Stepping Up to an Important Position
As I mentioned the other day, some guy named Daniel Craig has been named as Pierce Brosnan's successor to the role of James Bond. I've weighed in on this issue; I was hoping for Jude Law, Ewan MacGregor, or even Matthew MacFadyen.
I can't say that I've been a recipient of the James Bond legacy since it began; in fact, I came in rather late in the game, considering. Even so, I've done my best to catch up. I've watched most of the films at this point, and even read several of the books, which is more than most fans do. I've made it my mission to become a James Bond fan; it's a lifestyle, a following, that I've chosen, and that means that I have more dedication than people who have grown up with it, or who have had it thrust upon them by others. I have that beginner's passion, that will eventually shift into a tempered, mature enjoyment of the phenomenon.
And Daniel Craig? Well, I'm conflicted. I have no emotional investment in him; he's an unknown, a dark horse, and his film credits are unremarkable. He's a bona fide Englishman, which worked well in the case of Roger Moore, but was wholly unremarkable in the case of Timothy Dalton (let's face it, Dalton's Welsh, and Wales is to England (vice the U.K.) as California is to America), who was the worst Bond to date. He hasn't had a notable lead to speak of, and we don't know what he's capable of, good or bad. Basically, he could screw the whole deal for us, worse than the travesty that was "Die Another Day".
Even so, I have to have some level of faith in Eon Productions. They've made a helluva lot of great decisions, and they have a great record of making fantastic Bond films. They're responsible for the most enduring film franchise in the history of the world. The Eon producers, who either have long experience, or are descended from those who have long experience, in making decisions related to the Bond franchise have earned some degree of trust. Sure, there was Die Another Day. Sure, there was View to a Kill, quite possibly the worst Bond film ever made. However, the vast majority of the films, even those that weren't particularly compelling, were still better than the competition by a long shot.
So while I'm skeptical, and even a little bit frustrated, that someone with better credentials and a more solid acting record wasn't chosen, I understand that I'm not privy to all of the information and factors considered when selecting Brosnan's successor. When you boil it down, I'm just someone at the bottom of the food chain, and I'm not paid to make the big decisions because I don't have the experience, the credentials, or the authority to make such decisions.
Enter Harriet Miers. The situation is exactly the same. There are a couple of strikes here and there, all of them minor, that would lead one to consider Miers a questionable choice as a Supreme Court nominee. Her record is not as distinguished as that of a Miguel Estrada or a Janice Rogers Brown. There's a lot riding on the nomination, too; issues like gay "marriage", or abortion, or the treatment of terrorist detainees in the War on Terror. She's been chosen to fill the large shoes of Sandra Day O'Connor, a historic, respected justice.
I can admit, it's frustrating to me that President Bush didn't choose someone else; I would have loved Janice Rogers Brown or a Priscilla Owen to succeed Justice O'Connor. Even so, after considering it for a while, the context of President Bush's decision became clearer, and I began to understand some of the reasons why it was Harriet Miers who was nominated for this important position. Since I love bulleted lists, here's one.
Conservatives don't like it that Ms. Miers hasn't served as a justice, and therefore has no record of judicial rulings. This statement can also be used to describe two other prominent Supreme Court justices: William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren, two of the finest conservative justices, both of them chief justices, in modern judicial history.
Following up on the previous point, it's also worth noting that when they were nominated, David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor had strong conservative judicial records. Upon confirmation to the Supreme Court, both justices turned from solid conservatives into moderate wild cards; O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, often acted as the swing vote! A conservative judicial record does not a solid conservative justice make.
Aside from that, Ms. Miers' legal career has been distinguished, even if it hasn't been high profile. She was the first woman to head a major law firm in Texas, and the first woman to head the Texas lottery commission. If people want to denigrate those accomplishments, that's their prerogative, but as far as I'm concerned, those are important positions.
Former military leaders, who have little or no experience in the business world, often make outstanding corporate leaders. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that Ms. Miers is a prominent lawyer is an overqualification; I'd be satisfied to have a prominent conservative with no legal qualifications sitting on the court.
Given the fact that President George H.W. Bush had never even met Justice Souter when he got the nomination, the fact that the current President Bush has worked closely with Ms. Miers for a number of years strengthens my belief that she is not only qualified, but a good choice for the job.
With respect to other possible nominees, I must once again point out that President Bush's poll numbers, while not as bad as they're being made out to be, still aren't wonderful. Whether President Bush has massive iron balls or not (he does, by the way), he and Karl Rove (I know, boo, hiss) both know that with mid-term elections only a year away, and with RINO mavericks like Lincoln Chafee and John McCain in the mix, a controversial, ultra-conservative nominee would not survive the nomination process, and that would be worse than a disagreement among conservatives over Ms. Miers. An attempt to use the "Nuclear Option" in this situation would fail, and that would expend more political capital than President Bush can afford to use.
As asinine as it may sound, the actor playing James Bond probably has about as much impact on my life as the population of the Supreme Court. Both of them are important to me, and in spite of their few mistakes, both President George W. Bush and Eon Productions have earned my tentative trust. I have no clue who Daniel Craig is, he's an unknown quantity in my world, but if Eon Productions, the experts in making great Bond films, say that Daniel Craig's the man for the job, I'm willing to have faith in their competence and buy into it. I also have no clue who Harriet Miers, but everyone who actually knows her, including many prominent conservatives, says that she's going to do a great job, and she's a great choice to fill the spot. That's about the best you can do, as far as I'm concerned.
President Bush has not sold out the American people or the conservative movement, and that is a fact. The rancor and vitriol that I'm seeing from fellow conservatives like Anachronism is, I think, largely like the reactions you get from the British, or from Marines, or from people in general: if there's nothing to bitch and complain about, people will make things up. I think this is a completely empty issue, I think that accusations that this will splinter the conservative movement are ridiculous, and I think that conservatives have better things to do than worry about whether or not Harriet Miers is "conservative enough", even if the staff of the National Review and the Weekly Standard are holding twenty-four hour prayer vigils for hellfire and brimstone to rain down on the White House.
As for me, I'll take my nominees shaken, and not stirred. (And no, that statement doesn't actually make any sense.)
I can't say that I've been a recipient of the James Bond legacy since it began; in fact, I came in rather late in the game, considering. Even so, I've done my best to catch up. I've watched most of the films at this point, and even read several of the books, which is more than most fans do. I've made it my mission to become a James Bond fan; it's a lifestyle, a following, that I've chosen, and that means that I have more dedication than people who have grown up with it, or who have had it thrust upon them by others. I have that beginner's passion, that will eventually shift into a tempered, mature enjoyment of the phenomenon.
And Daniel Craig? Well, I'm conflicted. I have no emotional investment in him; he's an unknown, a dark horse, and his film credits are unremarkable. He's a bona fide Englishman, which worked well in the case of Roger Moore, but was wholly unremarkable in the case of Timothy Dalton (let's face it, Dalton's Welsh, and Wales is to England (vice the U.K.) as California is to America), who was the worst Bond to date. He hasn't had a notable lead to speak of, and we don't know what he's capable of, good or bad. Basically, he could screw the whole deal for us, worse than the travesty that was "Die Another Day".
Even so, I have to have some level of faith in Eon Productions. They've made a helluva lot of great decisions, and they have a great record of making fantastic Bond films. They're responsible for the most enduring film franchise in the history of the world. The Eon producers, who either have long experience, or are descended from those who have long experience, in making decisions related to the Bond franchise have earned some degree of trust. Sure, there was Die Another Day. Sure, there was View to a Kill, quite possibly the worst Bond film ever made. However, the vast majority of the films, even those that weren't particularly compelling, were still better than the competition by a long shot.
So while I'm skeptical, and even a little bit frustrated, that someone with better credentials and a more solid acting record wasn't chosen, I understand that I'm not privy to all of the information and factors considered when selecting Brosnan's successor. When you boil it down, I'm just someone at the bottom of the food chain, and I'm not paid to make the big decisions because I don't have the experience, the credentials, or the authority to make such decisions.
Enter Harriet Miers. The situation is exactly the same. There are a couple of strikes here and there, all of them minor, that would lead one to consider Miers a questionable choice as a Supreme Court nominee. Her record is not as distinguished as that of a Miguel Estrada or a Janice Rogers Brown. There's a lot riding on the nomination, too; issues like gay "marriage", or abortion, or the treatment of terrorist detainees in the War on Terror. She's been chosen to fill the large shoes of Sandra Day O'Connor, a historic, respected justice.
I can admit, it's frustrating to me that President Bush didn't choose someone else; I would have loved Janice Rogers Brown or a Priscilla Owen to succeed Justice O'Connor. Even so, after considering it for a while, the context of President Bush's decision became clearer, and I began to understand some of the reasons why it was Harriet Miers who was nominated for this important position. Since I love bulleted lists, here's one.
With respect to other possible nominees, I must once again point out that President Bush's poll numbers, while not as bad as they're being made out to be, still aren't wonderful. Whether President Bush has massive iron balls or not (he does, by the way), he and Karl Rove (I know, boo, hiss) both know that with mid-term elections only a year away, and with RINO mavericks like Lincoln Chafee and John McCain in the mix, a controversial, ultra-conservative nominee would not survive the nomination process, and that would be worse than a disagreement among conservatives over Ms. Miers. An attempt to use the "Nuclear Option" in this situation would fail, and that would expend more political capital than President Bush can afford to use.
As asinine as it may sound, the actor playing James Bond probably has about as much impact on my life as the population of the Supreme Court. Both of them are important to me, and in spite of their few mistakes, both President George W. Bush and Eon Productions have earned my tentative trust. I have no clue who Daniel Craig is, he's an unknown quantity in my world, but if Eon Productions, the experts in making great Bond films, say that Daniel Craig's the man for the job, I'm willing to have faith in their competence and buy into it. I also have no clue who Harriet Miers, but everyone who actually knows her, including many prominent conservatives, says that she's going to do a great job, and she's a great choice to fill the spot. That's about the best you can do, as far as I'm concerned.
President Bush has not sold out the American people or the conservative movement, and that is a fact. The rancor and vitriol that I'm seeing from fellow conservatives like Anachronism is, I think, largely like the reactions you get from the British, or from Marines, or from people in general: if there's nothing to bitch and complain about, people will make things up. I think this is a completely empty issue, I think that accusations that this will splinter the conservative movement are ridiculous, and I think that conservatives have better things to do than worry about whether or not Harriet Miers is "conservative enough", even if the staff of the National Review and the Weekly Standard are holding twenty-four hour prayer vigils for hellfire and brimstone to rain down on the White House.
As for me, I'll take my nominees shaken, and not stirred. (And no, that statement doesn't actually make any sense.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home