George Bush has finally confirmed my belief that he's become a lame duck. Presidents define the agenda and lead the nation where their vision takes them. Lame ducks have their agenda defined for them.
The pick of whatshername to the Supreme Court is the culmination of a month that's seen Bush asleep during a national disaster, a congressional agenda that seems to be driven solely by pork, and endless meandering in Iraq. You'd almost think that the man's drinking again. It's increasingly hard to explain how a president that was so recently re-elected has so completely lost control of the agenda.
Katrina hits, and everyone looks to the President and he's where? And saying what? Trust my people? And then it turns out his people are clueless mediocrities and frauds. This may help explain Iraq, too: his people there haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. If it was a war for oil, you'd at least think we'd have oil.
Now he appoints his former staff secretary and crony to the US Supreme Court. Why? Hard to say. It can't be because everyone who heard the idea thought it brilliant. Usually Republican senators are lining up to applaud the President's choice. Not this time. The dog that didn't bark.
The best -- best -- argument being made is "Trust the President."™ If only. I trusted him on McCain-Feingold. I trusted him on fiscal responsibility. I trusted him to fight and win the war in Iraq. I trusted him to hire competent people. But, above all, I trusted him to appoint more justices like Thomas and Scalia. OK, Roberts wasn't quite what I wanted, but we all knew that was a strong choice and could be very good. But. This. Sucks.
I'm done with Bush. The man who came into office as a compassionate conservative has revealed himself to be, instead, a fiscal liberal whose only connection to the right are his occasional forays into Christian demogogery. I kept telling myself, yes, he's screwed up foreiggn policy, and his domestic policy is either comatose or spendthrift, but at least he'll deliver on his promise of dragging the Supreme Court to the right. Now this. A dumber O'Conner, if you can believe it.
The two worst nominees for the Court in my lifetime were Fortas (a crony) and Carswell (unqualified). Now we get an unqualified crony.
Time for someone to rally the Republicans in the Senate. Paging John McCain.
Posted by Kevin Murphy at October 4, 2005 12:25 AMI'm not any happier with yesterday's pick than you are, but I'm not sure I buy the notion that Miers is "a dumber O'Connor." She's probably no worse than O'Connor; the problem is this was an opportunity to appoint someone better.
Posted by: Xrlq at October 4, 2005 06:35 AM"forays into Christian demogogery" ?!
Posted by: clark smith at October 4, 2005 07:43 AMPattrico--
I'm involved in a new startup and it's been sucking my time. That nomination got the fires buring again, though.
Clark--
There are a number of points to the Christian social agenda that make a lot of sense to me -- mainly the need for a moral centering that we seem to have lost. But Bush only seem to pander the the red-meat issues: abortion, gays, etc, rather than to the underlying moral weakness of society.
xrlq--
The more I hear, the more I'm convinced that Meirs is not an O'Connor, so you've got a good point. Just that she's not as qualified as O'Connor, and seems to be more of a lightwieght appointment all around. My real fear is that she's a religious statist -- the Christian thing doesn't make it better or worse. Maybe that's what I should expect from a President whose only claim to conservatism is on the social agenda. Can't think of a single fiscal conservative act since the tax cuts, and certainly nothing on the libertarian axis.
Passing over at least 10 eminently qualified jurists in favor of a crony is madding. Excuse the hyperbole, but this just sucks.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 4, 2005 07:24 PMI read on another site (Pattrico) where you mentioned that the Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression in parts of MS. It is pretty much known as that throughout most of the South for that matter, it comes mainly from a historical Southern view of the war and its catastrophe following called Reconstruction. Southern history is my hobby and despite how rich and colorful it is, we can clearly see the failures of the Yankees to follow through on any of their plans to help the former slaves and reunite the country. Note that they have had over 140 years to do so. I think the failures of the federal government in post 1865 america are very evident today. For example, look at the current natural disaster, Katrina, and look at all those blacks who didn't get out of the city and left behind. Everyone elsewhere outside of the deep south was shocked about, "just WHERE did all those poor black people come from?" Well, they've been here since the Union left them and didn't do anything to help them out, but give them the scraps from the table for the past near century and a half. But many who have written articles, scholarly and diatribes have noted this fact numerous times. Such authors often refer to the era of the Civil War (not the start of all the issues to be sure, nor the end) as the 'War of Northern Agression' to help others see their perspective on the Southern side of the war. I do not know if its right to do so, but its common to do so. I have no idea what the Native Americans called the War, Pale face vs. Pale face? Who knows? I reckon that if you weren't involved or not forced to learn about it, nor is it part of your culture, it doesn't really matter. I think often times in these things people miss the big picture, whatever that may be.
Posted by: John at November 27, 2005 09:37 PM