The Black Republican

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Michael Barone as "Recommended Reading".

Finally, we have been given a nominee that conservative of all stripes can get behind! Samuel A. Alito, Jr. is just what we have wanted...

The Supreme Court is an institution that I have long held in reverence. During my 29 years as a public servant, I've had the opportunity to view the Supreme Court from a variety of perspectives -- as an attorney in the Solicitor General's Office, arguing and briefing cases before the Supreme Court, as a federal prosecutor, and most recently for the last 15 years as a judge of the Court of Appeals. During all of that time, my appreciation of the vital role that the Supreme Court plays in our constitutional system has greatly deepened.

I argued my first case before the Supreme Court in 1982, and I still vividly recall that day. I remember the sense of awe that I felt when I stepped up to the lectern. And I also remember the relief that I felt when Justice O'Connor -- sensing, I think, that I was a rookie -- made sure that the first question that I was asked was a kind one. I was grateful to her on that happy occasion, and I am particularly honored to be nominated for her seat.

My most recent visit to the Supreme Court building was on a very different and a very sad occasion: It was on the occasion of the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. And as I approached the Supreme Court building with a group of other federal judges, I was struck by the same sense of awe that I had felt back in 1982, not because of the imposing and beautiful building in which the Supreme Court is housed, but because of what the building, and, more importantly, the institutions stand for -- our dedication as a free and open society to liberty and opportunity, and, as it says above the entrance to the Supreme Court, "equal justice under law."

This nomination will not only put a proven conservative on the bench, but seems likely to give us all the ideological fight we have been itching for. Actually, this is shaping up not just to be a fight, but a Battle Royal! Well, I don't know about the Dems, but we're ready!

I strongly suggest this piece by FOXNews.com as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Shelby Steele as "Recommended Reading".

This is a few days late (sorry, we had a bit of weather down here!), but according to the Main Stream Media, it seems that on October 25th we reached some sort of artificial milestone: 2,000 of our country's best and brightest have died liberating Iraq. As is the case with most things done by the MSM, this "milestone" is only recognized for it's negatives, with no mention of anything positive that the sacrifice of those brave 2,000 men and women has attained, nor any mention of the fact that the reality of Iraq is so much better than what most had expected. Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) even used the occasion to suggest we cut and run from Iraq the way we cut and run from Vietnam. All I can say is if we do what Senator Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) suggests then we will guarantee that those 2,000 soldiers did indeed die for nothing, and sign the death sentences of hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of Iraqi citizens. You know the ones, those with the purple fingers.

I was an officer in the Army Reserve, so I understand better than most exactly what is asked of these young men and women, and the general attitude they have about their jobs and duties. Nearly all of them understand that being in the military means that they could be put in harms way at some point, and that they are expected to do their jobs and duties no matter the circumstances. Their eyes are open and alert to this fact... they know what is going on, and they know what is expected of them. Not all perform as they should (Lynndie England, et al), or have what it takes mentally to face the risks inherent to the job (Jeremy Hinzman, et al), but for the 99.9% who do, they want nothing more than to know that their family and their country support what they are doing. And while I cannot speak for any of those 2,000 who have made the ultimate sacrifice, I do know that if I were one of them, I would not want some politician in Washington DC - like Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) - being influenced by some spineless anti-war socialists into giving up that which I had paid for with my life.

But just for the sake of argument, lets assume that those spineless anti-war socialists are right and that 2,000 lives is too great a price to pay for what we are getting in Iraq. If that kind of thinking is something we should pay attention to, here are some other circumstances where the United States should have "pulled out" of a conflict or war... or perhaps not even gone into one in the first place, and the possible results:

• 2,403 American and 68 civilians men and women were killed at Pearl Harbor marking the start of our involvement in WWII... 293,000 American lives could have been saved had we stayed out. Of course the Nazis would have remained in control of Europe, developed the nuclear bomb instead of us, and there would probably have been 10-20+ million dead in the concentration camps instead of just 6 million but hey, 293,000 is a lot of American that could have been spared!
• American citizen die in the sinking of the British liner Falaba, two Americans die in sinking of the ship Arabic, and 1,195 (not all Americans) drowned in the sinking of the luxury liner Lusitania, which helped to bring the US into WWI. That war led to 58,480 dead and three times that many wounded Americans. Not quite the 2,000 threshold, and not all Americans, but again, think of the lives that could have been saved.
• The first battle of Bull Run (or first Manassas) - The Federals lost about 3,000 casualties (killed, wounded, and captured or missing), and the Confederates suffered about 2,000. Imagine if both sides had "pulled out" right then and there how many lives could have been saved! At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. Of course had that actually happened there would now be two separate, and much weaker countries (assuming either one would have survived being invaded by England, France, Spain, or any of the other world "superpowers" at that time), and one of them would have continued to embrace slavery.

What politicians such as Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) and the anti-war liberals (Cindy Sheehan, Move-on.org, etc.) that support them fail to understand is that there are things in this world worth dying for... and it's not only or always directly about us or our interests. In a particularly chilling segment of the universally acclaimed HBO series "Band of Brothers" the soldiers of Easy Company finally enter Germany, only to discover an abandoned Nazi concentration camp, still filled with emaciated prisoners. All throughout the series up to that point, the soldiers are often seen grousing about why they have to be there fighting and dying (as soldiers throughout history have always done). When the soldiers see the unspeakable horrors of that camp, and then hear through the grapevine that several other similar camps have been discovered with even more horrible evidence of the Nazi inhumanity, they all realize exactly why they are there fighting and dying - it's not about them as Americans - it's about us, as humans. The name of that segment of the series is entitled "Why We Fight." October 25th was Saint Crispin's day. The significance of that may not resonate with everyone (even I missed it at first!), but I'm sure it does with those liberal elite in academia and it has a direct relationship to Easy Company's "Band of Brothers" as well as our current Band of Brothers & Sisters in the field today:

This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars. And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.' Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day: then shall our names. Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd. This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remember'd; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Senators like Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-Vermont) and his ilk should not only "hold their manhoods cheap" but hold their humanity cheap as well because, should they care to look, this, this, and this is why those few - those happy few - our brave sons and daughters, are over in Iraq right now, fighting and dying. They understand why we fight, Senator Leahy (Democrat-Vermont). They understand that there is something greater than self. Do you?

Update: It seems that we actually have the thoughts and words (via Michelle Malkin) of one of those 2,000: Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. It seems, however, that the NYTimes is only interested in the words of Cpl. Starr that support their adgenda. Typical. So much for honoring the dead.

The Salt Lake Tribune offers some good news of stout patriotism.

For his part, Sgt. 1st Class John Kyle Hill, who served two stints in Afghanistan as a medic with the 19th Special Forces, is staying in and hoping for another tour. Hill, a Nebo School District high school science teacher, said that unlike many of his students, his comrades are highly motivated.

"We lived on the edge in a life-and-death situation," said Hill, 42. "There was no apathy, no laziness. It was ennobling. It was the greatest thing I've ever done."

1st Lt. Bruce Bishop, 31, a Salt Lake County firefighter, said he'll stay "because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for Associate Justice to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sorry to have been an early critic calling for withdrawal, and I'm grateful we had the chance to discuss some serious problems in the Republican Party.

Other than that, I'd just as soon put the whole business behind us and get on to a new nominee that better exemplifies the principles of judicial restraint, and who won't run from a fight over conservative principles. Mr. President, the ball is back in your court.

UPDATE: National Review imitates The Black Republican:

It follows that President Bush should pick the most qualified and confirmable conservative he can find - male or female. Such a fight could be the way out of the president's current trough.... Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face.

I strongly suggest this piece by Terence Hunt as "Recommended Reading".

Hurricane Wilma has blown past, and after a week of long drives and hurricane shudders, we're back from bliatus. Unfortunately, I'm now sick with a cold, but I'm trying to catch up as best I can. Stay tuned.

I strongly suggest this piece by Walter E. Williams as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Robert Kagan as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Fernando Díaz Villanueva as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by David Gelernter as "Recommended Reading".

Bliatus, is my new word, combining blogging and hiatus. The most recent hurricane is predicted to come this way (Naples, FL.), and, taking my own advice, I have begun preparing to leave. I will not be in here again until the danger passes.

See you again after the storm.

I strongly suggest this piece by Alan Pell Crawford as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Deroy Murdock as "Recommended Reading".

Well, the political correctness crowd has decided the state seal of Massachusetts is demeaning to Indians, shows the Indian in "improper attire", and the heraldic sword over the design represents how Massachusetts colonists "subdued the Native Americans and took their land." Naturally, they are proposing it be changed. There's one huge problem the PCers have overlooked: the seal was designed by John Hancock in 1780.

Why is that a problem? If John Hancock put a "badly-dressed Indian" on a shield and waved a sword over his head as a symbol of vigilance, who says it's even an Indian in the first place?

I strongly suggest this piece by Star Parker as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Rush Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

As we visit The Black Madonna for a prayer.

Continuing our tertiary mission to catalogue interesting references to the Civil War, I found this from Cliff May at NRO:

If there had been an MSM like today's after the U.S. Civil War, imagine how they'd have covered the "insurrection" of the Ku Klux Klan. "Wolf, there's been another lynching down here but when you consider the services that got knocked out in Atlanta after Gen. Sherman came through... well, people are obviously disappointed and angry and I think this puts the Union's credibility on the line again."

It's hard for a student to stand up against a teacher he admires, but today I'm forced to do it.

The former publisher of National Review, William A. Rusher, who first taught me who the conservatives are and that I was one of them, has posted an op-ed backing the Miers nomination.

So I am left to conclude that my conservative brethren who oppose her are primarily upset because her nomination hasn't triggered the all-out battle with the left to which they were looking forward (and to which, be it added, the left was looking forward as much as they were). If Bush had nominated Judge Luttig or Judge Owen – well-established conservatives with paper trails as long as your arm – the Democrats would have had a fit and launched a filibuster. The Republicans would then have blocked that with the nuclear option (changing the Senate rules) and confirmed the nominee with their 55 votes. A sure and solid victory for conservatism!

Or so the theory goes. But could we count on Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, or those two liberals from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? Would John McCain be willing to scupper the filibuster at last, as a weapon in judicial confirmations? And what about that famous wobbler from Ohio, George Voinovich?

Look before you leap, my friends. And reconsider the merits of Harriet Miers.

Some conservatives have called on the president to withdraw her nomination, and a few have urged senators to vote against her. If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives — as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right. The president, moreover, surely does not want to risk looking less than strong and steadfast. The prudent course is for Miers to withdraw her own nomination in the interests of the president she loyally serves. The president could then start over. Both he and his party would probably benefit from having the clear fight over the direction of the courts that only a new nominee would allow.

The one thing you can't show us with relation to Miss Miers - for all her admirable qualities and niceties - is a record of enduring principles.

ADDENDUM: For those who continue to be confused over the difference between our firm support for the still-somewhat-mysterious Chief Justice, and my lack of support and growing antipathy for this nomination (note: NOT the person, but the nomination), that's it right there in a nutshell. John Roberts may have been elusive in how he'll rule on specific cases - and properly so - but his record AND tesitmony spoke of a clear, resolved, and fixed dedication to principles rooted in the Constitution and interpreted according to the law.

Miss Miers' testimony could reinforce what we know of her grasp of business law, and enlighten us to the details of a topic we shouldn't even ask her about - her personal religious faith. The only other discussion that will jibe with her record is a four-day discussion of her fawning devotion to George W. Bush. This is not the Supreme Court nomination we were repeatedly promised.

UPDATE: David Frum takes us from the sublime to the ridiculous.

I strongly suggest this piece by Dan Seligman as "Recommended Reading".

A day late, I saw this post at NRO's The Corner and followed the link to check out what nice things people might be saying to Lady Thatcher on the occasion of her 80th birthday. Take some time and visit there yourself - but run to the bathroom and stick a finger down your throat first. I think I might just skip lunch today.

The morning lady on our local AM talk radio station made a strange statement today, she suggested the Wailing Wall be moved out of the Middle East. Her theory was that if the wall was not there, the two factions, Jewish and Arab, would not be fighting over the same land.

There is so much wrong with that idea that one hardly knows where to begin in disputing the notion. And, since she is a good girl, with a great track record of being on the right side of the issues; it is also important to acknowledge that she seemed to be on a trip of exploring unworkable ideas. Like her idea of dropping ice cubes into the tropics to destroy hurricanes. So, one must wonder how serious to take her, and how serious she took herself today. After all, these shows are ratings driven, she may have been attempting to drive participation, without any belief in the radical ideas she proposed. That said.

The notion that the Wailing Wall should be moved is perhaps the ultimate example of the damage done by eminent domain. For the Wailing Wall has been known even longer as the Western Wall, the western most wall of the Temple Of Solomon, a Hebrew Temple. It is also the western foundation of the Temple Mount, which contains the Islamic shrine, the Dome of the Rock. And, the Jewish people have only the least possible ability to visit their sacred ground due to the repressive mandates of those who now claim the territory as theirs. The new owners did not recieve the land in a business deal, they demanded its ownership, took it, and dictate its use without regard for the views of those who owned it before. No amount of money would satisfy the previous owner, even if such were offered, it is the land they hold precious. And, the dispute over use of the land is a driving force keeping these two peoples apart.

As the Muslims believe the Temple Mount is the location upon which their Prophet Muhammad died, and then from which he ascended to Heaven; it is understandable that they hold the site in reverence. What is unfortunate, and the source of so much Hebrew/Muslim animous, is the refusal of the Muslims to permit the Jewish people full use of the site as well. While the Muslims revere the property, the Jews have a longer, and equally important claim to it. One could say, in a manner, the Jewish people have lost their property rights to another religion's claim of eminent domain.

Or do I overstate the case?

Well, that is one part of what occurred to me when Mandy spoke of moving the wall. A plan which is impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible. Gosh, that phrase sounds familiar. Could that be where she was headed? Naw!.....must just be a coincidence.

I strongly suggest this piece by Thomas Sowell as "Recommended Reading".

What wonderful idea, this mail box was converted to accept used flags for proper disposal. This site is beside a fire department, I suppose they handle the flags. They also remind us to thank those who have fought to keep us free. Thank a Vet, indeed.

I strongly suggest this piece by John McWhorter as "Recommended Reading".

Filing lapses could make Black Caucus vulnerable to problems with IRS - Friday, 10/07/05

The article headlines the issues the Tennessee legislature's Black Caucus may have with the Internal Revenue Service. But also reports the racial inequities of the group.

Look at the next link to see what the Dr. Leavitt, author of Freakonomics had to say about Bill Bennett's remarks. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner - William Morrow, 2005 He makes it clear that he did broach the subject of race, Bennett did not initiate the subject, BB reflected what he got from reading Leavitt. So, let's put the myth that Bennett started that talk to rest.

When you read the comments, make certain to get far enough to read Steve Sailor's remarks, where he takes Leavitt to task.

But let's get real. Last Spring, when Levitt was the toast of American intellectual life, everybody who was proclaiming his wonderfulness knew deep down that his abortion-crime theory was still based in large measure on aborting black fetuses, but nobody would come out and say it.

I was the only one who kept pointing out the new emperor of the bestseller lists had no empirical clothes, but nobody cared, because the unwritten message of Freakonomics -- no black, no crime, as Stalin might have said -- seemed so convincing.

Also, look at Sailer's article on the fuss raised over Bennett's remarks.

We have qualification tests for military officers, as mentioned here, Steve Sailer: iSteve.com Blog Archives: A great military officer qualification test question, maybe we need to develop similar appraisal methods for Supreme Court nominees.

A series of hypothetical situations could reveal much about a candidates' ability to delineate the pertinent questions to ask, their ability to reason, and even something of how they view the role of the judiciary.

One problem, where do we find the truly non-partisan intellects who would write the test?

First Burger King bows down to pressure from Muslim groups over an ice cream graphic, and now Subway lets the French intimidate them away from an ad campaign which was intended to connect the famously fabulous French cuisine with Subway's new sandwich. Expatica's French news in English: French-bashing alive and well in America

It seems that the Flinch French people are feeling put upon by Americans who bash them as cowards; while they seem to also forget that they started the ill feelings with their anti-American rhetoric and complacent policies vis-a-vis the evil doers.

So, what is wrong with our American fast food companies that they so quickly capitulate to pressure, have they no spine? (Er, nevermind, I don't want to know what they put in their products, anymore than I want to know the recipe for Spam. But, back on point) I am believing that Subway's ads were intended to pay homage to the French cuisine, as the company spokesman says. So, why pull them if a small number of people misunderstood? Subway, show some guts, (no can't use that metaphor here either, still talking about a food company). Anyway, I regret that I never saw the ad. I might have benefited from the exposure to the diversity, seen France in a new light, learned to love chicken. And a chicken dressed as Napolean would be good for a few chuckles, or maybe cluckles, too.

Opinion Journal 10/7/2005 Which concludes its piece on this story with:

OK, first of all, the French are weasels, not chickens. Second, it's pretty rich for the people who run a company that knuckles under to "an outcry by members of the French expatriate community" to be calling anyone chicken.

Exactly, it is "rich", because they weren't calling them chicken, they were complimenting their cuisine. It was the right thinking Americans who saw the ad who called them chicken. But rather than stand with their ads' intent, Subway knuckles ..... no, can't finish.... picturing food + knuckles...... At any rate, it is obvious, our fast food companies are controlled by not so fast fools.

We have been having a debate (such as it is) in the comments of a recent post regarding the kerfuffle over statements made by Bill Bennett, and the MSMs taking those statements out of context in an effort to manufacture a scandal. We here at The Black Republican have seen the basic premise at the heart of this MSM attack template before: White + conservative + Republican = racist. But what happens to their precious template, and the arguments and debate points built upon that template, when you change the equation to Black + NOT conservative + NOT Republican? Does the equation still add up to racist? Well Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post has a very interesting defense of Bill Bennett's comments - a defense which directly challenges the validity of that template:

There is a problem here. But it's not Bennett, whose comments illuminated a moral inconsistency in black America that is far more harmful than anything he said. Forget about Bennett's absurd crime cure -- a proposal he acknowledged would be morally wrong -- and just look at the most recent analysis of abortion data, released in July by the Alan Guttmacher Institute.

African American women, who make up only 13 percent of the U.S. female population, accounted for 32 percent of the 1,293,000 abortions performed in the United States in 2002.

That's 413,760 abortions performed on black women in one year -- or 1,133 a day. (In the District, half of all pregnancies ended in abortion, a higher percentage than in any state.) No outcry over that because those were just disposable fetuses, right?

That is, until Bennett spoke of aborting "black babies," and suddenly those fetuses become precious pre-born black people who must be saved from the evil Dr. Bill.

It's just a different twist to the same old story. If the Ku Klux Klan were killing blacks the way blacks kill blacks, we'd be up in arms. If whites in blackface were filling the airways with degrading lyrics and minstrel shows, we'd at least shoot the TV and radio. But as along as it's just us acting a fool, who cares?

But the MSM template still says he's a racist, so the Kosmonauts and loony lefties do what they are told and parrot that line wherever they go... and so in comments here and elsewhere, Bill Bennett is a racist. Period!

Well someone really needs to "re-educate" Mr. Milloy to that "fact"...

To that end, we might welcome the controversy about abortion and black babies and the long-overdue focus it brings to the black womb -- home to hope unbound as well as unspeakable tragedy. Who is responsible for the protection and care of this amazing uterine environment, where the most wonderful fetal programming can occur just by having a loving husband kiss his pregnant wife?

Bennett? Sorry, he ain't in it.

I strongly suggest this piece by David Limbaugh as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Charles Krauthammer as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Newt Gingrich as "Recommended Reading".

John Dickerson, in Slate, writes an interesting analysis of the Miers nomination that deserves to be read by anyone wanting to understand the Republican Party. It's important because it's very much on-target, but incomplete.

Left-wing bloggers may see the Bush administration and its allies as a uniform mass, but like all successful political teams, it's actually a coalition. At the heart of the coalition is an uncomfortable mix between, on the one hand, right-wing intellectuals, including the neoconservatives whose backing for the Iraq invasion has been so important, and, on the other, the evangelicals who turned out in such numbers to vote for a man who boasted that he was one of them. The Bible-thumbing armies may carry the elections, but they sometimes make the elites in the Republican Party as uncomfortable as they make Maureen Dowd and Michael Moore. In return, the mega-church attendees are mistrustful of the party's often secular, often not-Christian pundits and wizards.

On the gut-check level, I also prefer the evangelicals to the secular intellectuals. But I also recognize that in some cases, evangelicals are far more communitarian than I would like, sometimes even to the point of being activist in constitutional law. So when it comes to the Supreme Court, this Catholic prefers to keep his closest allies' hands off the instrument that - wielded improperly - would force him to be their enemy. The best solution however, is to find men and women who respect each of our constituent factions. Ronald Reagan was so good at it, he started a political revolution. Hopefully Chief Justice Roberts will live up to his potential for emulating his old boss. Harriet Miers seems to be an unnecessary sharp stick from one faction into another's eye, and I must agree with Peggy Noonan that this is inexplicable.

So the administration can turn this around. Or rather Ms. Miers can. In her favor: America has never met her, she'll get to make a first impression. Working against her: But they'll already be skeptical. By the time of the hearings she'll have been painted as Church Lady. There's a great old American tradition of not really liking Church Lady....

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Miers, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

UPDATE: As the Civil War continues, I'll spotlight just two of the newest vollies. Fighting for the nomination is "The Most Brilliant Man in America", Thomas Sowell.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Replacing Justice O'Connor with a recognized judicial conservative--which by definition means risking an occasional nonconservative decision--would have helped restore the Court as the institutional tabernacle of the Constitution. With the Miers nomination the Court remains a political Colosseum. We'll win, but the price is a politics of permanent payback.

I strongly suggest this piece by Larry Elder as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Richard Cohen as "Recommended Reading".

After over two years in the field, the Army of the Potomac had lost its fourth commanding officer - its fifth if you include John Pope's derivative Army of Virginia, and its sixth if you count George McClellan again after his return from the Penninsula. At this inopportune moment, in the summer of 1863, as the army was handed to a Pennsylvanian named Meade, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia under Robert E. Lee struck north. Many thought George Gordon Meade would be cautious as he pressed his army north into his home state, even timid like several of his predecessors. But standing on a ridge facing west, Meade decided to stay put and make a stand, practically daring the cocky southerners to charge his lines. As the two armies thrust and parried over the course of three days around the town of Gettysburg, many believed the fate of their nation hung in the balance.

The president, whom I have supported through thick and thin, is proving especially thin today, having picked a Texas crony, White House Counsel Harriet Miers, as the replacement to Sandra Day O'Connor. The most often-heard and repeatable comment in conservative circles today is "dispiriting", and I join in that sentiment. I do not understand why we are not standing and fighting on our principles.

My military analogy falls short on several points. We are in a vital struggle, but at this point our conservative forces are more about swaying the populace in a war of ideas than dealing with and defeating an armed insurgency. The president's choice of a Supreme Court nominee is in many respects not like a battlefield. And some have argued we should not fight when we can't see the disposition of all the troops. But for all my discordant thoughts, we're still talking about saving the Union, and I'm still left thinking about picking good ground and standing firm upon it.

Some are defending the choice. Rush Limbaugh asked, "Would you want to stage a fight knowing that your troops are today's Senate Republicans?" I don't find the argument that some generals aren't fit to fight much of an excuse. Buford, Meade, and Hancock had some weak knees and political opportunists within their own ranks, but they perservered - almost despite the activities of some generals. When led properly, even the most cowardly can find the will to fight, and when we're talking about changing hearts and minds, the fight is more about the way it's carried out than the results. Others have suggested that my approval isn't required, and as a good soldier I should suck it up and support the president. Like the dispirited troops approaching Gettysburg, I'd need convincing that my own determination is to be respected less than the opinion of generals who have repeatedly failed to destroy the enemy, even with their occasional success.

In our first fight, this website stood on principle in defiance of those who argued we might increase unnecessary casualties. And never has the potential harm been so great - a presidency could very well fall into disarray if this is not handled properly. But I am forced to side against My Captain in this instance, and for just one reason: the Supreme Court nomination I was promised was for a judge in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. Regardless of the president's confidence in his friend, Miss Miers is not someone I can yet trust in terms of judicial philosophy, temperment, or experience, and is not the best example of the Scalia/Thomas mold we can find. Like many conservatives, I was holding hope of a real fight with the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, but this choice is beyond even the let-down over that failure of opportunity. The naked cronyism of this pick - in defiance of every promise, and every previous impulse - severely outweighs any other quality I might find in agreement with the nominee.

In deference to one of our contributors who would prefer we fight on under the guidance of the president, I won't deny that this is controversial, and won't pretend it is indisputable. But for now - and with the hope I can be convinced otherwise, and prayerfully hoping that if confirmed I am proved wrong - it is the position of The Black Republican to oppose this nomination.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a "Message to the White House" that Sue will appreciate. Catch her earlier roundup for more reactions.

UPDATE II: At OpinionJournal, Randy Barnett expands on the theme of cronyism:

Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers's only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser?

For the good of the Republic, this nomination must be opposed.

UPDATE III: Is it any wonder that the first thing that begins to dissuade me should come from a Catholic priest? Fr. Rob Johansen hasn't convinced me to stand down (yet), but it's hard to remain stubborn when the good father tells you to be more charitable. ( Bettnet)