Hugh Hewitt has much more here on the Geraghtyites, asking why some of those who felt the judiciary was so important that Miers could not be confirmed, now think it might be a good thing if the Republicans lost their majority and Democrsts got to control the judiciary committee:
Why pray then if losing control of the confirmation process now is not so important? Why did the country "need" a nominee other than Miers in October, but no future nominees of similar ability in the future.
Like every other goal worth pursuing, returning the federal juidciary to its modest and appropriate role, as well as the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause totheir intended operations, requires enormous patience over multiple presidencies, and there is always the possibility that the project is not possible given the seemingly inevitable tendency of jurists to aggregate more and more authority to themselves over time. Self-denying public servants are rare, and the effect of robing seems to be destructive of the ability to read Article I and II clearly.
But giving up the game is not the answer --electing more principled center-right conservatives is the answer.
So, Mr. Tapscott, please reconsider. Instead of anger, urge recommitment.
Send people off to Mike McGavick's web site with an e-contribution in hand so Washington State gets a senator serious about border security.
Urge folks to do the same at Tom Kean's web site so New Jersey doesn't remain unrepresented by even one person in favor of a defensible border.
Don't get mad. Get even. Bigger majorities, that is.
And if you were a vocal opponent of Harriet Miers, please explain why that battle mattered so much, but the Senate majority/margin doesn't.