Again, why?

A reader pursues the same question I addressed in the previous entry:

President Bush has fought harder for Harriet Miers than he’s fought for any other appointment. He is acting as though there is a deep and fundamental principle involved. The question that logically comes to mind is, what is really at stake here? What is the underlying principle that Bush seems willing to risk his presidency for?

Bear in mind that this same president stated flatly that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, then signed it. He demanded that all sorts of rigorous elements be put into the No Child Left Behind Act, then allowed Edward Kennedy (D-Scotch/water) or his staff to write the bill.

What is the underlying principle involved? I dislike getting into personalities, but that’s all that seems to be left. Is it loyalty to his wife who is loyal to an SMU sister that “made good,” is it loyalty to one of his old Texas hands, or something else?

This is the heart of the problem, and it matters because whatever principle or loyalty or demon or whatever is driving Bush to such extremes in service of a mediocre nomination may come up again before January 2009, so it is worth figuring it out.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 25, 2005 12:40 AM | Send