"Ms. Miers has not been a judge, but I regard that as a strength, not a weakness." --Harry Reid, D-Nevada
"I know her well enough to say that she's not going to change; 20 years from now, she will be the same person with the same philosophy as today." -- George W. Bush
"the worst damn-fool mistake I made as president." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower on his appointment of Earl Warren as CJOTSCOTUS
It floored me when I learned of Miers nomination. Not so much because it was her, but because of who was extolling her virtues. Harry Reid. I was hoping to hear about a nominee that Harry hated. Then I could be pretty sure that the nominee at least wasn't a communist. Likewise, I would want someone that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and their friends hate. Instead, I'm hearing that Bill Kristol, George Will, David Frum, and Rusty Limbaugh have a problem with this.
I didn't say much here about the Roberts nomination, but I am now marvelling at how the same president nominated both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Bush-41 was one for two in his appointments, perhaps Bush-43 wanted to share that legacy too. Roberts could become the only real accomplishment of Bush's tenure (and that is all in the hands of Roberts now) but that possibility is amplified by the contrast between the two.
For a president who is wrong more often than he is right (recall: Social Security Privatization, Patriot Act, Immigration Amnesty), I suppose that we should feel lucky with one out of two. It just seems too much like the schoolyard playground situation where you need someone for right field, and so you pick your buddy because you don't know the other players.
3 comments:
I'm not sure I'd agree that social security privatization and the Patriot Act are bad Bush ideas, I support privatization, and the majority of the Patriot Act is really not controversial if you understand it. It primarily allows the law concerning wire taps and such to catch up with both technology and the way terrorist cells operate. Granted, the immigration policy of this administration is an absolute travesty, as is the Medicare Prescription Drug plan, both reek of Big Spending Liberal New Society liberals. If that's what Bush calls Compassionate Conservatism, I'm looking for a bit more of the old "screw-em all" conservatism.
But Bush really did drop the ball on Meiers. Some of it is a response to the Democrats, their refusal to let qualified appelate court candidates get a vote, their obstructionist fillibustering, has made Bush gunshy. His fellow Republicans in the Senate haven't helped, their weak, RINO, spineless response to the Democrats obstructionism hasn't helped him think he'd get any support from his own party. The "nuclear option" should have been exercised in order to put this misuse of the Senate fillibuster to bed months ago. If that'd been done, we might have had a decent nominee, like Janice Rogers Brown, instead of a dark horse like Meiers. With the awful precedent of Kello hanging over us, someone who strongly supports property rights, like Brown, would have been a better choice.
Welcome to the blog, Severian. Glad to get someone else interested in a meaningful discourse here.
Let's address first the Social Security thing. In March I posted my problem with Social Security.
http://wizersblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/social-security.html
I have a few additional points to make on top of that: If privatization of social security is such a good idea, why are we piddling around with 4% out of 16? Why not make the whole thing eligible for privatization? Is it because we are trying to "save people from themselves?" Might as well declare FDR for sainthood, then, because it makes the lefties' point for them.
The complexity of managing two SS accounts instead of one negates any of the value, and the plan ultimately does not accomplish privatization in any real sense.
My problem with the Patriot Act comes from the new bureacracy of high-tech snoops created out of thin air.
One definition (from Wikipedia) of people eligible to be snooped on are those that "appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population"
I might trust one administration to make a valid assessment on that basis, but maybe not the next one. Under some people's definitions, Sean Hannity is then a terrorist.
As of this date, 400 people have been charged, and many of those with charges unrelated to terrorism. For this we need a big honkin' bureacracy on top of the NSA, BATF, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and never mind the clandestine stuff?
For 400 bad guys? That's a ratio any other police dept would scoff at. I'm all for giving the cops the tools they need; but I don't think the Patriot Act is an efficient use of time money or people.
Finally, we agree about Miers. She was not a strong pick by any stretch, and W backed away from a necessary fight. Whereas Kelo was the last straw with the current court, Miers is the last straw with the current administration. George wants to stealth the rest of his agenda home, thinking that conservatives can't win any other way. Those of us who respect the constitution will have to wait for another time clearly see the re-establishment of a constitutional government.
I suppose it's appropriate here to close the book on Harriet Miers. There is no proof to the rumor that the senate republicans thoughtfully considered the Wizer's advice on the matter, -- this was not the only blog that carried the sentiment of the mainstream. Harriet is at the same time history, and proof that the system works.
Bush apparently learned from the mistake, and picked a guy who has the right credentials to do the job. Now it's up to the Senate republicans to do theirs.
Post a Comment