…apparently not.
Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on President Bush, and if I could still justify my vote for him. Clearly Bush is not a conservative on economics, take a look at the picture above - take a long good look at the picture above - he has spent more than Lyndon Johnson and the ‘great society’ (much more!)!!! I ask, on conservative economic grounds, how could anyone continue to support Bush?
Yes, okay, I know, we have to look at long term issues, the President picks judges, judges have much more affect on the economy and society than short term spending, and atleast on judges, Bush has continued to come through….so goes the argument. But has he? Has Bush really delivered on judges? Here was an opportunity for Bush to really make his mark on the court and he gave us Roberts and Miers. Miers!!! Conservatives, remember, are supposed to be against politicizing the court, we are supposed to believe in meritocracy, we are supposed to believe the court should be independent of politics, yet can any conservative say, with a straight face, that Miers was nominated because of anything else but cronyism? After the nomination of Miers, can we, as conservatives, continue to say we believe in a meritocratic society? After the nomination of Miers, can we, as conservatives, continue to say we are against politicizing the courts? After the nomination of Miers, can we, as conservatives, continue to say we believe the courts should be independent of politics? In short, after the nomination of Miers, can we, as conservatives, say we believe in anything else but blind allegiance to President Bush?
These are tough questions, and questions that require answers. I’ll tell you my answer, if Miers makes it to the Supreme Court my support for Bush is over.
More on the Cato Institute report here.
Very bold post HP. I give you a ton of credit for your honesty and consistency of opinion.
You hit the nail on the head with Miers for me. Unlike the secret behind the scene assertions of “trust me” that extremists like “Sponge Bob” Dobson say regarding, one can assume her abortion stance. The problem with Miers is her lack of qualifications, not her unknown stance on hot-button social issues like abortion.
Although she apparently reached the heights of her field as a corporate lawyer, she has know experience in constitutional law, the supreme courts job. It would be like selected a great dermatologist to examine your stomach ache.
I think she will almost certainly be confirmed.
1-Bush never admits mistakes so he will not witdraw her nomination.
2- Most democrats will vote for her, because they would rather have a Suter than a Thomas.
3- I don’t think you will get 51 Republicans to vote against Bush. There has rarely been a big enough rebellion. Even the torture vote, only had 46 Reblicans bucking the president.
4- The only way this will be stopped is if Miers removes her self which would be a defeat for Bush.
I’m afraid you may be right Michael.
WoW an honest re”bubba”can , first off ,I have know problem with spending , as long as there is something to show for it . In europe they are taxed to death but they dont complain , because they have free healthcare, cheap public tranportation, cheaper education, and can take 3 months vacation a year(which is paid in part buy the various governments) .My problem with bush is for all his spending, we have nothing to show for it , we have , high gas prices, a poor job market, a war that has lasted way to long , and a displaced population from the gulf states.
And as far as his picks on judges, who is suprised?
clarance unclethomas is still a crony for his father and we can only hope that bush’s brother from florida does not run and win , as jessi jackson warned us before “STAY OUT THE BUSHES” .
mortalez,
I wouldn’t use Europe as an example, afterall, most of Europe has double digit unemployment numbers, just think what our minority unemployment would be like with double digit national unemployment.
As far as the economy is doing overall, currently, it is doing very well, especially if you compare it to how it was doing under Clinton, but high budget deficits, especially when financed by foreign debt, is a burden for the next generation, and with medicare, social security and so forth coming up in the next few decades, it becomes even more worrisome.
As far as Clarence Thomas goes, he has proven to be one of the best judges on the Supreme Court.
Wow! HP - I never thought the day would come when you would write a post like this. Wow!
BTW - I am no fan of Miers either…
OK , I give a personal example, for 9 years I lived in akron ohio , that place had a 48% welfare population and 14% unemployment , but I was always able to find a job, infact usually on the day I started looking , then I got divorced and moved back to my hometown of ft.worth TX. bush was governer here then and unemployment was at 3% but it took me 3 months to find a job.
I fail to see how you think the job market was worse under clinton, during those time me and everyone I know was working, entry level/starting over workers were making more than in any other time. The economy now is in the tank , if you have a rotten job you are forced to stay with it longer , because we are in a labor surplus(for those who dont know a surplus is a bad thing), under clinton there was a economic boom that caused a labor shortage(which is a good thing), during a labor shortage there are more jobs than people to fill them so the worker can write his own check , demand better working condictions, demand more money , better hours , better benifits, etc etc ….
Everybodies personal experience may vary, but based on the actual national numbers, comparison to comparison, we are better off now, see here and here.
there you go again. Now i have my sister emailing me to check out HP’s blog. I told you to check yourself on that! LOL
Oh trust me, it’s not my outstanding looks, or great writing skills that have her praising me, it’s my bashing of Bush.
Nothing like a lil Bush bashing to get us all hugging. On this note, Bush deserves it though.
Sir,
Love your weblog, but I believe in this case it comes down to pragmatism. I’m a conservative idealist at heart. But I also know that in we often have to make compromises to achieve progress. Miers is clearly a compromise. But with her as nominee I believe we’re thisclose to actually shifting the balance of court power away from the libs. Pragmatically speaking, that is.
mark-o balance of power is not with dems. 7 of 9 appointees were by Rep pres. Historically relative to the Brandeises, Frankfurter’s etc. the so called moderates like Kennedy and O’Connor would have been at the far right.
HP - how is economy under Bush better than Clinton. I don’t have the numbers handy, but the last I looked at the numbers, granted not recently, since I can’t listen to bad news so long, the number of jobless Americans is higher under Bush as is unemployment rate, poverty rate is higher under Bush, inflation rate is higher under Bush, deficit is higher under Bush. Median houusehold income is lower under Bush. Median GNP growth rate is lower under Bush than CLinton.
Can you give me the source of your numbers?
mark-o, alot of assumptions in your response. How certain are you that Miers would shift the court in any direction at all? She could be, for all we know, another Souter. Also, aside from the way the court is shifted, there is also the much bigger ‘compromise’ of principles, Bush may have broken the record on cronyism, nominating the first Supreme Court justice that has, as the primary qualification, been being a friend of the current president.
Michael, see here and here.
well lets see , under clinton we had a surpluss under bush we are back in the red .
And yes as stated before , the paycheck to paycheck crowd did better under clinton , even republicans admitt the working class has yet to see this “better economy” and when you call them on it , they always say “employment numbers are a lagging indicator of the over all economy” , well I have news for them , employment numbers IS the economy for the working class, no other figures matter , stock pricess dont drive the economy , people do . When people have faith in their jobs , when they are not in fear of being laid off , they buy more things , in the economy we have today people only buy what they need and maybe a little more , but when they feel safe in their job they buy what they want because they know(or think) they can afford it in the long run .
You’re right under the surplus, but surpluses and deficits dont have immediate impacts, they have long term impacts. So we haven’t seen the negative affects of Bush’s deficits, our children will see those.
As far as paycheck to paycheck, there has been a significant increase, it has just gone primarily to increased health care costs.
But I agree, employment numbers is what matters, and on that figure of merit, Bush is better than Clinton.
Well, I could have told you not to vote for him.
But I agree, employment numbers is what matters, and on that figure of merit, Bush is better than Clinton.
From Buearau of Labor Statistics
Average % of civilian labor force employed under Clinton’s budgets (1993 - 2001) 63.6%
Average % of civilian labor force employed under Bush’s’s budgets (2002-2004) 62.6%
I don’t have YTD ‘05, but given the low increases until Sept and decrease in Sept, it did not catch up.
Averages are very misleading, they take into account the ups and downs of the economy, and we both know that Bush has had many more downs that were completely unrelated to his presidency than did Clinton.
Which is why getting the unemployment numbers lower than they were with Clinton, makes the Bush economy that much more stronger.
It was clear to me that economics was governor Bush’s weakness when when he campaigned for the Presidency.
But I’ve come to the view that he is a genius when it comes to political economics broadly; with what I’ve learned during this debate and recalling now what I read in the President’s book, A Charge To Keep.
If you really don’t think that the selection of Ms. Miers is the product of a meritocracy then you probably will be pleasantly surprised. Yes, I realize that I am flat out contradicting you. I want to make the case that I am doing it with more information than you have in your contradiction of President Bush, here.
Please consider what I have to say, and if you still think I’m wrong or if you are ashamed to admit that you are right now I will not say one word to you about this again.
HP, I’m going to bed right now, but I hope that tomorrow I see a reply to my argument in defense of Harriet Miers. I’ll be back.
Hey SV,
I am currently working really hard on a HW assignment that is due tomorrow morning, and since my glancing over your post saw it to be lengthy, I will reply sometime later in the afternoon tomorrow.
Thanks for chiming in.
that little graph made my day!
Hey SV,
I read your post, and you make a good point about the ‘outsider’ side about Miers. Point taken, but I still think that the overwhelming case against her outweighs this one small ‘advantage’ (assuming for the moment it truly is one).
She is clearly not a shining star even amongst outsiders, and if it wasn’t for her connection to Bush, she would not have gotten picked, you know it and I know it, so lets stop pretending otherwise. The criticism of her is not something said by those that don’t know her, but primarily by those that do know her, specifically conservatives that worked in the Bush administration. I’ve even read that in the White House, rumor has it that she was moved up as a way to get rid of her, a practice that is common in government agencies where it is hard to fire someone, the easy thing to do is ‘promote them out’.
As far as her war on terror experience, that is actually a liability not a strength, since she would have to rescues herself from those cases, and as far as waiting until confirmation, John Fund writes on that.
I would write more, but I am extremely busy as of late, but hopefully this addresses the gist of your post.
HP: interesting chart. What’s discretionary spending?
Discretionary spending is the optional spending provided by congress and, unless vetoed, approved by the white house.
In a nutshell, it is the government spending that Bush has control over.
Miers is out of the picture now.