Conservative columnist George Will sounds *really *pissed. Is Will’s attitude justified? Has Bush been irresponsible?
…and Will is only getting started -
Yes. But at least he is consistent.
Yep. That’s the least.
Isn’t Rovish Machiavellianism the more likely explanation? From RedState:
Too bad Okham’s dead. We could ask him.
Karl Rove is good at what he does, but he is way too far inside some people’s heads. We have nothing so far that tells me Miers is a female Scalia. Isn’t it better to find out if she is one than to assume she must be, since Rove has nominated her and come up with a brilliant scheme to get a hardliner on the bench?
GW must think she is a “Scallia or Thomas” and that’s one hopeful sign. He has had damned few correct thoughts.
Firstly, I’m not convinced that the GOP “powers that be” want Roe overturned. It would be a disaster for the Republican party. We’ve been over that many times on this board.
What Will is getting at is this: Some on the right held their noses while voting for Bush hoping that at least he’d remake the court in the image of Scalia. George Will in particular has grown leery of the Iraq war, and now he doesn’t even get the court he wanted. Buyers remorse. Many seem to feel betrayed because of all the work that went into getting Scalia-type justices in the appelatte courts, and wonder why Bush didn’t pick one of them. After all, why bother with someone that he has to say “trust me” on when there are so many well qualified justices that don’t require any trust.
Of course, that view ignores the reality of the situation that someone like Scalia probably couldn’t be confirmed today, even with 55 GOP Senators.
The piece in RedState is by an anoymous hack with no better information than I have (which is to say, virtually none). It shouldn’t really be compared to Will’s piece.
If he thinks that Mike Brown did a heck of a job with FEMA… well, I wouldn’t trust any of his judgements of character to be accurate.
There has been one defining characteristic of the Bush administration: Cronyism. Bush takes friends and puts them places because he trusts them.
He stands behind them one hundred percent, as well.
This is a very old friend of his, his lawyer.
I see nothing especially Rovian here.
But what administration hasn’t done that?
You never can tell what little thing will drive George Will over the edge.
Who knew that he was still seething about the passage of campaign finance reform?
That said, there is indeed a significant chunk of the reliable GOP base that damn well does want RvW overturned. Overturned, beaten up, taken out back and shot, then buried in an unmarked grave at a crossroads at midnight with salt in its mouth.
It’s an interesting line. If we presume that the value to the party leadership in RvW is the issue of it and not the actual overturning they’ve got to walk a fine line in serving their political ends and not their constituents demands.
Feh. Better them than me.
Exactly. Mier might very well turn out to be (gasp) an Earl Warren.
Probably every administration has done this to some extent. But I don’t recall another one that has done it seemingly to the exclusion of all other choices.
This is simply political payback to a crony.
She handled Bush’s legal problems for a long time, she gets nominated.
This stuff is expected in Southern politics, & Bush’s politics are very Southern.
To the extent Bush has? None in my memory. Care to offer some evidence to the contrary?
–Cliffy
How long has it been since George Will had serious influence on political thought in America, anyway? Seems he’s been just another entertainer for a long time now.
Bush’s emphasis on personal loyalty above all else, even the world of fact, has never been a seriously debatable topic. Just look at his defense of Rafael Palmeiro after his failed steroid test - “He’s a friend of mine and I believe him.”
Well, even if I don’t always agree with Will, I’ll always give him a respectful listen. He’s in my top ten of commentators in this regard.
I know a few liberals who feel the same way about him.
So the answer to your question is that he has a good bit more influence than you do, ElvisL1ves. Lots more than I do as well.
Before we can answer that, I think you need to show us exactly how far Bush’s cronyism extends. Else, we’re trying to make a comparison against an unknown measure. So, how do we objectively gauge “cronyism?”