Monday, October 17, 2005

Miers: No

I was, as with Roberts, going to wait until the Senate hearings until I issued a full opinion about Harriet Miers.

However, I have changed my mind and decided to oppose her nomination now.

I'm sure she's a lovely person. She might even be quite intelligent, well-schooled in constitutional law, and perhaps she would even be a supreme court justice for the ages. But I doubt it -- very much -- and here's why.

She is on record as having said that George W. Bush is the "most brilliant man" she's ever met. Now, I'm sorry, call me a partisan if you wish, but that simply isn't possible. I don't even know of any Republicans who think Bush is "brilliant," let alone anyone who'd label him a shining beacon of intellectualism.

There are only two reasons for someone to make that statement. One, they're kissing Dubya's ass. Sorry, that's not an attractive quality in a supreme court member. Or, two, they really believe it, in which case they are a) not very bright themselves and b) have a horribly warped sense of what this man has "accomplished" during his time in the White House. No, any rational person with at least one foot planted in reality who hasn't been living in a commune in northern Canada since 2001 without access to the internet or other media would have to conclude that George W. Bush has made a real mess out of America.

So she's either an idiot, or she's one of those whose ideology blinds them to even the most painfully obvious realities.

No on Miers.

14 comments:

Esther said...

You've probably noticed that I already opposed the nomination. But thanks for another reason to do so. I like some things about Bush, yeah. I know he's not brilliant though.

Matthew said...

Agreed, Andy.

David Letterman had a skit that said it best. He mentioned what Miers had said about Bush being "the most brilliant man" she'd ever met, and then had big letters come on the screen which said:

Harriet Miers: Drunk or Crazy.

That about sums it up.

Anono.Blogger said...

Uh, it took you that long to realize? I just looked at her face and new then and there she lacked the composure of an intellectual beacon and much less of that of a person capable of discerning an intellectual beacon from a crowd at MIT.

A.B.

little-cicero said...

You are too quick to call Bush a man of mediocre (or less) intelligence. He comes off that way, but, as is the message of that word for which he is so ridiculed, Bush is Misunderestimated. A master politician? No! Neither was Carter. But, unlike Carter, Bush knows how to lead a nation decisively and with team building, and he doesn't micromanage, take half-measures or posture his administration for the sake of legacy (unlike Clinton). Meirs knows Bush alot better than we do, so she can see through his astaetics of simplicity. He is not dumb, that's for sure.

little-cicero said...

Would you read my blog, where I address these issues, at

"littlecicero.blogspot.com"

I like your blog although I completely dissaggree with you! I think esther put our links together for that reason.

Andy said...

Bush knows how to lead a nation decisively and with team building, and he doesn't micromanage, take half-measures...

I'll give you that. When Bush decides to fuck something up, he fucks it up good.

little-cicero said...

So you're saying that, while he is decisive, he's decisive the wrong way, but whether it's wrong or right is subjective, whereas his leadership style can be noted objectively as, if not brilliant, (dare I say it) intelligent

By the way, how would you like to join my debate blog "partisan patriots"
My original opponent dropped out, so I was looking for a replacement. Someone to spar with intelligently and candidly.

little-cicero said...

Thanks alot for putting on a link to my blog, as I did your blog. It made my day.

I won't be able to debate till the weekend because I have a research paper on the Chinese Economy due Friday, so, just so you know, I'm not wimping out here.

Andy said...

I can't wait. : )

So I'm took quick to judge Bush's intellect, eh? Yeah, I guess FIVE YEARS is a real rush to judgment. Sheesh.

little-cicero said...

No, by that I meant it seems to be an impulse to call Bush stupid, but you really should examine his approach before saying so! This is it, then I'll have to return this weekend!

Anonymous said...

Little-Cicero,
Trust me, you are still too young to REALLY assess George Bush. Obviously you are very bright and informed for someone your age. In fact, I think Andy should date you when you are over 18 (opposites attract). But trust me, George is back on alcohol and we should be VERY scared right now.
JF

Andy said...

Is this what my life has come to? My mother wants to set me up with a 17 year old heterosexual Republican? Damn, that calls for another beer. : (

little-cicero said...

I may be 17, but I think I need a beer! I'm flattered though!

I don't think it takes experience, other than a careful observance of his eight years as President to make a judgement here. Did you really study his pre-Presidential career to find anything to the contrary of his current leadership style.

Like Esther simply put it, he's a fighter. Bush doesn't care about his legacy, just the long term effects of his actions in this country. Social Security Reform was a contemporary obscurity on the current administration, but he wanted to fix it in the long run. He could have cut-and run like his father in Iraq to avoid the fallout, but he didn't. He could have held a candlelight vigil after 9-11 and gone on soberly with his domestic Presidency, but he seriously carried out a WAR on terror. This is a good President, and a good man, who isn't stupid (speaks five languages, got higher University grades than Kerry)

little-cicero said...

Oh, by the way, we wouldn't be a good match because he'd be jealous whenever I look at J-Lo on a Billboard. It would be awkward. Plus, I'm a slob, and I hear that gay guys are neat (hearsay!)and I hate Barbara Streisand!