"A Rosa Parks moment" for conservatives?

(Welcome visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

Washington Times editor Tony Blankley calls the successful opposition to the Miers nomination a “Rosa Parks moment” for the “conservative opposition.” Conservatives:

refused to give up our seat on the bus even for a Republican president. Something important happened last week for conservatism -- and thus for the broader political scene.
<….>
(Such) broad, shoulder-to-shoulder conspicuous conservative opposition to a Republican president advocating a not liberal nomination or position is, I think, without precedent.
<…>
Whenever a seminal political event such as this happens, politicians and activists rush in to try to publicly explain and exploit it in a manner useful to their political objectives.
<…>
From the unctuous, faux-humble, faux-everyman Sen. Harry Reid, to the ever clever, ever-striving Sen. Charles Schumer, to their automaton stenographers in the mainstream media, this event was characterized as the triumph of the hard-right, extreme, radical, fundamentalist Christian, anti-abortion, doctrinaire, out-of-the-mainstream right wingers.
<…>
But in fact, the conservative coalition that defeated Miss Miers' nomination last week is the same broad based movement that has elected its candidate president in five of the last seven elections, elected 28 currently sitting governors and a Republican congress for the last decade.

Today, 34 percent of Americans are self-described conservatives, while only 19 percent are self-described liberals. When one adds only the most conservative third of the remaining 47 percent of self-identified moderates to the self-proclaimed conservatives, one has a voting majority in an American election.

So when they say we are out of the mainstream, they are using words in a manner inconsistent with reality. (Not for the first time, Tony. – JinC)

If there was a uniting theme to the conservative opposition, it wasn't anti-abortion, or any particular substantive issue.

Rather, conservatives respect the law. We have deeply resented its misuse for the last 70 years by clever and willful liberals who would usurp the law for their own policy purposes.
<…>
This was a revolt for excellence. It was a revolt for a faithful scholar of the law. It was a moment of high faith in reason, and in the blessings that will flow from a fair and wise reading of our founding document.

I’m with Blankley on a lot of what he says. But I wish he had spoken more in terms of conservatives having led a broad coalition which included independents and liberals who respect the law every bit as much as conservatives.

Independents and liberals for whom fairness and constitutional principles trump partisanship are often ignored in discussions of political and social issues.

I’ll say more soon about why I think that happens.