Re Miers appointment Columnist George Will kinda-sorta calls President Bush an idiot

[RTFirefly]

@Jonathan Chance

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.

Whoa, dude! You’re confusing GOP voters with the GOP base. I think Matt Yglesias says it better than I can:

@Matt Yglesias

WHO LAUGHS LAST? With today’s George Will column, the revolt of the conservative intellectuals described by our colleague Harold Meyerson is in full bloom. The interesting question that results is, does this matter at all? Jonah Goldberg writes:

@Jonah Goldberg

I would like to point out that the anti-Miers chatter around here runs counter to nearly all of the stereotypes critics like to throw at the Corner and National Review. We are not being blindly loyal to the President or the GOP and we are not allowing abortion to drive our thinking. Etc.

This is true. And the stereotype was always unfair. National Review has consistently shown a lot more critical distance from the Bush administration than has FOX News, conservative talk radio, or even The Weekly Standard (whose intellectual integrity is massively dragged down by Fred Barnes; otherwise they’re not so bad). I’m not, however, aware of any instances where Bush set about to do something they didn’t like (the Medicare bill, the energy bill, the farm bill, McCain-Feingold, etc.) and this inspired any non-trivial number of Republican legislators to stand up and do anything about it. Not, of course, that we should expect political magazines to have some massive practical ability to influence the course of legislation. But if almost all the conservative intellectuals feel one way about something, you would expect at least some conservative politicians to feel the same way.

In practice, however, the only thing that seems to have a causal influence on the behavior of the GOP’s elected officials is the consensus view of corporate lobbyists. If they like something, it happens. If they don’t like it, it doesn’t happen. They’re the party’s real base, they hold the real power, and near as I can tell they like Harriet Miers just fine. She’s a corporate lawyer who’s slavishly loyal to a president who’s slavishly loyal to them. As for Democrats, presumably the party would rather have someone who’s probably a right-winger than someone who definitely is. And if a right-winger we must have, they’d prefer a mediocre one to a brilliant one, so she’ll probably sail through in the end.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

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?”

Here’s my definition, if you like: cronyism is when a leader appoints subordinates who aren’t very qualified for their positions, but who overcome that by being part of the leader’s circle, or friends (or even friends of friends) of the people he trusts.

I’m open to better definitions, but that’ll do if nobody has one.

[UncleBeer]

@RTFirefly

Here’s my definition, if you like: cronyism is when a leader appoints subordinates who aren’t very qualified for their positions, but who overcome that by being part of the leader’s circle, or friends (or even friends of friends) of the people he trusts.

I’m open to better definitions, but that’ll do if nobody has one.

That seems a pretty good defintion, RT, but I’m looking for a way to quantify cronyism; the defintion helps only to qualify it. It’s a start, though.

[John_Mace]

@Jonathan Chance

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.

I agree 100% with that.

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.

That’s it exactly-- the issue, alive and kicking, is great fodder for the GOP elction machine. A significan majority of Americans wants at least 1st trimester abortions to be legal. And they don’t care how that comes about-- legislative or judicial action. If some states were able to outlaw abortion, and did so, the Democrats would sweep into power like nobody’s business.

[John_Mace]

@UncleBeer

That seems a pretty good defintion, RT, but I’m looking for a way to quantify cronyism; the defintion helps only to qualify it. It’s a start, though.

Wasn’t LBJ accused of cronyism, too? Wasn’t Abe Fortas at the center of one of those charges? Maybe it’s a Texas thing…

[DanBlather]

What I find interesting, and what I haven’t seen expressed by the pundits, is how much Bush’s two picks preserve the status quo. Roberts is a Rehnquist clone and Miers is O’Connor-esque (woman, elected office background, non-rabid conservative [when appointed]). It’s almost like he wants the SCOTUS to remain the same.

[Blalron]

@John Mace

I agree 100% with that.

If some states were able to outlaw abortion, and did so, the Democrats would sweep into power like nobody’s business.

I used to dread the overturning of Roe vs Wade, but it may actually be the best thing for the liberal movement since Herbert Hoover. We need something to really get people riled up, and maybe this will be just the jumpstart we need to explicitly enshrine this right in the Constitution for good with an Amendment.

To quote from none other than George W. Bush: “bring it on”

[Liberal]

@Cliffy

To the extent Bush has? None in my memory. Care to offer some evidence to the contrary?

–Cliffy

Well first, maybe you should offer evidence to the protrary. What president has ever gone into the White House filling key positions close to him with people he doesn’t know? He’d have to be an idiot. Especially for something like White House counsel.

[John_Mace]

@Liberal

Well first, maybe you should offer evidence to the protrary. What president has ever gone into the White House filling key positions close to him with people he doesn’t know? He’d have to be an idiot. Especially for something like White House counsel.

Emphasis added. So, why then did Bush fill those positions with people he knew?

@Blalron

I used to dread the overturning of Roe vs Wade, but it may actually be the best thing for the liberal movement since Herbert Hoover. We need something to really get people riled up, and maybe this will be just the jumpstart we need to explicitly enshrine this right in the Constitution for good with an Amendment.

To quote from none other than George W. Bush: “bring it on”

I think it was “bring 'em on”, but I get your point.

Yes, from a purley political perspective, Democrats should wish that the SCOTUS overturns RvW and Republicans should wish that the SCOTUS determines that SSM is guaranteed by the constitution. Either action would be a collosal victory for that side side, and pretty much for the same reason.

[ShibbOleth]

@John Mace

Wasn’t LBJ accused of cronyism, too? Wasn’t Abe Fortas at the center of one of those charges? Maybe it’s a Texas thing…

They were talking about this on NPR this morning. The difference was said to be that Fortas would have been considered a leading candidate regardless of his relationship with LBJ. Apparently his downfall was continuing to keep private counsel with LBJ after his appointment.

(I don’t know anything about this prior, just relating what the “expert” they were discussing this with said)

[ElvisL1ves]

Nope, money.

He had accepted $15,000 for speaking engagements at the American University law school. While not illegal, it raised much criticism about the court’s insulation from private interests.
…
In 1969, a new scandal arose. Fortas had accepted a $20,000 fee from a foundation controlled by Louis Wolfson. Wolfson was a financier who was under investigation for violating Federal securities laws. He was later convicted and spent time in prison. Wolfson was also a friend and former client of Fortas. When Chief Justice Earl Warren was informed of the Wolfson fee by Attorney General John N. Mitchell, he successfully urged Fortas to resign.

[UncleBeer]

@John Mace

Wasn’t LBJ accused of cronyism, too? Wasn’t Abe Fortas at the center of one of those charges? Maybe it’s a Texas thing…

Yeah, if we extend the crony circle to close advisors and cabinet members (and I think we have to), certainly. Even tho’ LBJ initially asked JFK’s cabinet to stay on, he wasn’t long in appointing lots of Texas faces to his staff.

For that matter, we can point to John Kennedy himself, as a practitioner of art. He once said that the White House is a lousy place to start making friends. Clinton did it, too with Mack McLarty & Bruce Lindsey. Reagan also appointed close friends to his staff.

[David_Simmons]

@Liberal

Well first, maybe you should offer evidence to the protrary. What president has ever gone into the White House filling key positions close to him with people he doesn’t know? He’d have to be an idiot. Especially for something like White House counsel.

If I get your drift you are saying that because all Presidents appoint trusted friends as staff, aides, and Cabinet members the same thing should apply to Supreme Court appointments?

Miers is fairly young and will likely be on the Court for a long time. Her main experience seems to be as a corporation lawyer. Based on the course of committee hearing lately she won’t give the Congress a lot on information beyond what is currently in black and white. It seems to me that if she is confirmed it will be on the expectation that she will be a fast learner in the on-the-job-training phase.

[ShibbOleth]

@UncleBeer

Yeah, if we extend the crony circle to close advisors and cabinet members (and I think we have to), certainly. Even tho’ LBJ initially asked JFK’s cabinet to stay on, he wasn’t long in appointing lots of Texas faces to his staff.

For that matter, we can point to John Kennedy himself, as a practitioner of art. He once said that the White House is a lousy place to start making friends. Clinton did it, too with Mack McLarty & Bruce Lindsey. Reagan also appointed close friends to his staff.

Carter was pretty famous for his Cabinet appointments as well. Burt Lance was the biggest loser of that lot, IIRC.

[ElvisL1ves]

One might expect a President in his 5th year to know, and have learned to trust, more people than he did when he entered office.

[E-Sabbath]

@David Simmons

Exactly. Mier might very well turn out to be (gasp) an Earl Warren.

Entirely true.

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

That seems a pretty good defintion, RT, but I’m looking for a way to quantify cronyism; the defintion helps only to qualify it. It’s a start, though.

Since ‘quantify’ basically means ‘count up how much there is of it’, a good definition is all you need: once you can separate the cronies from the non-cronies, you just count 'em up.

[David_Simmons]

@ElvisL1ves

One might expect a President in his 5th year to know, and have learned to trust, more people than he did when he entered office.

Yes, but it does appear to me that GW’s worldview and mode of operation was fixed when he was a sophmore (high school or college, take your pick) and hasn’t changed any since.

[UncleBeer]

@RTFirefly

Since ‘quantify’ basically means ‘count up how much there is of it’, a good definition is all you need: once you can separate the cronies from the non-cronies, you just count 'em up.

True 'nuf, dat. But this portion—“subordinates who aren’t very qualified for their positions”—of your definition seems to me to leave a lot of room for subjectivity to enter the equation.

And as the samples in this thread go (which seem to cover every recent president except GHWB), cronyism isn’t exclusively the domain of GWB. So we’re still trying to determine if the extent of GWB’s crony appointments exceed those of other recent presidents. Maybe it does simply with this single appointment, since it could probably be persuasively argued that a SCOTUS Justice appointment exceeds in scope (rather than quantity) a crony appointment to a simple cabinet position. (Perhaps we might develop some kind of weighted point system.) I’m not convinced yet though, that GWB’s cronyism surpasses that of previous presidents as some here are claiming. I think I need to hear what Cliffy has to say in support of his assertion.

[ShibbOleth]

A colleague, who is admittedly a bit odd, mentioned today that her chief concern is which of Bush’s cronies will be tapped to replace Alan Greenspan. Depending on how much leeway he would be given the rest of the Federal Reserve Board it is a sort of frightening prospect.