The quarterback called a play that should produce a touchdown, Ms. Noonan

By Michael Gaynor

Peggy Noonan called President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers a "misstep," using football terms to make her case: "The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish."

The Quarterback was not the fool, Peggy.

Peggy's position: "The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans."

So much for having faith in the Quarterback and supporting all your teammates:

Peggy's explanation for and exasperation with the Quarterback's decision not to send a running back up the middle: "He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you 'don't have to pick.' History picks it for you. You fight."

To be sure, Peggy and Pat were ready to rumble. Thinking it was first and ten on the opponent's one-yard line, they wanted to send a burly fullback up the middle at least three, many four, times. And that fullback might have scored the first time.

BUT, the Quarterback, fearing a fumble when the defenders hit the fullback and a pile up ensued, wanted his right end ("a pit bull in size 6 shoes") to take the handoff and scamper into the endzone untouched.

What really counts in football is scoring. Who scores is strictly secondary. The offensive players on the field are supposed to do their utmost to make the play called by their Quarterback work. Not help the defense.

Peggy Noonan on Harriet Miers:

"I like it that she's run a legal practice: that she real-world experience, a knowledge of the flow of money in America, of how it's made and spent. I don't like it that she's never written an interesting thing about a great issue. I like it that she taught Sunday school. I like it that she's not Ivy League. I don't like it that she's obscure. I like it that she works so hard. But I don't like it if she's a drone. I like it that she's a woman. It doesn't matter much that she's a woman. Etc."

Peggy, an evangelical Christian lady lawyer who headed her firm and the Dallas and Texas bar associations and fought the American Bar Association's pro-abortion policy is NOT "a drone." So please don't drone on about that "if."

Barbara Anderson also is disappointed that President Bush nominated Harriet Miers:

"....Ms. Miers should receive the benefit of the doubt. That's just the point, Mike. If President Bush had nominated a known jurist such as the excellent choices he has made in the past for the lower courts, there would be no doubt, and his base would not be in disarray, but united.

"I feel the president has split the party over this nomination. He didn't need to do so."

Barbara, President Bush learns from his father's mistakes. And President Reagan's too.

Each of them nominated a man to the United States Supreme Court whom he did not know, but expected to be a strict constructionist.

President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy. A Catholic Californian who had served as the Diocese of Sacramento's lawyer. Surely such a man would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade, a constitutionally deficient example of judicial activism at its worst. But Kennedy was seduced by the dark side.

Likewise, the first President Bush nominated David Souter, a former attorney general and supreme court justice in New Hampshire who was backed by his friend and mentor, former New Hampshire Attorney General and United States Senator Warren Rudman.

After leaving the Senate, Rudham wrote frankly, in Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate:

"If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights — which the Supreme Court had endorsed — advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired 'family values,' I would have thought he was crazy.

"To me, the essence of conservatism is just the opposite: Government should not intrude in anything as personal as the decision to have a child, it should not be championing prayer or religion, and family values should come from families and religious institutions, not from politically inspired, Washington-based moralists.

"Yet I could see the Republican Party gradually being taken over by 'movement' conservatives and self-commissioned Christian soldiers whose social agenda I found repugnant."

George W. is not his father. And he is determined not to repeat his father's mistakes. And he did not pick a protege of Warren Rudman.

President Bush nominated a lady who followed President Reagan in switching from Democrat to Republican and became an evangelical Christian. Because, after more than a decade, HE knew her to be both a great lawyer and a woman of faith whom the secular extremists would not coopt once she joined the United States Supreme Court.

Barbara, President Bush is not in doubt about it. You are doubtful, because you didn't know very much about Ms. Miers when she was nominated.

President Bush knows that his legacy depends upon Ms. Miers. She does she. If she flips, he flops for all eternity. She would have to be a Judas in size 6 shoes to accept the nomination and then betray him.

The key question is whether she is.

And there is no evidence that she is.

Dr. Rick Scarborough, President and Co-chairman of Vision America, was initially upset, until he learned more about Ms. Miers. Being enlightened prompted him to write to his friends:

"Like many of you, I have agonized over the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. So much hangs in the balance at this crucial time in our Nation's history. For the past generation the battle for the soul of America has been fought in the courts.

"It is a well-documented fact that what liberals could not attain at the ballot box, they have strong armed through by hijacking the Judicial system of our country. It was that fact and the reality that we had a rare window of opportunity to right the ship of state with strong Judicial appointments, that drove record numbers of values voters to the polls in 2004 voting for President Bush who promised us appointments like Scalia and Thomas.

"I have sat through several hours of discussions by teleconference and private communications with key leaders from the White House and leaders of some of the largest pro-life, pro-family organizations in the country. I have voiced my own lament that the President seemed to be unwilling to pick a fight with liberal Democrats who certainly would have cried foul over a known conservative with a written record to validate their conservative ideals.

"But one thing about Harriet Miers has given me pause since I first heard her name in connection with the Supreme Court — her faith.

"The moment I mention that some of my more politically astute friends may laugh or mock me, but I have discovered that with Ms. Miers, her faith is more than a passing fancy.

"Marvin Olasky's blog posted on October 3, 2005, tells of the profound influence her conversion to Christ has had on her life and her belief in the originality of Scripture and the Constitution. That she served on her church's Mission's Committee and regularly tithes to her church, which is strongly pro- life, tells me that her faith is a serious matter to her.

"And then today, I heard James Dobson devote a full program to explaining why he is embracing her appointment and supporting the President, while he is monitoring the hearings and the unfolding drama. He stated that at some point we must trust the President to do what he said he will do and reiterated how the President has repeatedly stood for life throughout his Presidency, making solid appointments for the past 5 years to lower courts.

"As I listened, I was moved in my spirit. Dr. Dobson next spoke of private conversations which he participated in over the past couple of days that had convinced him that this was a solid pro-life appointee.

"I have been very disappointed that the President picked someone who has not paid the price in the trenches that many qualified conservative jurists have been required to pay for their conservative ideals. I believed, as many conservatives believe, that the time has come for a public conversation about what liberalism stands for and how judges have acted independent of the Constitution, exchanging the truth for a lie if it better fit their ideological viewpoint. I was ready for the confrontation.

"Then I remembered the Biblical account of Saul and David. Saul looked and acted like a King and the people readily embraced him as their leader, yet he became a tyrant who abused the office until finally God removed him.

"Samuel started the process of finding Saul's replacement. After repeated failure, the lot fell upon David, who was too young, too inexperienced and frankly didn't look the part. Yet when the book on his life was written, he was the greatest of all the kings. Why? Because he was a man after God's own heart.

"Anyone remotely familiar with the story of David knows he was not a perfect man, but he was a man that gave God great access to his heart.

"I believe this story is very applicable to where we are as a movement today. Many have worked tirelessly for this moment when two appointments, and maybe as high as four, will come open for the Supreme Court. We now have a once in generation opportunity to change the direction of the country back to morality and decency. The stakes couldn't be higher.

"It is just like God to take the power out of our feeble and inadequate hands and make us depend on Him to grant the revival we are working toward and praying for.

"Soon enough we will know whether or not Harriet Miers is the conservative judge we are being told she will be. For now, we must trust the President, but more importantly, we must trust God. I am glad to know that with this candidate, He will have open access to her heart. I think we Christian conservatives must concentrate on three things:

1) Placing our hope and trust in the Lord who alone can save this great Republic.

2) Giving the President the benefit of a doubt that he is a man of his word.

3) Paying attention to the hearings.

"Senator Brownback, a member of the Judicial Committee, has stated that we should; 'Trust, but verify.' He is right. While we should not be a party to disparaging the good reputation of this wonderful lady, and while we should trust our President to make wise choices in this important matter, we have a duty before God to hold her accountable to the Constitution, which makes no provision for killing innocent pre-born babies.

"There was a troubling quote in the New York Times attributed to one of her strongest supporters, Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht; 'You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe to be upheld.'

"To that I say, 'No! You can't!' No more than a previous generation could say you can be pro- freedom and still say the Constitution requires slavery to be upheld.

"I will support the President on this nomination, but I will also be urging Senator Brownback to verify that she believes the law of the land, including 'Roe v Wade,' is what the Constitution says it is....not what the judges say it is."

Barbara, please reflect carefully on what Dr. Scarborough wrote.

And, Dr. Scarborough, trust President Bush to differentiate between a theoretical pro-lifer who would uphold Roe v. Wade based on the legal doctrine of stare decisis and a true pro-lifer who will put his or her oath to uphold the Constitution first and overrule that deplorable decision

The enemy is not President Bush, or Ms. Miers, but people like the emailer who attacked me and "Jesus Christ freaks": "You're a religious nut, just like a member of the Taliban....Please God, no Jesus Christ freaks on the Court."

Chris Adamo, who is not the enemy, recognizes not only President Bush's political problem with his Miers nomination, but is beginning to perceive the sound strategy on which it is based.

Chris described the reaction from many conservatives as "immediate and fierce" and the Bush administration as "blindsided by the degree of outrage being expressed by certain segments of its loyal base" and "only now beginning to recognize the degree to which those who have trusted the president in the past feel betrayed and disenfranchised."

Chris referenced conservative disappointment with President Bush's record on spending ("abysmal, indisputably proving 'compassionate conservatism' to be indistinguishable from the nanny-state socialism of the Democrats"); on concurring with.some "hysterical accusations invoked by liberals to further their cause,.... giving them undeserved credibility"; and failure to refute baseless charges of "racism" in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the "contrived" controversy over the ardently pro-life Bill Bennett's remarks about the wrongness of one's position on abortion to crime rates.

Chris diagnosed President Bush's perception problem, the perception that he "has no stomach to truly confront and win the 'culture war.'" The result being that "when asked to 'trust the President' on such a crucial matter as the makeup of the nation's highest court, conservatives are, at best, highly dubious."

Such criticisms of President Bush are readily understandable. BUT, President Bush has given priority to defending America from terrorists and retaking America's courts from the secular extremists.

President Bush is the man who not only described himself as a man of faith and pro-life, but Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. And he has pursued the purification of America's courts with admirable consistency and undertaken a faith-based initiative that the secular extremists loathe.

WE ARE ENTITLED TO STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST JUDGES WHO WILL NOT CREATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE UNBORN AND WHO WILL REVERSE THE SECULAR EXTREMISTS' JUDICIAL COUP.

BUT NOT TO CHOOSE WHICH PERSONS WILL DO IT.

THAT is President Bush's right and responsibility.

Chris admitted:

"Nevertheless, the possibility exists that the Miers nomination constitutes a portion of a grand strategy that, if followed through to its completion, will not only vindicate the President in the eyes of conservatives, but may also redefine the character of the courts and future judicial nominees for years, if not decades, to come. Those skeptical of such a possibility should consider how much the terms of debate have already been changed."

Then Chris wrote of the irritants affecting many conservatives:

"Conservatives are still fuming over the recent Republican capitulation to liberals from both parties, who derailed an attempt to allow the Senate to hold an 'up or down' vote on President Bush's nominations to the Federal bench. With John McCain and Robert Byrd leading the effort, fourteen Senators (seven from each party) collaborated to maintain the filibuster, ostensibly to 'protect the Constitution.'"

That was a Senate decision, not a Presidential one.

Chris discerned that "the President recognized this latest Supreme Court vacancy not as a chance to continue this senate fight, but rather as the best opportunity to return the courts to their proper role."

Chris elaborated:

"Almost without being noticed, the Bush Administration has been playing political 'jujitsu' with those filibustering Democrats ever since, trumpeting the real protection of the Constitution as the primary responsibility of justices on the nation's high courts. And nobody has more eloquently asserted this premise than nominee (now Chief Justice) John Roberts himself.

"In the face of so much phony sanctimony from Senate Democrats, ostensibly on behalf of the Constitution, who would dare argue this point? And how insipid, empty, intellectually bankrupt, and downright treasonous, do Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, with their deference to the laws of other nations, and their comparative indifference to the Constitution, now sound in contrast?

"Having enshrouded themselves in bogus claims of 'protecting the Constitution,' how can Democrats then credibly oppose justices with such a conviction of upholding it? Admittedly, this argument has its limitations. Senators Kennedy and Schumer, in particular, will flaunt their hypocrisy with no regard for the disgrace they regularly bring upon themselves.

"Although both Roberts and Miers say the right things regarding the Constitution and the rightful role of Supreme Court Justices, it remains to be seen whether or not they will uphold such principles once they are on the Court. Well before next year's mid-term elections, both will show true colors by the decisions they render.

"Their fidelity to that which they have professed may, more than any other issue, prove to be the determining factor in the outcome of those elections, and many that will follow.

"In the meantime, conservatives should neither declare victory nor concede defeat. Rather, they must recognize that the President has greatly 'upped the ante.' One way or another, these picks will define his presidency, and even perhaps this era, either as its crown jewel, or its fatal undoing."

It's President Bush's Presidency. He wants a legacy that will please God and conservatives and frustrate secular extremists.

© Michael Gaynor