A discrete confluence (Drunken Sailors: part 10)

IT'S BEEN A BAD WEEK for the Bush administration--but, in a way, a not-so-bad week for American conservatism.

Bill Kristol starts out with a good point, which has been emerging on some level here at Reasonable Nuts - that the Miers nomination is bringing about some fine conservative arguments. I'd go further and state there is a discrete confluence of challenges to conservatism (and concomitant push-back from thoughtful conservatives) ranging from Supreme Court nominations to deficit (read: profligate (read: pork (read: the road to hell))) spending to the caliber of conservative leadership ("true believers", as it were). I welcome Kristol to join the bandwagon of one or two. Until then, he continues:

George W. Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was at best an error, at worst a disaster. There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.

But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.