This Page

has been moved to new address

How I Explain Harriet Miers: A Primer

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: How I Explain Harriet Miers: A Primer

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

How I Explain Harriet Miers: A Primer

Remember I wrote that I'd explain the reason for many conservatives' reaction to Harriet Miers? The time is here. To begin:

George Bush was reelected one year ago next month, acquiring 62 million votes, winning 51% of the vote. His was the first campaign since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He won more votes than any candidate in US history. His first term primarily addressed terrorism. In the second, the issues were social security reform, the continued war on terrorism, continued economic growth. But let's examine these things more closely.

First, social security reform tanked, on a concept that was too blunt, too frank, beyond most politicians' ken -- and a good portion of the electorate as well. The problem hasn't gone away; it's just been tabled until someone else has the guts to broach the issue or the system itself tanks under its own weight and lack of funding.

But ten years ago, when Bill Clinton himself declared "The era of big government is over" -- well, it appears to many conservatives that there isn't a spending measure, bill, or program expansion that George Bush doesn't like. He has yet to veto even one spending bill. Some persons peg the phrase "compassionate conservative" on President Bush. But is the CC label achieving results -- and at what cost? -- literally.

One of the basic tenets underpinning my conservative philosophy is: less government. That which governs least governs best. Push decisions, funding, politics down to the lowest levels: local and state. President Bush has done his best to water the expansion of the federal flower: the Medicare drug benefit (single most expensive entitlement since the 60's), billions and billions for AIDS (where are the other countries with their generous funding, hmm?), supercharging the Department of Education, creating a huge new department (Homeland Security) and now, "whatever it takes" to "rebuild New Orleans" to the tune of $200 billion.

One one hand, Bush is spending money like water. On the other, we got a tax cut. My dad says: tax cuts are good, we always need tax cuts. So I took my "tax cut" and paid a bill. But "tax cuts" or "no more taxes" + prodigious spending = where the hell is this money coming from? Oh: the money will come from cuts. Tom Delay recently said the federal budget was "pared down pretty good." He also said "There is simply no fat left to cut from the federal budget." What?? He recently amended his statement when he saw men approaching with the jacket and Posey cuffs.

Federal spending grew 30% under Bush's first term. Before the hurricanes, federal spending grew 7% this year so far. Despite this, contrary to doomsayers, the economy is still doing well. Murders are at their lowest rate since 1965.

Then of course, there is that niggling little Border Issue. The possibility that there may be a nuclear mushroom cloud over a US city. See either movie: Dirty War or Last Best Chance. Not to mention the fact that illegal immigration is, well, illegal. President Bush called those in the Minuteman Project "vigilantes." I call them American citizens doing a job the President lacks the courage to perform himself. When it takes a French acquaintance of mine seven years to become a US citizen vs. someone who got his or her ankles wet in the Rio Grande -- and they achieve the same results -- why would you want to go the legal route?

This is an entirely separate hotbutton topic for me which deserves later scrutiny.

In any event, massive spending + (in my opinion) unnecessary appeasement of the left wing (my, that's working well, isn't it?) + refusal to secure our borders + the nomination of Harriet Miers = final, open dissatisfaction on the right with a Bush decision.

Plus: President Bush may in fact get the opportunity to make an historical three nominations to the SCOTUS, as it's possible Ruth Bader Ginsberg or John Paul Stevens may retire in the future, during Bush's term. That would give the president the chance to impact a full one-third of this court.

So: the Harriet Miers "upheaval?" Not that difficult to figure out. I voted for George Bush, not LBJ. To be coarse: show me some sack, Mr. President.


Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 18 05

Maybe you are waiting for "him to show some sack" when you shouldn't have even that much faith in him. He is a quasi liberal who was dishonest with his conservative constituency. Tell me, if you had your druthers who would you want him to appoint to the Supreme Court? I wanted him to choose Janice Rogers Brown; her Libertarian leanings are what benefits conservatives and libnazis alike. EQUAL APPLICATION of the LAW! She is fair and maybe a bit extreme, but she would balance the court IMO.

Tue Oct 18, 09:28:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

I too wanted him to choose JRB and watch the politicians and media implode when they try to excoriate her in public.

Tue Oct 18, 10:00:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 18 05

Yeah Blo Zep:
I know. And ironically the most vociferous opponents of Judge JRB are Civil Rights leaders, many of whom are Black or with the Gay and Union Lobbies. I am so sick of this mess! She is fair and my hero:)

Tue Oct 18, 10:47:00 AM PDT  
Blogger bigwhitehat said...

This man has one or two more nominations to make. We will get our big fight. Just wait it is coming.

I don't know if Brown will ever be on the Supreme Court. But the threat she poses will make it possible to take the court for original intent.

Bush has ropadoped the liberals on this one. Meirs will be confirmed easily. She will consistently find for original intent. And big fight will be on for the next nomination.

Politics is ugly.

Tue Oct 18, 11:04:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Big White Hat:

As you can see, I put your link on my page. You have, sir, one amazing blog. Excellent, heart-felt writing!

I really hope you're correct about Miers -- I hope she is, in fact, a strict constructionist on the Constitution -- we so desperately need one now. The Kelo decision is clear indication of a court gone moonbats. And yes, I truly believe Bush will be given another nomination due to a Stevens or Ginsburg retirement.

Tue Oct 18, 12:57:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home