Two Coalitions? Nay, Sir, There Is But One…

I write this post as a call to arms directed at all past, present, and future Coalitioners, and a call to merge our interests with the second, more focused Coalition formed by the great Patrick Ruffini. The two Coalitions are not exactly equivalent, and of course, each member is free to opt out, as it were, but there is a definite synergy between the two.

There are differences: Patrick was opposed to the filibuster deal made by the Gang of 14; I thought it an unqualified win, and still do. Patrick is unabashedly in favor of the Miers nomination; my support is more qualified, in that I give her the benefit of the doubt, but am hoping for more convincing proof that she is a wise pick.

Yet there is one big similarity that overrides the differences, at least for me. The focus of the original Coalition was to protest the extremist, apolocalyptic rhetoric that immediately erupted in the aftermath of the Gang of 14 Deal. The outburst following the Miers nomination was almost identical. Some of the players changed, but the substance of the message did not. Whether intended or not, the overwhelming impression was of fair-weather fans who are ready to desert the President the minute he deviates from the presumed conservative orthodoxy.

I don’t question the motives of all those who oppose the Miers nomination; that would be presumptous and wrong. Instead, I question the mad rush for the exits that occurs within hours of these decisions. I don’t look for ideological purity in a politician; those who put their faith in a man, any man, are inevitably headed for a big letdown. Instead, I look for a person who strikes me as genuinely concerned with doing the right thing, even if his or her right thing and mine diverge from time to time.

I am convinced this President is such a man. I don’t look at him through the haze of hagiography; he is a man of many flaws. I find that appealing, as I have a couple myself. I do believe he has a good heart, and a strong will, and that on the big issues, the issues of Democracy, Freedom, Liberty, and yes, Capitalism, he will do the right thing more often than not, in my eyes and his.

My support for President Bush, then, is such that it does not flutter away each time he disappoints me; instead, I give him my conditional support, until I am convinced of the rightness or the wrongness of the position or nomination or decision. And even then, even if I disagree with the issue, I don’t stand betrayed by the man. I don’t pledge loyalty to George W. Bush; I pledge loyalty to my country, the Constitution, and the Office of the Presidency (yes, even if were held by John Kerry – one can be loyal even in opposition); however, I am pleased to say that George W. Bush is a man who has earned my respect.

So, for me, this Coalition has the personal quality of a request for consideration before action, of thinking before condemning. If you have made a considered, rational decision that you cannot support the nomination of Harriet Miers, then, in my view, you have a place in the Coalition; if that decision means you feel personally betrayed, this is probably not the group for you.

Participation is quite simple. You can lend your voice two ways: (1) trackback to this post of Patrick Ruffini’s with a post of your own, or leave a comment there; and/or (2) partipate in the upcoming Carnival of the Chillin’ at AJStrata’s place (but please, send him your entry quickly at ajstrataATstrata-sphereDOTcom today, if possible (and replace that AT and DOT appropriately, that’s a spam-killing tactic)). We’d love to have you on board…

9 comments to Two Coalitions? Nay, Sir, There Is But One…

  • megapotamus

    Right on, Mark. An appropriate motto might be “CTFD”… Calm The **** Down. No one looks good with their skirt over their head, especially conservatives. I thought we were supposed to be the rational reflectors, right? I’m a little confusted on your reception of the Will piece though. He sounds agitated to me and seems to be personalizing the issues… but hey, that’s me.

  • megapotamus, the Will piece struck a chord in me because I heard the justification from many who supported the Miers nomination (and, truth be told, initially agreed with it) that Miers was a good nomination because of her ‘perspective’ as someone who had run a law firm, etc.

    Now there’s nothing wrong in that in and of itself, and in fact, much that is admirable. But Will made me realize that the most important ‘perspective’ in a Supreme Court Justice is that of the founders who wrote the Constitution, and indeed, looking at Supreme Court cases through any other prism is another word for legislating from the bench.

    Does that mean Miers is not qualified? No…but I would like some reassurance before I get too gung-ho…

  • Dennis

    How DARE you suggest a coalition with people who were upset with the Gang of 14 deal? Those who were upset with that deal have LOST MY SUPPORT ETERNALLY! Those who cannot prove they were always chillin’ must be drummed out of the movement! I demand chillin’ purity! ;)

  • Dennis, I am outraged by your outrage! And that’s truly outrageous…

  • sue

    good post—-you know that saying, when the goin’ gets tough the tough get goin’? i love george bush even when he drives me crazy. i am encouraging conservatives to stay the course and beware the lunacy virus of the left’s rhetorical style. you need to stick around and hold people’s feet to the fire with integrity, not jump ship when you’re needed.

    an article at american thinker made a good point about skills on the scotus. with all the intellectual power on the court, miers it seems can also bring something else which may actually be incredibly valuable to conservatives. she is intelligent and a quick study, but also has skills as a “majority builder”. scalia, roberts, and thomas will find themselves with a valuable colleague in miers with her ability within the small group dynamics to swing the court to conservative ideals and interpretation of the constitution.

  • Actually, I am considering removing myself from the Coalition. The president may have made a fine choice here from a consequentialist point of view, but none of that can cover up the sheer naked cronyism of it. This was a ridiculous choice, not because it was a bad one but because it was morally indefensible.

  • Ryan, that’s the beauty of Chillin’ – you can check out any time (but you can never leave)…oh, wait, that’s some hotel in California, as I recall…

  • Gulf Coast Bandit

    Okay, Dennis, just CHILL! Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>