Happy 50th Birthday, National Review!

To commemorate the 50th birthday of the print edition of National Review magazine – or NRODT, the acronym for National Review on Dead Tree – today, many leaders of the new media shared their most cherished memories of the publication that inspired the modern conservative movement.

When I think of National Review, I thank my mother. Like President Reagan, my mother was an FDR Democrat whose discovery of William F. Buckley’s writings changed her life. To my beloved mother and the inestimable Mr. Buckley I owe my love of conservative politics and my love of reading.

Beginning at an early age, I would sit with a Buckley magazine or book in my hands and a dictionary at my side. After my mom would finish reading her latest issue of National Review, the first thing I always did was flip through the pages to find the verses of W. H. von Dreele. Often enigmatic, always wry, his generous use of historical references drove me to the World Book encyclopedia set my parents bought especially for me, not a small investment considering our household budget.

Reagan and Buckley were such momentous influences in my family life that we gave them affectionate nicknames: Uncle Ronnie and Mr. Fbuckley. The latter was coined by Lily Tomlin’s character Ernestine, the snorting telephone operator, on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, an often-raunchy TV variety show in which Reagan and Buckley, as well as Richard Nixon, got to display their self-effacing wit as special guest stars.

Buckley’s more notable and lasting contribution to television was the PBS program Firing Line, which debuted 40 years ago, making him the first conservative multimedia superstar. As the most distinguished intellect America may ever produce, Bill Buckley has also been its most persuasive proponent of civil discourse.

Like its print forerunner, National Review Online is one of my regular favorites but only a small piece of Buckley’s legacy. In truth, all conservatives, all consumers of political writing, all bloggers owe William F. Buckley our respect and gratitude for opening the door and inviting us to his elegant debate.

A League of Their Own

The White House talking points to counter opposition to Harriet Miers, which even my MSM favorite Brit Hume parroted during today's Special Report, resort to liberal smear tactics and identity politics. Employing buzzwords like sexism and elitism, they have co-opted the language of professional victimhood. Who are these pod people and what have they done with the conservatives I helped to elect?

I am just a middle class woman who attended an undistinguished university - the kind of person the Bush administration claims to be championing with the Miers nomination, even as they insult me personally for not supporting Miers dutifully.

I have been one of Bush's staunchest supporters, but I am not a Bush groupie. We do not owe the President our blind loyalty, which can only lead to insulation and a lack of accountability. We do not work for him. He works for us. I will continue to support him when we agree and feel free to criticize him when we disagree. Why is that such a revolutionary, threatening concept to Miers' protectors?

As loyal as I am to Dick Cheney, his assurance that in ten years we will appreciate what a fine choice Bush made assumes that conservatives have an unlimited supply of time and faith. My initial research on John Roberts was confirmed by his performance in the Senate hearings. Now I cannot wait to read his first decision, which I have every reason to believe will be informed by his brilliance and experience. When I think about Harriet Miers arguing a legal point or writing a legal opinion, based on my initial research, I am filled with sick anticipation over the unknown. Call it judge dread.

For the record, I am not disappointed in Harriet Miers because I have no expectations of her. I am disappointed - deeply, painfully - by her Ivy League boss who carefully cultivated expectations in conservatives of an outstanding selection like Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court, which he failed to deliver this time, in exchange for our precious votes.

My preference would have been Janice Rogers Brown, who received her B.A. from the California State University, as I just discovered by Googling her biography. But I would have been happy with any other constitutional originalist of verifiable judicial philosophy, regardless of their educational pedigree, of whom there are many ripe for the picking.

This is Ivy League:



This is Bush League:

10 Questions for GOP Bloggers Who Support Harriet Miers

1. Last week, as President Bush was deliberating over his second SCOTUS nomination, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg voiced approval of John Roberts’ refusal to answer questions potentially related to future Supreme Court matters. When you heard her recorded comments, did you think it empowered President Bush to nominate another well-known constitutional originalist instead of a stealth nominee like Harriet Miers?

2. Does a stealth nomination by a Republican president encourage or discourage prospective candidates who aspire to the Supreme Court to publicize evidence of their judicial philosophy that Democrats might use against them in Senate hearings?

3. Does the nomination of someone that Democrats consider a Republican crony make it harder for Republicans to oppose the future nomination of someone they consider a Democrat crony?

4. GOP bloggers were angry when Miguel Estrada’s religious faith became an issue in his nomination and were prepared to criticize any of John Roberts’ opponents had they done the same. Yet supporters of Miers, including President Bush, are citing her faith as a qualification for her nomination. Isn’t this a double standard that further establishes a nominee’s religious beliefs as a legitimate factor in his/her qualification or disqualification?

5. Justice Antonin Scalia is widely known as a man of faith. Did President Reagan and the conservative media cite his faith as a primary qualification for his nomination?

6. Conservatives expect judges at all levels to separate their personal opinions from their judicial reasoning. Why are Miers’ anti-abortion beliefs relevant to her qualifications? Isn’t believing that abortion is wrong a different issue than believing that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional?

7. The next time Bush suffers a political setback, does the Miers nomination make it less likely that his conservative base will rise to support him? Does the Miers nomination encourage or discourage Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee?

8. Does the Miers nomination make it less likely that the conservative base will support Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008? Does the Miers nomination make it more likely that the conservative base will favor George Allen or Mitt Romney for president in 2008?

9. At this point in the Roberts’ nomination process, the blogosphere had uncovered sufficient information for most conservatives to feel confident and enthusiastic about Bush’s selection. Do you feel the same level of confidence and enthusiasm about Miers? If not, why not?

10. Before her name was added to the public short list of potential SCOTUS nominees, had you ever blogged about Harriet Miers? If you contribute to any other media outlets, did you ever write about or discuss Harriet Miers?

What a Lame Duck

Giving encouragement to paralegals and self-styled jailhouse lawyers everywhere, SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers visited the Senate today and stood beaming with Minority Leader Harry Reid as he back-handedly commended the President for nominating someone other than the usual judicial scholars. Reid lauded Miers' ability to handle interrogatories. So? I’ve answered interrogatories on behalf of the non-profit corporation on which I serve as Director. He spoke appreciatively of her lack of experience as a Supreme Court clerk. Hey, my lack of experience is so substantial that even Ted Kennedy would approve.

And I’m only 49, one year younger than Chief Justice Roberts, whose Reagan-era White House Legal Counsel documents I recently analyzed. As Bill Murray said in Groundhog Day, “I’m really close on this one.” Today Dick Cheney was all over talk radio, promising Rush Limbaugh “you'll find when we look back ten years from now that it will have been a great appointment.” Pick me, George, and I guarantee immediate satisfaction. I mean Senator George Allen, the true conservative from Virginia. I’m not wasting any more of my precious hopes on the lame duck George.

Obviously, it’s pointless for anyone to aspire to a potential third Supreme Court vacancy. Alberto Gonzales is holding that I.O.U. I actually wondered more than once today whether Bush was thinking, “You conservatives won’t let me have Al? Fine, but you’ll be sorry.” Like many loyal Republicans, I spent most of 2004 working hard for Bush’s re-election, losing sleep and praying – not enough to earn his gratitude, apparently, much less a fantasy slot on his list of nominees. Whatever Bush was thinking when he selected a 60-year-old judicial enigma, he was either oblivious or indifferent to the turmoil that his announcement was sure to generate within his political base. Well, right back atcha, W.

This was a defining act for Bush, his Bill Buckner moment that changes everything. Conservatives expected him to nominate a constitutional heavyweight to advance the culture of strict construction. That is why we supported him and he knew it, which makes this squandered opportunity all the more inexplicable. It was only the second or third down and he punted.

On tonight’s Hannity and Colmes, Mary Matalin sought to reassure conservatives by stating that Bush has not let us down. The Miers compromise is not Chicken George’s first, merely the latest. He has ducked other important fights before. He has consistently supported “moderate” Congressional incumbents over their conservative challengers. He has abdicated his leadership on critical issues like Social Security, immigration, spending and now the avian flu. But he was my Commander in Chief in the global war on terror and I held my tongue. I was faithful to the unspoken terms of our deal, but Bush strayed once too often. My reservoir of good feeling has sprung too many leaks and I don’t give a dam.

When the President let his Press Secretary throw Bill Bennett to the media wolves last week, I took it personally. Dr. William J. Bennett was a compassionate conservative long before Bush introduced the phrase into the popular lexicon. During the morally and politically dismal 1990s, he was one of the few and most effective defenders of Ronald Reagan, conservative principles and public ethics. Any fair and honest examination of his record reveals a lifelong commitment to justice and opportunity for all. Any fair and honest examination of his so-called “controversial” conversation with a caller uncovers theoretical speculation about the use and misuse of statistical evidence and nothing more. Most of the criticism misrepresents the facts and is intended to silence one of our last guardians of the Reagan legacy. Thank God, Bill Bennett will not hold his tongue and neither will I.

Dr. James Dobson, among others, was trotted out to attest to the spirituality and goodness of Harriet Miers. That would be appropriate if we were appointing an elder of the church. Antonin Scalia might agree that those characteristics serve him well, but they are not the reason President Reagan nominated him nor why he has been one of the most brilliant, distinguished Supreme Court Justices in our history.

Harriet Miers is more than a disappointing nominee who wasn’t even a Reaganite. She is the empty bag of promises that conservatives are doomed to keep holding if we continue to make unrealistic bargains with faux conservatives. I wonder how Rudy Giuliani is sleeping tonight.

Falling off the Strict Constructionist Wagon

Instead of one of the many distinguished women who are eminently qualified for the highest bench in the land, President Bush selects Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers? Harriet Miers!

Maybe the ugly rumor that he is drinking again is true.

Okay, that was a sick joke and I apologize to any conservative whose sensibilities have been offended. But. Oh. My. God.