Harriet Miers - Opinions on Nomination?

[Have At You]

Corddry: Everything the president is doing is perfectly in keeping with the conservative ideal of limited government.

Stewart: How is what the president is doing limited government?

Corddry: This president believes government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. Now in terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we’ve ever had.

darius

That's pretty dang funny!

[Inquartata]

Mr. Epee may have a point, cynical as it sounded---this could be a ploy. As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, "'Cynic' is what an optimist calls a realist".

OTOH we have been told incessantly by the left that Bush is much too stupid to come up with anything so Machiavellian.

As for Jeff's question about how traditional conservatives can reconcile their political belief set with that the "compassionate conservative"---I will not accept nor will I use the left's chosen term of contempt for them---it's like this: yes, we dislike their view of government and spending. But we still have far more common ground with them than we do with the Democrats. One cannot always ally oneself with a perfect partner. Sometimes one must hold ones nose and accept the lesser evil. And the modern conservatives still share a good number of other positions with old-line conservatives.

[jeff]

Hah! You try a wimpy chardonnay with blackened Cajun style redfish -- that stuff makes white wine taste like water... You need something that will cut through the spice -- like a new, rough Cabernet...

Oh.. we weren't talking about food? Darn...

No, no - cab is too tannic and heavy for that. For a spicy fish, use a Riesling or a Gewurtstaminer.

Want to go for threadjack or start a new thread on wine/food pairing?

[darius]

And the modern conservatives still share a good number of other positions with old-line conservatives.

Ah, must be immigration policy. Nope.

How about a strong military? Nah.

A strong dollar, then. Ooops.

What positions, exactly, do old-line conservatives share with the Christianist party leadership? Environmental pillage and theocracy? Flood protection? Inquiring minds want to know.

darius

[jeff]

As for Jeff's question about how traditional conservatives can reconcile their political belief set with that the "compassionate conservative"---I will not accept nor will I use the left's chosen term of contempt for them

Surely there's a cute Latin expression for arguing against a point somebody didn't make, and language somebody didn't use.

Read my post above (even if it's the first time) and see the trope on limited/unlimited. I didn't refer to "compassionate conservative", which in any case (a) has nothing to do with the spending frenzy of this administration and (b) is Bush's chosen name to describe himself.

What I referred to was an administration which spends and intevenes more than predecessor liberal administrations. Some very notable conservative voices consider this a betrayal of core conservative values. What does conservativism mean if limited spending, limited government, and limited adventurism are cast aside?

---it's like this: yes, we dislike their view of government and spending. But we still have far more common ground with them than we do with the Democrats. One cannot always ally oneself with a perfect partner. Sometimes one must hold ones nose and accept the lesser evil. And the modern conservatives still share a good number of other positions with old-line conservatives.

And if they spend more than Democrats, increase government more than Democrats, they're still more compatible partners. I see.

[esquila]

IMHO, nobody should be caring about Miers decisions right now. She should be rejected simply because she has NO experience as a judge. Would you appoint a med student as Surgeon General? Of course not. If Bush wants to give Miers a position, let her gain some federal experience on a lower appellate court. You just don't appoint someone to the highest court in existence with no experience.

[Slim]

Ah, must be immigration policy. Nope.

How about a strong military? Nah.

A strong dollar, then. Ooops.

What positions, exactly, do old-line conservatives share with the Christianist party leadership? Environmental pillage and theocracy? Flood protection? Inquiring minds want to know.

darius

This position: Liberals and the left are simply poor souls that need to be looked after, protected, and nurtured until the time at which the left half of their brains finally engage.

There seems to be a direct correlation between time of this natural occurance and some of the following events:

1. Leaving the warmth of an institute of higher education
2. The moments after the 1st property tax bill arrives in the mail
3. When the 10-40 EZ form just doesnt cut it any more.

Unfortunately for some, there is a genetic defect that may prevent this magical event from ever happening. It has been linked to parental use of both halucinagenic chemicals and Greatful Dead music.

[jeff]

IMHO, nobody should be caring about Miers decisions right now. She should be rejected simply because she has NO experience as a judge. Would you appoint a med student as Surgeon General? Of course not. If Bush wants to give Miers a position, let her gain some federal experience on a lower appellate court. You just don't appoint someone to the highest court in existence with no experience.

For good or ill, there is plenty of precedent of Supreme Court justices being appointed without previously having been judges, regardless of political stripe. So, while your remark makes sense, this is not new with Miers.

[oiuyt]

IMHO, nobody should be caring about Miers decisions right now. She should be rejected simply because she has NO experience as a judge. Would you appoint a med student as Surgeon General? Of course not. If Bush wants to give Miers a position, let her gain some federal experience on a lower appellate court. You just don't appoint someone to the highest court in existence with no experience.

Except for the fact that there's a long tradition of doing exactly that with people that go on to have completely acceptable supreme court careers. As previously cited in this thread. A previous position as a judge, while common in supreme court nominees, is certainly not something which our government has historically insisted upon.

-B

[jeff]

Poor Slim.

There's a legitemate point in front of you regarding an apparent contradiction in "conservative principles". While those on the left may point this out for partisan reasons, this also a subject of serious argument within conservative circles.

Are your reasoning skills really so weak that you can't think of anything to respond with than irrelevant cheap cliches and insults that add nothing to the discussion? As the old saying goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and
remove all doubt."

[darius]

Except for the fact that there's a long tradition of doing exactly that with people that go on to have completely acceptable supreme court careers. As previously cited in this thread. A previous position as a judge, while common in supreme court nominees, is certainly not something which our government has historically insisted upon.

Sure, but don't those people usually have a record as appellate lawyers, law professors, or some other scholarly work?

I'm not saying Miers couldn't be a good judge, especially compared to other names that were floated. But the Texas Lottery Commission isn't quite the same as the Hahvahd Law Review, y'know?

darius

[Slim]

Poor Slim.

There's a legitemate point in front of you regarding an apparent contradiction in "conservative principles". While those on the left may point this out for partisan reasons, this also a subject of serious argument within conservative circles.

Are your reasoning skills really so weak that you can't think of anything to respond with than irrelevant cheap cliches and insults that add nothing to the discussion? As the old saying goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and
remove all doubt."

I guess I fail to see the legitamacy of a couple of people attempting to define what other's values may or may not be using by using stereotypes.

And it was meant to be a little humorous too. If you found it insulting, perhaps it hit too close to home?

[Maeve_Mari]

OTOH we have been told incessantly by the left that Bush is much too stupid to come up with anything so Machiavellian.

Not to disappoint you Inq, but that still holds true (by this lefter at least)... I agree, he is much too stupid to come up with the plan, but he doesn't come up with his own plan. He has much brighter and strategic advisors to give him the names to put into nomination. (and the order in which they should be submitted, should the liberals be successful in not confirming Harriet.)

[Maeve_Mari]

Sure, but don't those people usually have a record as appellate lawyers, law professors, or some other scholarly work?

I'm not saying Miers couldn't be a good judge, especially compared to other names that were floated. But the Texas Lottery Commission isn't quite the same as the Hahvahd Law Review, y'know?

darius

When I saw that reference to the Lottery Commission red flags started appearing all around her name! The Texas Lottery Commission!!?? Why not just the OTB Horse Racing Policy Committee Leadership while she's at it! Could there be anything less qualifying that running a corrupt state lottery commission?

Watch to see that item be white outed from her official bio when/if she's confirmed and sworn in!

[YankeeRebel]

Who knew that "contempt" and "disdain" were political philosophies?

I wonder why they never teach it in political science 101.

[keith]

Who knew that "contempt" and "disdain" were political philosophies?

not philosophies, values.

[jeff]

I guess I fail to see the legitamacy of a couple of people attempting to define what other's values may or may not be using by using stereotypes.

And it was meant to be a little humorous too. If you found it insulting, perhaps it hit too close to home?

It has nothing to do with stereotypes - it has everything to do with a real conflict. You must be unaware of the active debate in the conservative world about whether the current administration's policies are consistent with or a betrayal of conservative policies. For example, the Cato Institute home page with a line like "Bush Beats LBJ on Spending". Or see http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

Or see "Pork Barrel Republicans" at National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0509280837.asp

Or see "Has Big Government Won?" at National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...lett090803.asp which says "The Republican party’s conservative base is becoming increasingly restless with George W. Bush’s unwillingness to restrain the growth of federal spending in any way." and " Another problem with the Bush approach to spending is that he is not just giving away relatively inconsequential pork-barrel projects... has behaved irresponsibly is by initiating a new government entitlement program to subsidize prescription drugs for the elderly. This is not a one-time outlay, but one that will burden taxpayers forever."

Or see Bob Novak at http://www.nationalledger.com/artman..._2726893.shtml

There's much more. If you take the trouble to relieve your ignorance you might find that some of the remarks made on this board aren't idle use of stereotypes. Except for yours, of course.

As far as your "humor", I might find it funny if it illustrated the least amount of wit. It certainly doesn't hit close to me. Your attempt to tar me with that brush won't work. I've been a lot closer to the center of capitalism than you have (a few decades on Wall Street), and have paid the employer side of withholding tax, too.

PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why firing over the heads of New Orleans evacuees (peacefully evacuating as ordered), some in wheelchairs, was "maintaining order", as you described it in a different thread.

[Slim]

It has nothing to do with stereotypes - it has everything to do with a real conflict. You must be unaware of the active debate in the conservative world about whether the current administration's policies are consistent with or a betrayal of conservative policies. For example, the Cato Institute home page with a line like "Bush Beats LBJ on Spending". Or see http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

Or see "Pork Barrel Republicans" at National Review Online: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0509280837.asp

There's much more. If you take the trouble to relieve your ignorance you might find that some of the remarks made on this board aren't idle use of stereotypes, except for yours, of course.

As far as your "humor", I might find it funny if it illustrated the least amount of wit. It certainly doesn't hit close to me. Your attempt to tar me with that brush won't work. I've been a lot closer to the center of capitalism than you have (a few decades on Wall Street), and have paid the employer side of withholding tax, too.

PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of why firing over the heads of New Orleans evacuees (peacefully evacuating as ordered), some in wheelchairs, was "maintaining order", as you described it in a different thread.

If you'll notice, I quoted Darius, who's original request for common positions between "old-liners" and "Christian-Party" leadership is laced with stereotyping and sarcasm. The thread went from talking about conservative, to the favorite "neo-con" to Christian Party, and then he added environmental pillging. Not the best bait for a serious reply.

EDIT: Dead fan?

[jeff]

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

Darius picked up my theme of limited government, and continued on with immigration policy,strong military, and the dollar, and alluded to the fundamentalist streak of the administration which is at odds with the secular small-government, low-tax conservatives. Entirely appropriate.

I don't particularily like the Grateful Dead. I did pick up the "bogart" reference with a mention of Little Feat, who I really do like.

[Slim]

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.

No problem. It's a tough game when the table is warped to left. But that's ok. It's not about winning or losing, it's about having fun.