Thursday, October 06, 2005

Miers haters?

It has been six years since we first elected Bush, and I am not going to sit here and say that he has been a great conservative. He is no Reagan, we all agree on that. This being said there are two areas where I am a firm supporter of Bush, foreign policy and legacy. In twenty years Bush will be another name on a list of "good" presidents, and Bush knows this so he will not make the mistake his father's mistake and choose a Souter, it ruined his father's legacy and he will not let it ruin him.

I don't understand this sentiment that I have heard from you guys, from Rush, from all over that Bush went out into left field and did not pick one of the names on the "short list" that we had assembled for him. Since when has Bush listened to anyone other than the people closest to him. That is why we claimed to be his big supporters, he surrounds himself with experts and he manages these experts. Are our memories that short that we don't remember two months ago when these same commentators were saying the same thing about Roberts.

I don't claim to be a fundamentalist Christian, or even a good christian, but in my time in politics I have learned that there is nothing that is a sure a thing as a conservative vote by a fundamentalist Christian. This woman is a sure thing vote that will be approved 95-5, and will vote to overturn Roe, follow Scalia on most issues, and finally be the shift to the right that we all worked our butts off to ensure. Bush knows it, Rove knows it, and I think that once we get past the skepticism that we all naturally have to every appointment we know it too.


Blogger Steve said...

Who knows how she will turn out.

The problem is that we don't know for sure... that being said, let's just assume that she will vote conservative. I'm still not completely satisfied. Your comparison to Roberts is not valid here, because he was not close to Bush. His qualifications were evident to everyone.

The problem is that this sends a signal to conservative legal thinkers everywhere: if you try to advance what you believe in publically, forget a supreme court nomination. We were ready to pit our ideas against theirs, and this is (as I heard someone comment) a "bunt." Roberts, though he did not have a blatent conservative trail, was obviously a legal thinker with impecable abilities to argue for rulings based on the LAW. There are so many other candidates he could have chosen, I just cannot understand why he would chose his lawyer.

I don't know if we can trust Bush. We trusted him with spending, and he is worse than Clinton. Sure, we have majorities in the Senate and the House, but what good is that if we are spending more than the Democrats. Can you imagine if someone told you 6 years ago that the next president would enact a major expansion of Medicare and increase discretionary spending more than Clinton? I would have said, damn, I guess Al Gore won in 2000. Now, with Katrina, there was a great opportunity to re-evaluate our spending priorities and take a second look at pork-laden bills like the transportation. Where is the leadership here?

Foreign policy? Yes, I'm with Bush there. Tax cuts, yes. Some minor advanced in free trade. But after winning so much in the elections, there is so much more we could have done.

Look at some videos of Reagan. Everyone knows Reagan was a much better speaker... but he always talked about how government was not the solution to everything and government was too large. When do you hear Bush say this, let alone act on it. Reagan was able to make some (small) steps in CUTTING programs, and that was with a Democratic congress! What is going on here?

I feel betrayed, and I feel like all of our efforts last year were a waste. If the dems actually had a plan, they would win the next three elections for sure because I think our base is going to be so demoralized. We need to regroup and take a look at what our party stands for.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a major party realignment within the next 20 years... maybe the current parties dissolve or reorganize, but I could see free market people uniting under some umbrella.

Ok, there's my rant, I need to get back to work now.

10/06/2005 12:50 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

And let me add, it really does pain me to say this.

10/06/2005 12:52 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Steven, man I miss you buddy the arguments are always fun. But I think Rush is a little too much influence on you. First, Reagan who did he appoint to the court? Yeah I love Thomas and Scalia, but he also appointed Kennedy(see abortion and eminent domain vote) and O'Connor. So let's not act like Reagan is our Roosevelt, he is half a Roosevelt. He appointed two conservatives and two moderates. Roosevelt pulled the whole court so far to the left that only Ayn herself would be strong enough to bring it back.

Second, I agree one hundred percent on the spending, but that is political crap. Bush only has so much political capital and the point I am making is that he will use that capital for a legacy. There are two areas where legacy are most cemented, foreign policy and the Court.

No one will remember the huge amount of money we have pissed away on a city built underwater, but they will remember the basic freedoms that are taken away or upheld by a court, and the freedom of millions that we have fought for. That will be Bush's legacy.

10/06/2005 5:35 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

You are right about Reagan's nominations, but I am speaking more of a general disappointment with Bush. Reagan always talked about the importance of small government. That's what I thought Bush stood for, but I haven't seen hardly any of it. If you think the direction of our party is to be strong on national defense and conservative social issues, maybe I need to re-evaluate which party I align myself with... hence, my point about a political realignment. You say the spending is political crap, but what is the point of playing the political game if one of our key principals is being ignored when we own all branches of government! Again, Reagan did better and didn't have Congress.

I'm not making a national debt argument here, it has to do with the role of government in our society. After Reagan, people looked at government differently - it wasn't the answer for everything. WIth Bush, that doesn't seem to be the case.

So, with all of that in mind, throw on top of that the lackluster supreme court nomination, and that is why I am so disappointed.

I'm off to the bars.

10/06/2005 7:46 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

I agree with you on most everything you are saying about Bush, and about the party in general. We spend too much, we have too much pork, but all I am saying is that those shouldn't change your opinion on who Bush is going to pick for the Court. Newt, a politician I tend to agree with, and I think all of us do, said that he thinks this is a good pick for the same reasons I am, that Bush makes good appointments to big time posts.

10/07/2005 6:32 PM  
Blogger Nathan said...

I guess I personally am looking for someone who will not just be a "sure-vote." I think Roberts will be a "sure-vote" or damn close to it. But he will also make convincing arguments with his colleagues and the country as a whole. The evidence that Miers could do the same is just not there.

As I heard one conservative legal scholar remark, Scalia's opinions (especially his dissents), have influences a whole generation of law students as they read them and think, hey this guy might not be so far off-base.

As far as legacy-Bush's legacy might mimmick that of FDR in creating a shift on the supreme court. However, I fear that it will also mimmick FDR and LBJ in terms of government spending and intervention. We will be paying for Bush's spending for generations to come and if an R is not elected in 2008 kiss SS reform goodbye for quite some time.

Bush might have even blown it on tax cuts that are going to be very difficult to keep permanent, particularly if a D is elected in 2008.

On foreign policy, Bush has a lot of work to do to actually "cement" his legacy. As of now the cement is certainly not hardened.

10/10/2005 2:07 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

I disagree with your first statement (unless you mis-typed). I think a lot of people, including me, were expecting more than just a sure vote. We want someone like Scalia who will write opinions that will influence the country.

I have feeling, but not assurance, that Miers will be a sure vote but not a leading thinker.

10/10/2005 10:07 PM  
Blogger Nathan said...

reread the first statement..."I personally am looking for someone who will not just be a "sure-vote."

Note the, 'not just.'

10/10/2005 10:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home