooter / Plame axis, or the continuing adventures of Billy Doc Frist. But, Miers it is, for, as James Ellroy would put it, the wanton woolly weirdness and jejune juvenalia that will snag and drag sinners, saints, titans and teenyboppers of the GOP alike gnashing to their end.

Item the first: Miers">http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/13/miers.nomination/]Miers ain't budging. For whatever reason, the WH is standing by their (wo)m(y)n.

Item the second: I think there really is something to your thought that Republican wingers aren't as, um, wingy, as their counterparts on the Left. How could they be, anyway? For the right to be as wacky as the left, they'd have to embrace fascism, totalitarianism, or outright naked theocracy to balance the hardcore Commies, primitivist Greens, and anarchist one-worlders on the other side.

But even without looking so far afield, the Rove strategy has been built upon the same Clintonian deal of triangulation, with the innovation of trying only to triangulate within the Republican party, between the Jesus freaks, the warmongers, the libertarians, the movement conservatives, and the good old Ward Cleavers and Joe Sixpacks of the world. And they say the Democrats have a big tent?

So, Item The Third: You're right... it's not just the one wing of the Republican party that might pay the piper... it could be the whole dang thing.

Presuming, of course, the Democrats come up with a slate of candidates, a simple, clear, and humane message, and the balls to fight between now and a year from now.

I really do hope Miers gets the nod. From a purely actuarial POV, she is the pick of the sitting President. From a political POV, I suppose I should be happy that it's not Brown or Owen or Jones or one of t'other truly conservative legal minds out there. I don't trust them to not moralize from the bench (see: Scalia, Tony; inconsistent application of self-described jurisprudence when convenient). From a what-the-hell point of view, I say "what the hell?" Let's drive off the cliff and see if we live! 's fun!

Item the Fourth: Finally, I gotta be honest witcha, another "Clinton" is the LAST thing the Democrats need. That egotistical SOB sucked all the air and life out of his party while in office (much like Bush seems to be doing now?(!)?) and left them (us?) with no message, no momentum, and the humiliating and crippling memory of a stained dress, an unpopular health-care reform, and a reputation for dithering over international affairs.

What the Dems NEED, is their own Reagan, their own Lincoln (sans war and head wound), their own vision thing and the wherewithal to stick to it for a good decade or two.

J:

Since I bordered on "honest" in the initial post, I may was well go the whole way, via clarification. I don't care whether she's confirmed, because the really stupid part is that she was nominated in the first place.

Rich Lowery was on All Things Considered this evening and made the (easy) case that the nomination's an effing joke, and I was reminded that if Miers were to spontaneously combust, the stupidity of her nomination would remain. So THAT's why I don't care if she is confirmed or not.

This particular flavor of stupidity is on par with Dean being crowned DNC head. And it aches to watch it. Positively aches. Just, by the way, like it ached to watch Ross Perot make a fool of himself in front of the NAACP, all those years ago. Ached because I supported him? Pfft - hardly. He was and remains a complete ass-hat. I hate-with-a-capital-H watching people make utter fools of themselves, any people. It's why I never watched reality TV, Hannity & Colmes, or Cross Fire.

I agree with you on WJC, to a point - he's an example of what the left needs, though not the ideal. He sucked the life out of the party in the last half of his tenure, on a whole bunch of levels, but early in his day, he was talking about things other than the "RethugliKKKans", had the occasional good idea, and shambled along to a legacy that really won't be viewed as horribly as the worst of his 1990s enemies might wish. He did well enough that I find it easy to forgive him for the failed attempts at HillaryCare.

The left doesn't even need a "vision" in the large sense of the word - they need at least one solid affirmative view, held firmly and articulated clearly. Solely whining and carping from the bleachers, as they've done for almost 5 years, makes their ass look big.