You can not bail on the fight in the Senate right now. It goes to the partisanship that started when Clinton became President. The fact Clinton had no balls when it came to dealing with the issue has no bearing on the fact that the Repubicans would not let him conduct any business at all during this time. Since the 2000 election it has gotten worse and Sept 11, 2001 put the icing on the case.
Patriotism has become defined as doing the way the Republican Party wants to the point the House of Representatives has become the Politiburo(Vote for us and will let your son get elected; let's see how many more states we can gerrymander the House districts in if we control state government in the middle of the decade). The Republican party has brought this on itself.

One, the social issue wing of the party has now found itself in the position of being a Russian concubine to the Party over the Miers nomination(let's just ignore the fact she is a Brownie nomination and by the standard of Roberts should be filibustered by the Democrats and the Republicans on that standard alone)

Two, the real definition of conservative is being placed to the fore. It is no longer tolerable to call President Bush a small government conservative given the way he spends and whom on(When you have the Republicans in MS AL and LA all screaming about carpetbaggers getting all the contracts) you know the emperor wears no clothes.
The Miers nomination does no help for those conservatives whom believe in "Intent" because she has no record to determine what it means to her. Worse, if conservatives believe in limited government by "ALL" the branches of the government they are exposed as hypocrites because every Judge approved record indicates that they believe in the concentration of power in the executive branch to the detriment of the others and make damn sure to have it should the legislature fall into the hands of the other party.

Three, this indulence will force conservatives to decide what it really means through both intent and accomplisment. Conservatives have had a free ride on that issue. I can not wait to see the Politiburo committ fratricide on this one.

The indulgence will end quickly if the Democrats on the national level can show an understanding of what the terrorist threat is. Then all the other in your face extremism and incompetence of the Republican Party would be exposed(Schiavo, De Lay, Abramhoff, Myers(pere and mme), Brownie, Rumsfield, neocons with medals). Until that happens I am enjoying every minute of watching this ship go down. The real worry will be if there is a successful terrorist attack. Then the public will destroy both party's for their fecklessness over the issue of terrorism.

I agree with some of what you wrote, but I don't think it's fair to criticize Bush for not being a small government conservative. Steyn is right, I think, to say that economically his is the 3rd way that Clinton promised but didn't deliver.

My own guess about the Miers nomination is that Bush expected her social conservative credentials to be more or less taken for granted - and believes she has them. I think this nomination was aimed at other things, a global war on terror that will morph into a variety of challenges over the next two decades or so, plus pro-business policies that he thinks will help minorities and immigrants succeed here over time (the 'ownership society') as well as keep the economy competitive.

I'd love to see both parties credible on terror and foreign policy in the face of a once-in-a-century kind of global tectonic shift in power relationships and economic forces. (Maybe once-in-500-years if you take the rapid evolution of nanotechnology and biotech into consuderation.)

At the moment I don't see that happening ....

I was thinking about purity this morning for a somewhat different reason.

Did anybody else see Bill Krystal on Fox news this morning state that the White House is drumming up support for Miers by telling anxious conservatives that all of the other potential conservative women have problems that would prevent them from being confirmed? I am going to try to get the transcript or watch it again later to make sure I got that exactly right.

But putting aside how outrageous it is to smear a generation of female lawyers and jurists, did the WH choose Miers because A smoked dope, B hired an illegal nanny, C had an affair, etc. etc. Maybe some of the candidates took themselves out.

To get purity, do we need to find candidates that have been hermetically sealed from life's challenges?

Welcome back, Robin. You'd mentioned the medical problems some time ago and you've been in my thoughts.

There's a distinction between partisanship and ideological fervor. The classic example of partisanship is a “yellow dog Democrat”—someone who'd vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket. That's not ideological, that's pure partisanship.

Ideological fervor seems to be what's driving the Democratic Party to self-immolation these days. As in many religions apostates are hated more than non-believers. The farther left wing of the party is doing its darnedest to drum the more centrist Democrats e.g. the DLC out of the party (or at least out of leadership) because they're not real Democrats.

Something of the same thing seems to be going on right now in the Republican party WRT the Miers nomination.

I can tolerate a little partisanship. I don't have much patience with demands for ideological purity.

Hi, Dave - thanks.

You're right, of course, about the difference between partisanship and ideology. The former seems to be driving the 'progressives' and the latter the conservatives re: Miers.

And like you, I have no patience for ideology ...

Even more that partisanship and ideology, the civility of debate is worrying. People don't appear on the news or get good blog ratings for discussing issues with civility, for attempting to understand the other person's point of view. They get readers and ratings because we americans like a good fight.
There are a large, loud, group of people who seem to confuse rhetorical grenade-throwing with civilized discoure. (Drop by any online chat room if you doubt what I say). Honestly I'm not even sure why these folks bother to speak at all.
I agree that the Dems are killing themselves with ideology -- and I worry that perhaps there is not a core philosophy that can unite the party. And we have very serious issues in the WOT that need new approaches. But so far, we're not getting thinking, we're just getting yelling.

As always, I advocate a ten-year moratorium on all political parties, with party funds escrowed and everyone forced to run as an independent. The freeze on funds would not exempt payrolls, either, so all the professional political apparatchiks would be forced to get jobs and spend ten years living in the real world.

Ideally, this would give partisan politics a good flushing out, and break the stranglehold of the special interests for a while. Hopefully when the parties reconstitute themselves they would be forced to do so on the basis of issues (or ideology, if you prefer).

And as long I'm living in a fantasy world, I would also dump the pernicious Roe V. Wade, which has been the ruin of the High Court.

It's a contentious country, always has been. It's part of our charm. Read Tocqueville, have a look at the anti-Jefferson and anti-Washington and anti-Lincoln campaigns...this is not new, it's the way we are.

In general I agree with you, Michael. But there have been exceptions ... or rather, in exceptional times a majority of people have acquiesced to setting that aside for a period of time as we faced common dangers together. WWII is one example - antiwar protests notwithstanding, or so I'm given to believe.

My concern is whether we have a sufficient sense of commonality underneath the boistrous, contentious give and take, to successfully bumble our way through the next decade or two.

Or maybe I'm just feeling cranky LOL.

But in either case the next person who tells me s/he wants to start a culture war is in danger of being whapped upside the head. It won't change any opinions but I probably will feel better afterwards .....

If anything, the partisanship and incivility is below the historical median for such things.

What I think is the most troubling is that there is a greater chasm between the factions on fundamental facts than I believe has been the case for some time.

I saw a good example of this on the Democrat Party Blog.

I offered up some energy solution investments when the subject came up.

On commenter said that he would in no way help a Republican solve what he considered a national/global problem.

It may be our national character. I do not see how it helps.

Welcome back, Robin! I do like your take on the meta-issue of how we go about this.

As far as Robert M, I think you skirt pretty close to being an example of what Robin is talking about, sir.

Robin

Wow - two of my favorites back in the fold - you and A.L. :-) A.L. alluded to the issues we face in his "Sense and Sensibility at "Screw 'Em" Kos' Place":http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007608.php#comments post earlier. I for one am glad you picked up on it.

Is it partisanship or ideology when you select the lesser of two evils based on a single issue that should by all rights take priority above all others? I don't believe it's either that's the beauty of being Independent. It allows for the common sense answers of common sense people.

As for Miers the judgment will come in the form of committee hearings and perhaps there are enough of those with common sense that will vote common sense. Is that not what we voted and pay our senators for?

For those that think the WoT and War in Iraq are the only hot button issues; in the wake of Katrina they certainly found out they aren't. Sadly the same scenario continues to play out in politics as well as the MSM. Point the finger at the head honcho, point the finger at the administration but never point the finger at those that approved and created the machine. They are the wizards of Oz that remain behind the curtains and therefore should remain guiltless and untouchable. More importantly never, never point the finger at the victim when the potential of political malaise exists.

Do we need a sound fiscal policy? Do we need to look at and evaluate our social programs? Should we be addressing issues on the basis of race or the basis of impropriety? We as a nation have allowed the lines to become blurred. We as a nation have allowed the government, MSM, and educational facilities to take control of our daily lives and lead us like cattle down the chute to the swinging hammer. While all this takes place we as a nation tend to believe we do not have choices, we ignore our civil duties as voters and cry over spilled milk.

I've talked about the centrist attitude where tolerance does not acquiesce to acceptance, where reason does not acquiesce to illusions of utopia and the civility of discourse does not give way to infringement of etiquette. Is there any party that takes the best of breed and stands on that platform? Sadly the answer to that is no.

As citizens we do have dogs in the fight. We vote for them on a scheduled basis. It is the publics responsibility to pay heed to the lined pockets of their elected government officials. It is the publics responsibility to remove from office those that do not comply to the bidding of the voters. As the Constitution so profoundly put it "We the people" hold the reins of our government and until more people understand that I suspect that the status quo will continue. Watch what happens come election time and don't be surprised if the same old faces return.

Glen

I agree with your suggestion about political parties but somehow I think we would have more Brownie moments without advice and consent from the legislative branch which has been nonexistent under Bush. I disagree on you about Roe vs Wade.

Robin

I do think the evidence is that Bush has been pro corporation not pro small business. The bankruptcy code is a good place to start. The lowering of the capital gains tax has been a boon to corporations that are listed. It has had no impact on the small business that has to go to a bank to borrow money.
I'll comment more after rereading your reference but I remain highly skeptical because of how the money is being spent. There are some things a govenment has to prepare for that are not cost-effective from a market point of view

PD Shaw

I saw a similiar trashing of conservative federal judges on both Imus and CNBC's early morning program. This is classic Bush. If you can not win on message trash the people except this time he reminds me of the Prizzi's arguing over money. He is trashing the base of his support on the whatever kind of conservative they are(judical intent-what a bankrupt idea, social and/or religious). I can not understand the continuing cognitive dissonance of the right. Even in coalition why are you going with a guy who sticks it in your eye regardless of where you stand?

Kirk Parker

I agree with you. My problem is the blog space is to often filled with those whom are purely partisan. IF you reread my post you will see I am not sanguine about the Democrats being any better given the leadership/financial base of the party.
I do think they will start to win elections when they create a proper foreign/military policy. Nor am I pleased with the Republican party. Their internal contradictions are just as extreme as the Democrats. Where as the Democrats stay all over the place in elective office and subsquent views of policy the Republicans have adopted the DeLay/K street money nexus of total subservience and most money has no desire to get caught up in social policy. The Republican House will not even consider amendments from other Republicans.

On that last note Senate Republicans have recently passed an amendment regarding "torture". I personally have been ashamed of Abu Gharib and other events because it gives the appearance, as we try to win hearts and minds, of being like the terrorists. The Intel-Dump commented recently on this and I like for people to take a look. It gives a reading of the problems with the issue on all levels. The result is a basis on which to come up with even a better policy.

Sorry for the fat fingers. Here is the link to the Intel-Dump.
http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#1128731234

Welcome back, Robin. Interesting take on the Miers nomination, one I hadn't considered. Wonder if there's a senator with enough insight to explore it during the hearings...

Re partisanship, I think we need to consider that the 'everything is Bush/Rove's fault' rhetoric is likely giving them cover instead. Even leaving aside the questionable logic of running against a president who won't stand for election again, the instinct to turn about anything into a 'gotcha moment', whether by the Ds or their MSM surrogates, betokens a lack of seriousness regarding the underlying issues. Whether or not others in the party (hat tip to A.L.) are serious, they aren't at all in charge of the message at this point.

Until that happens, Bush et. al. have a large latitude. What's a fiscal conservative concerned about deficits going to do? A hawk concerned about clear articulation of our goals and strategy in the war with Islamofascism? A social conservative wondering about Bush's commitment? Support Nancy Pelosi? Give me a break.

As long as the Ds let the left control their rhetoric, the pummeling of BushCo just gives Rs the freedom to be sloppy with message and execution, and suck the air out of the middle of the political spectrum. The day the Ds get a serious message re a war strategy, and perhaps a principled take on the role of individual responsibility vs. government, is the day they start to heal, along with the politial process.

It's actually good news that political parties are so detached from reality. That means the country is in pretty sound order. There's no serious, overarching national issue to ground them.

It seems worse to we blog readers and media consumers because we look at this stuff way more than 95% of most Americans. Our issues seem serious but if a vast majority of Americans doesn't see or care what the problems are, then things are just going to drift with no firm direction, at least when viewing things from the perspective of other the 5% that we're all in.

As long as one party views the Third Way as meaning you shut up and do it my way, things will remain polarized and divided.

We have yet to see one party act in a selfless manner for the good of the nation. The result is that the other party feeling betrayed and made the fool will be highly unlikely to act on noble principle.

What will break the stalemate? A huge catastrope. Something bigger than Katrina or 9/11. Both brought cries of blame placing and committees with whining victims placing blame. When the crisis is large enough that blame is forgotten then we will come together. Until that time, it's "After You Alfonse" on all things noble and decent.

... first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matthew 7:5)

Like Barack Obama, Robin Burk is onto something important: the need for us to start behaving like grown-ups working together to deal with difficult problems.

On the other hand, most of the commentators seem to take this as an opportunity to bash the Democrats, or the MSM, or someone else they've been disagreeing with all along. The whole point was the need to avoid doing that.

If the discourse going on is uncivil and foolish, don't waste your time criticizing the people you disagree with. They won't listen to you anyway. Change the people on your own side, and you might make some progress. (Matthew 7:5, eh?) Have faith that there are some on the other side trying to do the same thing. Like Barack Obama, for example.

Whichever party finally figures out how to convince the electorate that they have some grown-ups available will surely sweep the following elections.

This morning Grim's Hall began commenting on the issue of an apporopriate response to the "torture" issue. Does anyone else see this elsewhere?
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2005_10_09_grimbeorn_archive.html#112895872605445039