Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Terrorism thwarted in London. More from Redstate.com and Power Line.

UPDATE: Scotland faces the threat. More from the Washington Post, New York Times, Power Line and Redstate.com.

Prominent film critic Joel Siegel passes away at 63.

Will the Supreme Court’s decision to limit the use of race in public-school assignments benefit the Republicans in 2008?

Hopefully, the ruling–and the critical role that Bush-appointed Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts played in the decision–will reaffirm the importance of the Supreme Court in the minds of conservative voters. I’ve been troubled over the past few months by comments on various conservative blogs suggesting that members of the GOP base will bail out on the party if an "insufficiently conservative" candidate wins the GOP nomination next year. As these rulings prove, few things are more important in Presidential elections than the question of who will control the Supreme Court.

While it shouldn’t be the case, the political and legal reality is that the Supreme Court is, for all intents and purposes, a third branch of Congress–and the most powerful branch. We have legalized abortion because of the High Court. It’s easier for a local government entity to take our house via eminent domain because of the Supreme Court. The Founders never intended for the Court to have this much power, but the Court does.

Even if the GOP base has been disillusioned by the Republican Party’s actions during the 2000s, it is of the utmost importance that conservatives work to prevent a Democrat President from controlling the Supreme Court between 2009 and 2013. Keeping the court conservative should be the second biggest priority for conservative voters (the first being the War on Terror). The pro-colorblindness ruling would not have happened without Bush placing Alito and Roberts on the bench. For all the talk about where Bush has been wrong, he’s certainly been right on judges. If the GOP nominee, even an "insufficiently conservative" one, vows (as Bush did) to put strict constructionists on the bench, conservatives must go beyond the extra mile to ensure his victory.

UPDATE: The American Spectator, Weekly Standard, David Limbaugh, Mona Charen, George Will and Power Line on the ruling.

The US Senate shoots down immigration reform. More from the Washington Post, Booker Rising, RedState.com, Power Line and Human Events.

In a huge victory for opponents of racial quotas, the US Supreme Court restricts the use of race in school assignments. More from Human Events, the Boston Globe, Power Line, the New York Times, David Bernstein, Redstate.com and the Washington Post.

UPDATE: More from the New York Times, Washington Post, Juan Williams, Matt Margolis, Human Events, the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe.

Fashion icon Liz Claiborne passes away at 78.

Despite the way things appear now, it’s very likely that the Republican Party’s conservative base will ultimately offer amnesty to President Bush.

The current spat over immigration will not damage Bush’s reputation among conservatives in the long run. Once Bush leaves office in January 2009, the right will recognize that the man’s flaws paled in comparison to his achievements.

If conservatives were willing to give Ronald Reagan a free pass despite his support for official amnesty in 1986, why would they hold Bush’s position on immigration against him when making their historical assessment of the man? It would be irrational for conservatives to declare that Bush’s liberalism on immigration outweighed his conservatism on taxation, the judiciary and antiterrorism efforts.

In a way, it’s good that conservatives are expressing their issues with Bush now, as opposed to attacking him after he departs the White House. Once anti-Bush grievances are aired, the right will be able to take a step back and appreciate the positive aspects of his administration.

With a year and half left to go in the President’s second term, conservatives must now prepare to make a “comprehensive evaluation” of the Bush years. Knowing that Democrats will try to present Bush in the worst historical light possible, it will be up to Republicans to point out that the country was safer under his watch post-9/11 than it would have been under a Gore administration.

Hopefully, conservatives will be able to set aside their differences with the President soon, because there is so much work to do to prevent the left from “officially” declaring Bush the worst President of all-time. Just as Democrats are willing to aggressively defend the Clinton years, so too must Republicans be willing to explain the benefits of Bush.

The task won’t be easy. His poll numbers are quite low, and the electorate now seems to believe that it made the wrong call in 2000 and 2004. Conservatives—in talk radio, in the blogosphere, in periodicals—must demonstrate that the decision to elect Bush was the right one, and that his actions with regard to the economy, the judiciary and national security will prove positive over the long term.

Conservatives must understand that they’re playing defense. In 2000 and 2004, they convinced Americans that Bush was the right choice. After he leaves office, conservatives must move past their quibbles with Bush’s quirks, and state for the historical record that he was the only choice.

So who hates President Bush the most now—the right or the left?

It would seem that the right has now outpaced the left in terms of anti-Bush contempt, as a result of Bush’s support for “comprehensive” immigration reform. However, it will take some time before conservatives can match progressives in disliking “Dubya.”

The right’s antagonism towards Bush is based solely on politics. Conservatives expected Bush to continue the effort Ronald Reagan started—the effort to establish fiscal, social, and national-security conservatism as the default position in Washington. Bush has repeatedly frustrated the right in this regard: while he’s hewed to the conservative line on tax cuts, judges, and the War on Terror, he’s broken faith with the right on such matters as education, Medicare and immigration. Add in controversies such as the Harriet Miers nomination and the Dubai Ports deal, and you have a recipe for conservative anger.

However, the left’s hatred for Bush is based more on personality than politics. Progressives have never been able to move beyond their view of Bush as a less-than-intelligent Bible-thumper born of privilege and indifferent to the needs of the “working man.” Just as the right regarded President Clinton as manifestly unqualified for the office, the left regards Bush as simply being inadequate for the job. Even if Bush won the 2000 election in a non-controversial fashion, the left would still despise him. Democrats may have denounced Reagan as a Bedtime for Bonzo President, but even the most fervent blue-stater had to give Reagan credit for his charisma and his rise from austere circumstances. Bush can never receive such credit, because he’s seen as “to the manor born.”

Bush’s actions have always been viewed by his political opponents through the lens of his perceived personality flaws. Iraq? The result of his supposed lack of intelligence. Katrina? The result of his alleged lack of compassion. Tax cuts? The result of his presumed disdain for the downtrodden.

Again, this is a mirror image of the way conservatives viewed Clinton—as a man whose questionable actions were the direct result of his personality flaws. Most progressives would be shocked if one pointed out that the left’s view of Bush is indistinguishable from the right’s view of Clinton. Yet, the evidence of such similarity is irrefutable.

Conservatives criticize Bush because they think he changed once in office, going back on his promises to the right and pursuing an ideologically inscrutable agenda. The left, however, feels that Bush is the same ineffective leader he was when he began his term—which is, of course, the exact same way the right thought of Clinton when he turned over the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to Bush in January 2001. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Popular professional wrestling star Chris Benoit passes away at 40.

Guy Vander Jagt, a prominent figure in the GOP during the 1970s and 1980s, passes away at 75.

States aren’t waiting around for the federal government to address the problem of illegal immigration.

Evan Almighty debuts on top. More from Leonard Klady.

I’m not sure what to make of this new trend I call "atheist chic."

Social conservatives have been up in arms over a series of new books (the most recent of which is Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great) that are harshly critical of organized religion. Earlier this month, evangelical Christian activist Charles Colson suggested that these new books are part of a coordinated attack on faith in America.

While I certainly understand the concerns of social conservatives who find these books objectionable, I’d suggest that the real motivation behind the publishing of these books has less to do with an anti-faith conspiracy and more to do with the Almighty Dollar.

Let’s be honest here: NONE of these pro-atheism books would have been published were it not for the success of Dan Brown’s 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. The authors of these books and the publishing houses that have put these works on the shelves know there’s a huge market out there for material that appeals to skeptics of organized religion.

Also, one can’t ignore the role that anti-Bush sentiment plays in the decision to produce these works. The publishing industry knows that most Europeans and half of the American electorate view the President as a religious fanatic who considers himself a friend of God. What better way to make money than to pander to those who believe that religion is ultimately responsible for Bush’s allegedly nefarious actions?

In addition, by producing these books, the publishing industry is trying to tap into American nostalgia for the 1990s. One can charitably describe the 1990s as a "secular" decade in American politics, just as one can fairly characterize the 1980s and 2000s as a "religious" decade in American politics. Those who hated the religiosity of the Reagan and Bush eras, and who miss the easy-going, non-judgmental Clinton years, can point to the books as "proof" that mixing religion and politics is inherently dangerous for our political system.

I fear that, once again, we will have a situation in which social conservatives overreact to a perceived threat, allowing that threat to become mainstream. The book and film versions of The Da Vinci Code never would have gained as much popularity as they did were it not for social conservatives’ high-profile criticisms of both. Sometimes I wonder if the social right realizes how dependent "anti-establishment" figures are upon their criticisms to help move product. Who would have ever heard of Elvis if 1950s-era preachers didn’t denounce him from the pulpit?

As hard as it may be–because their values are, of course, being directly attacked–it would be much wiser for social conservatives to ignore these books instead of giving them so much attention. They put millions into Brown’s pocket by going after Code. Why would they want to help these atheists hit the financial mother lode?

If most Americans really agree with Sen. Barack Obama’s view of the religious right, the Republicans could be in trouble next year. More from Redstate.com.

If most Americans really agree with Sen. Barack Obama’s view of the religious right, the Republicans could be in trouble next year. More from Redstate.com.