"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Desperate Assertions by Team Bush

I've just read a transcript of the Today show interview between Matt Lauer and President Bush and wife (forgive me for not linking).

What has left me more appalled than ever are the terrible arguments made in favor of Ms. Miers by those who love her most for the position of Supreme Court Justice. Here are the key assertions made by the Bushes this morning:

1. "Harriet Miers is the single most qualified candidate for the nomination."

Ulp, urrrk . . . I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. I mean, did anybody notify the the Guinness Book people? I think Bush just broke the record for least plausible political statement set by Bill Clinton with his thing about abortion being "safe, legal, and RARE."

2. "The conservative opposition to Ms. Miers is likely sexist in nature."

Is there any way to respond to this with a straight face? Does anybody believe that a Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones nomination would have aroused the atomic opposition of legal conservatives? Noooooooooooooooooo.

Meanwhile, the normally very astute Hugh Hewitt keeps saying, "Trust the President. He has his reasons. He knows her. Trust him." In Hewitt's view, that wascally Bush is going to outfox the Dems again.

I'm looking at things a bit differently. Remember Bush 41? He made a deal with the Democrats on tax increases and destroyed his presidency politically. That brings us to the third assertion in the interview:

3. "I listened to people who said it's time to bring in someone from outside the judiciary."

Who might have been saying that? I'm guessing Dems and maybe RINO's. The Harry Reid "delighted" response was a bit of a dead give-away. Thus, instead of doing the Reagan thing, Bush is doing just like dear-old Dad and is making unhelpful deals with the other team that will destroy him.

What I'm saying is that Harriet Miers is "No New Taxes" all over again. (If Bush has learned anything, it seems to be "wait until the second term to piss off the base.")

This little bit of compromise is particularly damaging because Bush's bond with the conservative movement has involved a huge helping of "Trust me."

Given the uncertain status of the war in Iraq and a bloated federal government, I'm fresh out of trust. What I needed was a slam-dunk, not another relationship test.

8 comments:

Tlaloc said...

I've read in a couple places that the Bush team had a different choice (probably Owens) who backed out at the last minute (as in friday before the announcement) leading to a frantic search and the Miers result.

Honestly I'm not sure if that should be seen as better or worse, and of course it isn't proven just a theory with some corroborating statements.

James Elliott said...

I think it's interesting that no one mentions Maureen Mahoney as an alternative to Miers. Probably because Mahoney, so fine a Supreme Court litigator she's been dubbed "the female John Roberts," isn't a strict constructionist crackpot.

Jay D. Homnick said...

Ooh, Hunter, I love it when you get mad...

Hunter Baker said...

Tlaloc, I've heard the rumor about someone backing out, but I don't think it's true. They could always just stop the process if that happened. Besides, there are several qualified women on the so-called short list.

I think Bush just did what one WSJ writer referred to as nominating himself to the court.

Tlaloc said...

Don't know, just thought I'd throw it out there as a possibility.

Maybe if we can keep the GOP out of power so we can actually get access to presidential papers we'll be able to find out some day.

Hunter Baker said...

Tlaloc, I'm now hearing you may be right and that multiple women may have refused the nomination.

On Maureen Mahoney, James she has been suggested by Weekly Standard, so don't jump to conclusions.

James Elliott said...

That's nice to hear. Between RC and the National Review, I find that I can handle only so much regular reading of Right-leaning publications. =]

Tlaloc said...

I rather like Tech central station personally. I know they are libertarian and not truly right but since the libertarians have mostly thrown in with the GOP of late I feel free in putting them in that catagory.

Don't get me worng, about half their articles are laughably naive, but it's the fact that the other half are well thought out andwritten that brings me back.