Wallowing in the Miers

Someone had to throw in a Doors allusion. Cut me some slack.


It is truly thrilling to see so many conservative pundits and the like balking over the nomination of Harriet Miers. The Democrats are probably wise to be holding back with their criticism and allowing the President to stew in his own mediocrity. The likelihood of this nomination being successful is extremely slim and that is quite a good thing.

A couple of things are a bit off about Bush’s choice for an unheard of second Supreme Court nomination in the span of one term. People are batting about the whole crony-ism thing and right they should. However, this has been a standard method of operation for this administration from day one. There is nothing new about this so lets move on and look beyond the obvious.

Harriet Miers is well suited to the process she is about to enter. She was one of those chiefly responsible for preparing Chief Justice Roberts for his confirmation hearings. So, this could be a selection, for Bush’s part, of convenience and ease. From this we can interpret two possible motivations. Firstly, the administration is limping right now. Some would say they are on the ropes. Don't we wish. It is enough to say that they have a lot on their plates and this seemed to them, in a pinch, to be a good choice. She is, after all, an evangelical Christian, pleaseth the base. It is well known that the President would much rather go with a person he trusts than a person who is actually qualified for the job (remember “Brownie”). Seeing as how Miers prepped Roberts for his hearings, this seemed (inside the bubble, mind you) like a good choice.

To me, this does not seem like a good choice. It is more likely a lazy and duplicitous choice. There is a strong pull to install a woman on the court given the O’Conner legacy. Bush’s base is largely Christian and he, himself, comes from an evangelical background. So Miers should make the base happy. Right? With people obsessing over Roe v. Wade, it would seem clear which side of the isle Ms. Miers is on. However, when we look past the surface, we see that there is not much depth. I hate to admit it, but Pat Buchanan is right when he cites that this woman has never gone on record as taking a position on any of the major cases of our time.

So we have a nominee with no discernible record of opinion. And she has been nominated to a job where opinion is the paramount and sole product. The President says he knows this woman. Fine. He also says he “knows” that she will not change over then next 20 years. This latter statement is as false as it is frightening. Philosophically this is a gross misstatement. Everyone changes. Be it physically or whatever. So, yet another obtuse statement misapplied by the leader of the free world. Also, the demands of Supreme Court Justice would force change in an individual. To give an opinion for the highest court in the land is quite different than to give one on the part of one’s self. To say that she is not going to change over the next twenty years should be a tremendous red flag that suggests the potential for stagnancy and lethargy. I would think the most arch conservative would want a Supreme Court Justice to be pragmatic, weigh all the facts and be willing to make the best decisions for the greater good of the nation. If seeing a case through to the greater good requires some change, so be it and all the better for the country.

One could say that this choice of nominee is so bad that it could be a screen for something else. With the President’s approval rating in the 30’s, perhaps the administration is looking to get some of the focus taken off its more damning blunders and smudges. It would be a hell of a thing for the office of the President to deliberately lose a poker hand to distract the dealer from the stench in the room.

We all know how short the attention span of the American public is. Lets just keep our fingers crossed.

AP Errors or Bush Freudians?

Am I reading this correctly? Look at the third paragraph. The AP quotes President Bush as saying ''We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iran,'' Bush said. ''An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations.'' Color me confused.

Do we have troops in Iran? Have I been so pummeled by bad news and executive buffoonery that I somehow missed the invasion or Iran? Or, is it the more likely case that President Bush was riffing and merely gave over to verbal diarrhea and let some secret chicken out of the coop.

Do we have diplomatic engagement with Iran over the nuclear issue? I thought so. Are they a viable threat to the United States? I thought not. In fact, wasn’t it just determined that Iran was, at least technologically, years away from being able to attain nuclear weapons? ... Yes, the last time I checked, for whatever that is worth.

Good lord this is upsetting.

Bush goes on to say that as long as he is President, “we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism.” Well, that settles that. Now my fears are somewhat more confirmed than they already were. Comparisons to the Vietnam War are all too common when referring to the situation in Iraq. However, I would think that this statement by the only chief executive of this nation to be installed by the Supreme Court and not the people of the United States portends of the analogy being applied to the War on Terrorism in general.

Vietnam was not winnable. You know why. For those who are raising a quizzical eyebrow, dig this. Vietnam had a centuries long history of invasion, subjugation and colonialization by bunch of different countries, China and France being the biggest offenders. When America came in, the Vietnamese just saw them as another colonialist invading power. It had nothing to do with politics or ideology for them. It was about sovereignty and stopping the violation of their land. Communism was just an organizational tool. The US was fighting something stronger than them. They were fighting an idea and resentment that was hundreds of years old. The Vietnamese would have fought to the last child if they had to. Nothing could have broken that resolve.

Once again, we are involved in a conflict in part of the world where we do not (at least our President doesn’t) fully understand the general perceptions and ethos of the culture we are trying to “save” and democratize. This may seem like pulling dirt out of history’s dustbin, but the Crusades are still very present in the minds of many Arabs. So, once again, you have an invader stomping in and telling them how its going to be. It won’t fly. I will eat my hat if democracy sticks in Iraq.

And Bush is thinking about Iran?

Does the Arab world hate the infidel? Sure. Is that xenophobic, wrong and generally stupid? To us, sure. To them, heck no. We can thank the British, Spanish and Christianity in general for that. We, the United States of America, one of the younger nations on the world stage, march over to the fertile crescent and silk road lands, like true sophomores and think we can fix stuff, mold them in our democratic image? We can’t even get a President properly elected.

The same rules don’t apply in this war game. When people are willing to strap bombs to their chest to get us out, that’s a sign that we don’t belong. When the rules of the game are that different for the two teams playing, that strongly suggests that the game can’t be won. Our President’s myopia is costing us precious lives, truckloads of money and more good will than we can ever recoup. George W. Bush’s choices have written a check that no matter how big of an ass he may be, that ass cannot cash.

You can't kill an idea or attitude with a gun. Just a person. And, as their blood spreads, so does their idea.

BTW, I thought Maureen Dowd was good today.