Miers Epitomizes Bush Administration
Posted by
Kevin
I don’t have anything intelligent to say about Miers at this point. I suspect she is right wing, but not insane, on issues of presidential power and business regulation. I also suspect that she is going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I haven’t had a lot of time to look into her record, such as it is. I am sure I will have more to say as more information comes out about her. But I do know that this pick epitomizes Bush’s decisions making process.
It is pretty clear that Miers real qualification is that Bush likes her. In much the same fashion that Cheney gained Bush’s confidence and got himself anointed Vice President, so did Miers, who was supposed to be running the Supreme Court search, get herself appointed to the Court. Bush is, fundamentally, a weak person. He has never had to suffer the consequences of failing by himself. He paid no real price for his dereliction of duty in the Guard. None of his business failings have cost him anything — there was always one of Daddy’s friends to bail him out, and another of Daddy’s friends to give him yet another chance to ruin a business. Since Congress has been under the control of the GOP, he hasn’t had to face serious scrutiny of his actions. He has even had a cult of personality built up around him that has protected him from the displeasure of activists on the right.
That is not a life that has instilled in Bush an appreciation for talent, or skill, or intelligence, or dedication. Bush has never had to have any of those things. What has mattered in his life are connections. His name has provided him with a ready made stable of people willing to do almost anything for him or say almost anything to him in order to get ahead. Bush hasn’t ever had to hire for quality, nor take his responsibilities seriously. The reason an unqualified hack like Brown can get appointed to a critical position like the head of FEMA is the same reason that a crony like Miers: because Bush likes who he likes, and has never had to consider the fact that who he likes might not be a good choice for the job.
The right wing crying about being betrayed by Bush is amusing. It as if they thought the evidence of his entire life was some grand political head fake. They expected the flighty, weak, coddled child of too much privilege to suddenly become a Great Man, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They voted for an empty suit, and they are now surprised when the empty suit turns to other empty suits for support and approval. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad for the country.
I guess that’s the right of being President - you can nominate your buddies to positions of power.
However, I tend to agree with you - nominate those persons who you both trust and those who have the necessary qualifications. Unfortunately, I suppose Bush has chosen trust over qualifications for more than one position in his administration…
Comment 10/4/2005
I Don’t even think she will vote to fully overturn Roe V Wade. The GOP has built it’s whole platform around having things both ways. They invite the fundamentalists in with much sound and fury about regulating sexuality, but when it really comes down to it what have they done in the last 5 years. Banned one late-term proceedure and did so in a manner they KNEW would tossed out by the courts.
In 2004 it worked perfectly for them: Bush gave the right code signals “Dread Scott” was my favorite. And the Anti-Abortion crew rallied to the cause. At the same time the 50% of the GOP were convinced that Bush really wasn’t THAT conservative. He and Laura had been sending out signals to the moderate wing, “The nation isn’t ready yet” , type stuff. He got to have it both ways before the election.
Reality has struck, but now that Bush is in his second term he can nominate another Souter and fegin surprise to the base when she switches sides on some social issues without too much consequence.
What I find more interesting is that this has clearly shown the fault lines between those who are serious anti-abortion cusaders and who is just trying to get votes for the GOP. I’m a little surprised by Dobson, I though he was more than just a show-boat.
Comment 10/4/2005
You touch on another point: Bush can’t make his own decisions, and has always - knowingly - left his thinking up to others. He boasts that he only gets his news from what his own aides tell him, and he ostentatiously makes himself their puppet in all his incessant photo stagings on aircraft carriers, military bases, Mount Rushmore, and everywhere else. He played the fool on the Iraqi WMD issue, his run-and-hide behavior on 9/11, “Mission Accomplished”, and on and on. Whenever an issue of substance or a question of factual truth arises, he bungles it. The reason is that he allows himself to be told what to do by keenly self-interested operatives, and hasn’t the strength, vision, or knowledge to be his own man.
Now, on two of the three most important appointments he has ever had to make, he has allowed the person designated to review candidates for him nominate themselves to the highest jobs the nation has to offer, and he has blithely accepted that obvious idiocy without objection! Anyone else would have sent the person who made such an arrogant and manipulative recommendation spinning into the gutter. Bush just doesn’t know any better.
Comment 10/4/2005
Kevin:
That’s slightly twisted. Of course any President listens to experts and has trusted advisors. There’s a giant leap from listening to advisors to letting them use you as a puppet. Gimme a break - you’re drinking the kool aid on this.
And I’m sure if I were President, I’d be hesitant about the amount of news reading I would partake in when there will always be detractors, such as yourself, willing to bash. Why read the mainstream news when, as President, I can get all the news I want?
Part of my respect for Bush is that he doesn’t wait for the wind to blow and let poll numbers or wag-the-dog situations dictate his decisions - like other Presidents I know…
Your post is clearly marked with emotion. It’s your perogative, I suppose.
Comment 10/4/2005
Fred, knock it off with the attacks.
Comment 10/4/2005
Obviously no one here is doing a good job convincing the other that his or her position is the most reasonable on the issues. Nonetheless, personal attack does not further the cause, does it? I suspect you will be taken less seriously if you resort to personal attacks.
If anyone here gets offended when someone bashes Bush or takes offense when one thinks Kanye West is a loony, then none of us has anything better to do.
Perhaps we should all keep in mind that we all have our passionate beliefs and *react* to blatant bashing, so let’s keep it to the civil arguments.
Comment 10/4/2005
Maybe I have become hyper-suspicious in the last five years, but I am worried that all the noise and anger coming from the conservatives may be just so much crap. Is is possible that they DO trust Dubya, and want Miers on the court? Is there just a possibility that they are screaming so that the left will relax, and let them screw us again? Maybe not, but I am not about to turn my back on them in the shower, and if I SHOULD drop the soap, I’m not picking it up.
Comment 10/4/2005
Wacko, what did I tell you? The openminded liberal censor has taken my posts off. He is afraid that my questions and comments will upset his self-serving little world. His double standard is typical of liberals.
Comment 10/4/2005
Fred, again, that’s the perogative of the owners of this site, but I do think it’s rather weak.
Nonetheless, it does not have to be a democracy. Start your own blog and then you can play the same game.
Personally, I have only “edited” posts when they contained curses. So far I have not received too many personal attacks on my site, but I guess I too can do whatever I want.
Comment 10/5/2005