Bush On Miers
From today’s press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, of all the people in the United States you had to choose from, is Harriet Miers the most qualified to serve on the Supreme Court?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Otherwise I wouldn’t have put her on.
Q One –
THE PRESIDENT: Let me — please, please. I’ve known Harriet for over a decade. I’ve worked with Harriet. She’s a woman of principle and character. She’s highly intelligent. She has been a pioneer in the field of law in my state of Texas. She was the first woman hired by her law firm — first woman partner, I mean, by the law firm. She managed a law firm. She was the first head of the Dallas Bar — first woman to head the Dallas Bar; first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She’s an enormously accomplished person who’s incredibly bright.
Secondly, she knows the kind of judge I’m looking for — after all, she was a part of the process that selected John Roberts. I don’t want somebody to go on the bench to try to supplant the legislative process. I’m interested in people that will be strict constructionists, so we — and I’ve told that to the American people ever since I started running for office. I said, vote for me, this is the kind of judges I’ll put on the bench. And there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind what I believe a judge — the philosophy of a judge. And Harriet Miers shares that philosophy.
Thirdly, I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today. She’ll have more experience, she’ll have been a judge, but, nevertheless, her philosophy won’t change. And that’s important to me. It was important to me when I picked Chief Justice Roberts; it’s important for me in picking Harriet Miers.
Finally, I got some interesting suggestions. I actually listen to the senators when they bring forth ideas. And they brought forth some really interesting ideas during the course of our conversations, some told me directly, many brought to me by people on my staff. And one of the most interesting ideas I heard was, why don’t you pick somebody who hasn’t been a judge? Why don’t you reach outside the — I think one senator said, the “judicial monastery.”
I thought it was an interesting idea. And I thought long and hard about it. I obviously looked at whether or not other Presidents had done — made that decision; they had. And so, recognizing that Harriet will bring not only expertise, but a fresh approach, I nominated her. And she’ll be a really good judge. And as I said, I appreciate the reception she’s gotten at Capitol Hill. After all, they’re going to — they’ll decide.
Reach outside the judicial monastery – I quite like that…
More Miers reactions from that lovely pachyderm and Right Wing Conspiracist Beth…
In this I can trust.
“I’ve told that to the American people ever since I started running for office. I said, vote for me, this is the kind of judges I’ll put on the bench. And there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind what I believe a judge — the philosophy of a judge. And Harriet Miers shares that philosophy.” George W. Bush, October 4, 2005
Yale and Harvard. Shame on you for allowing this embarrassment to graduate from your prestigious institutions. Legacy admission, thy name is idiot.
I look forward to the day when we Americans once again have a president in office who actually knows how to speak American English.
What the heck did he mean by that pathetic pronouncement?
Garbled English=garbled mind=garbled ideas.
God help us.
Claudia, do you consider all dyslexics idiots? Just wondering…’cause you know, they have some of these problems, too…how about people with a stutter? Moron by definition?…Excuse me for being so blunt, but that’s a rather immature attitude, it seems to me…
Well, I don’t think that idiots get to be President, but I also think that being able to speak clearly is a sine qua non of the office. Seeing Bush on a podium next to Tony Blair, for example, presents an unflattering comparison. I don’t think that every President has to be a Churchill or Disraeli, but I think a President should be able to use the English language clearly and correctly –
Also, nothing against dyslexics, but I’m not sure I would necessarily want one to be President…
Mark,
I have close, very close, relatives who are stutterers and who are dyslexic. My son is a stutterer and my husband is dyslexic.
Bush is not a stutterer. My husband never makes the kind of grammatical errors or misstatements that Bush does.
Is this a dyslexic statement or just plain stupidity?:
Quote: “Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican” (declining to answer reporters’ questions, April 21, 2001).
Mexican is not a language, Spanish is.
Are these dyslexic statements or just plain stupidity? (The statements actually have subjects and a predicates):
Quote: “The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law” (Nov. 22, 2000).
***************************
I don’t think this statement is dyslexic, but it is awful. How can someone with his education speak like that?
Quote: “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test” (Feb. 21, 2001).
Of course, if he is your hero, nothing he says or does can be criticized or can be seen for what it is.
Whew.
Well, Claudia, then I am amazed with such close relatives who may have various problems with the English language, that you would be so insensitive…it’s got nothing to do with Bush being my hero…George Galloway is a stirring orator; he is also a completely heinous individual and a disgusting fool…being well-spoken does not equal being well-reasoned, and malaprops of the sort you point out are amusing, but not indicative of idiocy. Even if you claim Bush only got into the Ivy Leagues because of connections, he still graduated…and you might remember that, quite famously, an analysis of Bush’s scholastic record showed he actually outperformed ’sophisticated’ John Kerry…
This is an exceedingly small-minded attitude, and I don’t think you say what you say because of reason, but because of partisan malice…
Claudia,
I regularly encounter philosophy students who write analytic essays with the kind of wit and clarity one might expect to find only in the Classics section of your local bookstore . . . but when put in front of a crowd, come across as bumbling fools. If I were to conclude from these students’ skills in oral communication that they are unqualified to do philosophy, I’d not only be wrong (cf. their essays), but I’d be coming dangerously close to committing an actual fallacy of reasoning (i.e., argumentum ad hominem). Similarly, to argue from President Bush’s skills as an oral communicator to his is ability to lead a nation is downright fallacious and, I might add, helplessly childish.
G&R
Claudia,
Furthermore, a moment’s examination ought to show that a great education is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for one being an excellent oral communicator. After all, not only are there extremely well-educated people ought there who are just plain awful public speakers, but there are also scores of people who speak like Whitman wrote, but never even considered going to college.
That I even have to point this out to someone is just . . . sad.
G&R
1) The fact that Bush got better grades than Kerry (and both had grades in the 70’s) indicates to me that grade inflation was a problem at Yale even back then.
2) It’s true that some people have brilliant minds but cannot speak clearly in public. That doesn’t indicate that they are stupid – it just indicates that they should not be President of the United States.
Peter,
I guess I’m just not as concerned with image as you or others. I’d take the worst of philosophers over the greatest of sophists any day. Presidents are generally not remembered by “that great thing that he said at that one event,” but rather by their accomplishments. And since this is the case, many of us believe that history will remember George Bush fondly.
G&R
It seems to me that if you are disagreeing with the Miers pick because of Bush’s idiosyncratic idiom, then you were not going to agree with anyone he picked. I expect you opposed Roberts–wouldn’t you have to following this logic as he made the statements you quote before the Roberts appointment? He could have started with “Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears…” and it would not have mattered because that’s not really the issue here, is it?
I think it’s more than image – I think that, especially in the age of television, image bleeds into substance. I don’t think you can lead without communicating, and I don’t think you can communicate if you can’t speak clearly.
I also think that Presidents do get remembered for what they say and how they said it. Reagan will always be remembered for the “Boys of Point du Hoc” speech, even if Peggy Noonan wrote it. Kennedy will be remembered for his Inaugural address, just as FDR is remembered for the “nothing to fear” speech. These are moments when the nation and the world are galvanized, and I think public speaking is essential to great leadership. Bush had his moment with the bullhorn – and the speech to Congress which soon followed was a great speech – but since then I don’t think he has inspired or led.
Being able to speak extemporaneously is equally important – I was never a big fan of Nixon, Reagan, or Bush I, but I always felt that they spoke clearly and effectively in unscripted occasions. You may not be a fan of Carter or Clinton, but I think you would agree that they always spoke well and handled themselves well in public.
I am sure it is difficult for Bush partisans to see why he makes us liberals cringe – seeing him is like hearing someone scratch their fingernails on a blackboard. I’m not saying it’s rational, but I can’t look at the guy without thinking that he is a kid in a man’s suit who can’t believe his good fortune in having his excellent adventure as President. I never felt that way about his father, Nixon, Ford, or Reagan – I didn’t think they were great Presidents, but I didn’t think they were off the charts awful – and Bush II’s mispronunciations and mangling of the English language only exacerbates things.
peter, I must say (and I mean this in all good humor), you’re being a bit snobbish on the issue of Bush’s education and speech…
Claudia,
Furthermore, a moment’s examination ought to show that a great education is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for one being an excellent oral communicator.
I disagree.
Perhaps it is true that one’s education cannot make one have the ability to intonate or orate in a Churchillian way, but anyone with a higher than average intelligence would not make the egregious mistakes that Bush makes.
There is no sin in not being able to speak like Richard Burton, but it is telling when someone who managed to get into and graduate from Yale and Harvard mangles simple declarative sentences, and is ignorant of basic information, i.e., Mexican is not a language.
Apparently people who admire Bush have lowered the bar to where anything he says so long as it agrees with their ideology is fine.
And perhaps history will remember George Bush, but so far, it appears that only 40% of Americans will remember him with fondness, and even less than that percentage worldwide.
We all need to hang onto our cherished realities.
I’m a fairly snobbish guy myself, and I find some of Bush’s malapropisms awfully winceworthy. But getting past the style of what he says and considering the substance, he’s usually saying something substantive and it usually has some connection with what he actually intends to do. That can’t be said of all politicians, or even most of them.
Kerry was glib, and someone I’m much more comfortable with in terms of pure style. But when you stripped away all the goo and dribble from his statements, all too often there was nothing left. He said lots and lots of stuff about Iraq, and I’m still waiting for a brief, lucid summary of his position that wouldn’t be contradicted by his own statements.
And, Peter, I don’t think the pro- and anti-Bush positions are symmetrical on this point. I didn’t vote for the guy in 2000, and I repeat–his style doesn’t do much for me. Bush’s support just isn’t as visceral and reflexive as the loathing felt by many on the left. On the contrary–that irrational distaste for the man was a factor in making me take another look at him, because his detractors seemed to be so over the edge.
To be fair, I’ve got to admit there was something about Bush 41 that made me want to kick in the picture tube every time I saw him speak. But I never dressed that up as an ideological position.
Claudia,
I disagree.
The logic of necessary and sufficient conditions isn’t something that allows for disagreement. A person’s education is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for his or her being an exceptional, or even mediocre, orator. QED.
Perhaps it is true that one’s education cannot make one have the ability to intonate or orate in a Churchillian way, but anyone with a higher than average intelligence would not make the egregious mistakes that Bush makes.
Again, you are mistaken. I’ve personally been to several philosophy conferences at which a speaker might communicate like, say, Churchill while reading his or her paper, but when the time came to actually interact with the audience, he or she clammed up and made serious mistakes while speaking (sentence fragments, run-ons, etc.). These philosophers, then, serve as ample counterexamples to this working principle of yours that “anyone with a higher than average intelligence would not make the egregious mistakes that Bush makes.”
I’ll repeat myself: A person’s education is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for his or her being an exceptional, or even mediocre, orator. QED.
Apparently people who admire Bush have lowered the bar to where anything he says so long as it agrees with their ideology is fine.
This is often the case with many supporters of different politicians on both sides of the aisle. Your point?
And perhaps history will remember George Bush, but so far, it appears that only 40% of Americans will remember him with fondness, and even less than that percentage worldwide.
That scores of liberals have their panties in a bunch over George Bush is hardly a threat to the legacy he leaves. Whether it be your children, or perhaps your children’s children, someone in your line will learn such things as the logic of necessary and sufficient conditions and, hopefully, have the decency to judge a man by his character and not his grammar.
Hindsight is 20/20, Claudia. I’ve got friends and family who marched on the steps of Washington protesting Reagan’s actions against Eastern Airlines employees. In fact, my father was an air traffic controller with Eastern. However, after they had several years to let their emotions subside, many of these people were able to actually judge Reagan by his character and have since become some of the man’s biggest fans.
We all need to hang onto our cherished realities.
Quite true, Claudia. Quite true.
G&R
1) I don’t think malapropisms are limited to Bush – I remember Richard Daley’s Little Red Book from the 1960’s (e.g., “Ladies and gentlemen of the League of Women Voters”) –
2) I agree that Kerry boxed himself into a corner regarding Iraq, and he could come across as pompous (“who among us doesn’t like NASCAR?”). However, compare his performance with Bush in the debates last year – in my opinion, Kerry was much more successful in thinking on his feet and answering the questions simply and directly. I think that in the debates – and other times as well – he was clear, simple, and lucid.
3) There are plenty on the left who also make me want to cringe. Charlie Rangel and Jesse Jackson are two who come to mind. However, at least Jesse Jackson comes up with good rhymes…
I agree with G&R insofar as I do not believe that a good education is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a good orator, or perhaps even being a good President. However, I believe that being a good orator is a necessary, although not sufficient, element of being a good President. As noted above, I think the ability to communicate is essential to the ability to lead. To the extent that the inability to speak properly impedes the ability to communicate, it also impairs the effectiveness of leadership.
Here’s a thought–I actually think the President is quite well educated, and he doesn’t seem to have a problem communicating with enough Americans to get elected twice.
Peter,
I think it’s more than image – I think that, especially in the age of television, image bleeds into substance.
Then this is the fault of those unable to see the difference.
I also think that Presidents do get remembered for what they say and how they said it. Reagan will always be remembered for the “Boys of Point du Hoc” speech, even if Peggy Noonan wrote it. Kennedy will be remembered for his Inaugural address, just as FDR is remembered for the “nothing to fear” speech.
Case in point. I know almost nothing about the “Boys of Point du Hoc” speech; I remember Reagan primarily in terms of the bravery and steadfastness he embodied during the events that led up to the end of the Cold War. I’ve never listened to Kennedy’s Inaugural address. And even if FDR had never made that speech, it cannot be doubted that he would be remembered in terms of the decisions he made during the Second World War.
Yes, being a great public speaker is important. I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that the person arguing that this quality is necessary for one to be a good President has a weak and devastatingly subjective (and probably agenda-born) argument on his or her hands.
I am sure it is difficult for Bush partisans to see why he makes us liberals cringe – seeing him is like hearing someone scratch their fingernails on a blackboard. I’m not saying it’s rational, but I can’t look at the guy without thinking that he is a kid in a man’s suit who can’t believe his good fortune in having his excellent adventure as President. I never felt that way about his father, Nixon, Ford, or Reagan – I didn’t think they were great Presidents, but I didn’t think they were off the charts awful – and Bush II’s mispronunciations and mangling of the English language only exacerbates things.
And here we get to the bottom of things. As utron put it, it would seem to be the case that you’re dressing personal sentiments up as an ideological position.
I hardly care how you – or anyone else, for that matter – feel about George Bush.
G&R
AcademicElephant,
Bingo.
G&R
Short and sweet, AE. Exactly the kind of thing W can do, and Kerry and I can’t.
I would add that my PhD has never earned me a single vote.
Here’s a thought–I actually think the President is quite well educated, and he doesn’t seem to have a problem communicating with enough Americans to get elected twice. –AE
More Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush in 2000. The Supremes appointed George Bush.
GR saId:
I’ve personally been to several philosophy conferences at which a speaker might communicate like, say, Churchill while reading his or her paper, but when the time came to actually interact with the audience, he or she clammed up and made serious mistakes while speaking (sentence fragments, run-ons, etc.). These philosophers, then, serve as ample counterexamples to this working principle of yours that “anyone with a higher than average intelligence would not make the egregious mistakes that Bush makes.”
GR,
Bush claims “Mexican” is a language, and among other things, he claims that “It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law” are not syntactical or grammatical “mistakes” but are evidence of a lack of basic intelligence in matters of common knowledge. He has also been quoted saying he thinks Intelligent Design should be studied because “…the Bible has been around longer than Darwin.” Really?
And the Bible’s been around longer than electricity.
Look we’ll never agree on Bush’s capabilites in leading the country. You think he’s a star; I think he is not.
“…many of these people were able to actually judge Reagan by his character and have since become some of the man’s biggest fans.”
February 2, 1987: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: “If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised.”
February 20: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: “I don’t remember, period.” “I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own…. The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’”
February 26: The Tower Commission report is delivered to Reagan. The report could not link Reagan to diversion of funds from Iran to the Contras. But it concluded that Reagan, confused and unaware, allowed himself to be misled by dishonest staff members who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The report charges that Reagan had failed to “insist upon accountability & performance review, ” allowing the National Security Council process to collapse. Reagan’s approval rating is down to 42%.
February 27: Although reluctant at first, Reagan yields to pressure from his advisors and Nancy to fire Chief of Staff Donald Regan. Reagan calls Howard Baker to offer him the position of Chief of Staff. Donald Regan finds out through CNN — only after Baker has accepted. He is furious.
March 4: On national television, Reagan acknowledges mistakes on Iran-Contra. “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake.”
Great character.
I think that image is inseparable from substance because I believe that qualities like gravitas, fluency, and suasion are essential parts of the Presidential role of being America’s leader and face to the world. You could have the most profound thinker of the age, but if he looks and acts like Pee Wee Herman, I don’t think you’d want him in the oval office. Is it the only thing? Of course not. Does it belong on the pie chart of Presidential attributes? I think so. Maybe 20% of the pie.
Similarly, you may admire Reagan for his acts as President – but part of his success is his ability to appear presidential. I think his speech-making is a large part of that. Ditto for FDR and, especially, Churchill. The ability of those two to lead their countries in difficult times is inseparable from their ability to communicate in speeches and on the radio. Their ability to lead through suasion enabled them to achieve the great things which they did.
Finally, I honestly don’t think that I’m dressing up personal sentiments as ideology. It is true that there is nothing about Bush’s ideology or agenda (except his immigration program) which I agree with. However, I don’t think that he is a bad person, and I believe that he is doing what he thinks is best for the country. I have no personal animosity towards him, and I might even be one of the people who wanted to have beers with him. However, while I had ideological differences with Nixon, Bush I, and Reagan, I never had a problem with the way they spoke or how they conducted themselves in public. If Bush were Tony Blair, then I (and many like me) would not have this visceral distaste for Bush, even if there were no changes in his policy positions. It’s just that his inability to speak effectively – i.e., to appear Presidential – is one of several reasons why I feel that he has demeaned the office.
“Of course, if he is your hero, nothing he says or does can be criticized or can be seen for what it is.”
Of course, if he is your bete noire, nothing he says or does can be objectively evaluated.
Sure, he’s a terrible public speaker by some standards. Still, put him and Kerry side by side – one speaks terribly but rarely, if ever, fails to get his point across; the other speaks trippingly from the tongue but rarely, if ever, succeeds etc.
Bush is far from dumb, but whatever node of brain tissue governs most people’s public speech seems to be more or less out to lunch.
However, his dad was also a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad speaker – was he also an idiot?
“More Americans voted for Gore than voted for Bush in 2000. The Supremes appointed George Bush.”
No, because more Floridians voted for Bush than Gore. The electoral college elected George Bush – as even *Paul Krugman* has recently been forced to concede.
Bush is far from a hero to me. Never voted for him, never given him money. I won’t hazard to predict his historical legacy – but Claudia, when it comes to Reagan, you’re flogging a dead horse. Everyone from Brownback to Kerry now cite him as a great leader. It’s time to admit it – you’ve lost this argument in the court of public opinion. Quick! Use all your ammo on Bush 43 now, while there’s still time!!
Wow, did I get the wrong thread? WTF does any of this have to do with the post?
Bush Derangement Syndrome Alert! JUMP!
Everyone from Brownback to Kerry now cite him as a great leader.
Okay. Reagan was a great leader who had a number of people in his administration indicted for crimes. And he probably would have been impeached for his crimes as well, but, heck, he was a nice guy. Okay. That’s all that matters, isn’t it. He was a nice guy.
I do like his son.
Beth, there’s been a lot of BDS around here lately…I’ve spent too much time wallowing around fighting it (not with the folks in this thread, but I’m thinking of one particular person – oh, what the hell, it was Bruce)…no more with that one, I’m finished…
However, his dad was also a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad speaker – was he also an idiot?
Not an idiot, more like a scalliwag, but a really nice scalliwag. Seems to run in the family.
George H.W. Bush’s last controversial act in office was his pardon of six former government employees implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal on December 24, 1992, most prominently former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger had been scheduled to stand trial on January 5, 1993 for lying to Congress regarding his knowledge of arms sales to Iran and concealing 1700 pages of his personal diary detailing discussions with other officials about the arms sales. As Weinberger’s private notes contained references to Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran, some believe that Bush’s pardon was an effort to prevent an order for Bush to appear before a grand jury or possibly to avoid an indictment. Weinberger’s indictment stated that Weinberger’s notes contradicted Bush’s assertions that he had only peripheral knowledge of the arms for hostages deal. Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel assigned to the case, charged that “the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed.” Walsh likened the pardons to President Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. Bush responded that the Walsh probe constituted an attempt to criminalize a policy dispute between the legislative and executive branches. In addition to Weinberger, Bush pardoned Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Robert C. McFarlane, Elliott Abrams, and Alan G. Fiers Jr., all of whom had been indicted and/or convicted of charges by the Independent Counsel.
Still, put him and Kerry side by side – one speaks terribly but rarely, if ever, fails to get his point across; the other speaks trippingly from the tongue but rarely, if ever, succeeds etc.
When President Bush was questioned about tribal sovereignty in the 21st century at a gathering of minority journalists he responded:
“Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign. You’re a … you’re a … you’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”
Did Bush get the point across? He sure did. The point is, it’s about being sovereign.
Wow, you’re doing well, Mark. You’ve got a real troll over here. That’s when you know you’ve hit the big time – not some readership number or page views – when you get a troll, a real live troll, you know you’ve got it.
Claudia,
Bush claims “Mexican” is a language, and among other things, he claims that “It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law” are not syntactical or grammatical “mistakes” but are evidence of a lack of basic intelligence in matters of common knowledge.
You sure this is a sentence, Claudia?
Besides, anyone unfettered from the confines of ideological dogmatism can see that statements like those might just as well be evidence of one’s not thinking as clearly on his or her toes as he or she does in other circumstances. Unfortunately, since you’ve already decided that Bush is an idiot, facts like this are going to be of little meaning to you.
Like I said: “ideological dogmatism.”
Look we’ll never agree on Bush’s capabilites in leading the country. You think he’s a star; I think he is not.
As far as I can see, the only compliment I’ve paid the man during my discussions here came when I said that “many of us believe that history will remember George Bush fondly.” I’d hardly call this “think[ing] he’s a star,” Claudia.
Like I said: “ideological dogmatism.”
Then, referring to Reagan, you wrote, sarcastically:
Great character.
And after being corrected, you admit:
Okay. Reagan was a great leader . . .
You’re just all over the place today, huh Claudia? Bottom line: Your argument that Bush’s mistaken statements are some sort of sure sign of ignorance hasn’t been able to hold so much as a drop of water from the start. And everything you’ve said since has just been a show of typical liberal unraveling.
It’s been my sincerest pleasure having this little conversation, Claudia. Have a wonderful day.
G&R
GCB, that’s the measure of success? I feel better already…have a good one…
Claudia,
Bush claims “Mexican” is a language, and among other things, he claims that “It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law” are not syntactical or grammatical “mistakes” but are evidence of a lack of basic intelligence in matters of common knowledge.
You sure this is a sentence, Claudia?
I’m not the president G&R, and I don’t have dozens of people writing my messages for me. I’m not the leader of the free world, who represents all Americans. Just a little poster on a blog. No. Comparison.
Besides, anyone unfettered from the confines of ideological dogmatism can see that statements like those might just as well be evidence of one’s not thinking as clearly on his or her toes as he or she does in other circumstances.
Other circumstances? Oh, I understand. Sometimes he’s lucid and sometimes he is not. Sometimes, like Kerry, he’s glib, sometimes he’s not. It’s nice to be able to make up your own excuses for his idiocy. But hey, it’s your blog, not mine. Wouldn’t one hope that the most powerful man in the world would THINK CLEARLY ON HIS FEET AT ALL TIMES?
Unfortunately, since you’ve already decided that Bush is an idiot, facts like this are going to be of little meaning to you.
Facts? What exactly are those facts? I read opinion. What facts do you personally know about the president’s periods of lucidity?
Like I said: “ideological dogmatism.”
Look in the mirror.
Look we’ll never agree on Bush’s capabilites in leading the country. You think he’s a star; I think he is not.
As far as I can see, the only compliment I’ve paid the man during my discussions here came when I said that “many of us believe that history will remember George Bush fondly.” I’d hardly call this “think[ing] he’s a star,” Claudia.
History looking at Bush fondly is most definitely seeing him as some sort of hero, i.e., star. On what do you base this prediction? His success in the war in Iraq? His administration’s excellent job during hurricane Katrina? His administration’s compassionate position on torture? His excellent handling of the deficit? His privitazation of Social Security? His expansion of the federal government to a size comparable to the biggest liberal in recent history, Lyndon Johnson?
Like I said: “ideological dogmatism.”
You said it, not I.
Then, referring to Reagan, you wrote, sarcastically:
Great character.
And after being corrected, you admit:
Okay. Reagan was a great leader . . .
You’re just all over the place today, huh Claudia?
I understand in the Bush era that irony is dead, and that is evident in your inability to see it in my comment. Oy.
Bottom line: Your argument that Bush’s mistaken statements are some sort of sure sign of ignorance hasn’t been able to hold so much as a drop of water from the start.
“Stupid is as stupid says,” goes the old saying. But another old saying is “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
It’s your ideological dog, sweetie, that’s not hunting, not mine.
And everything you’ve said since has just been a show of typical liberal unraveling.
Unraveling. Yes, that’s it. I can’t stand the fact that by all measurements Bush’s second term is falling apart. DeLay indicted, Frist under two investigations–SEC and the Justice Department. Rove and Libby implicated in the Plame scandal after having Scott McClellan (read: Bush Administration) LIE to the American public that they were absolutely not involved in any way. 2000 dead in Iraq and thousands and thousands of Iraqi innocents slaughtered. Torture scandals, Savafian arrested! Yeah. I’m just unraveling here.
It’s been my sincerest pleasure having this little conversation, Claudia. Have a wonderful day.
G&R
No, sweetie, I defer to you. You have a nice next three years. I’ll just get me some popcorn and enjoy the show.
Claudia, actually, it’s my blog, though G & R has an excellent one of his own. One comment, if I may – I’m stealing this quote from peter, is that right, peter? Anyway, peter is one of my regulars from the left, just in case you think we’re all a bunch of wingnuts…but enough, the quote – well, more of a paraphrase from Mario Cuomo – “A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich” – I know that’s not right, but it’s close.
The point? Don’t get too excited about Delay’s indictment – I assure you Ronnie Earle has a history of letting his partisans down…and believe me, you don’t have the slightest clue what’s going on in PlameGate, and neither do I – we get what the two sides leak to us, nothing more – just hold your horses, nobody’s even been indicted in that one yet. And nobody at all has been convicted in either situation…innocent until proven guilty, right? Or doesn’t that protection apply to evil Republicans?
More fun than a barrel of monkeys.
And nobody at all has been convicted in either situation…innocent until proven guilty, right? Or doesn’t that protection apply to evil Republicans?
Mark,
I’ll apply that dictum as the Repubs applied it to the Clintons during the Whitewater investigations. (Which cost over $70 million and did not find the Clintons guilty of anything, but it didn’t stop the Repubs from speculating on their guilt in newspapers and magazines.)
As to Plamegate, I most certainly know this:
Scott McClellan unequivocally stated that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with it.
Scott McClellan is a spokesman for Mr. Bush, his press secretary. Mr. McClellan lied. Or someone in Mr. Bush’s White House lied to McClellan. People lie to cover up things.
This is what I know about Plamegate.
And apparently the Ham Sandwich that was indicted by Ronnie Earle is losing support with his colleagues. I just heard on Joe Scarborough’s cable show that Representative Shays said that Ham Sandwich would not be welcomed back into the House, even if he were acquitted of his accusations.
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve “Gentlemen, buckle-up your seatbelts because it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!”
Mark: you did quote Mario Cuomo correctly. Thanks for asking!
I agree that Tom DeLay is entitled to the presumption of innocence. However, I also think that leaders should be held to a higher standard than criminal defendants: they should not only avoid impropriety, they should also avoid the appearance of impropriety. In recent years, Wright, Gingrich, and Rostenkowski all lost their positions due to ethical problems, and I believe that Rostenkowski was the only one who was indicted (and later convicted). John Tower was disqualified from being Secretary of Defense because he drank and womanized, and hence gave the appearance of impropriety. (My recollections may be a little fuzzy — hey, I can barely remember where I park my car at the mall — but I think they are correct). Even if he is acquitted, this should not lead to the conclusion that everything is hunky-dory. I believe that DeLay should resign even if found innocent, because there are enough events with the strong appearance of impropriety that the people would be better served with someone else in his position.
My goodness, that will teach me to go out to dinner. It’s like the Mines of Moria. Fun as it is, though, Beth is right. This has nothing to do with Miers. But before I take the high road I just have to do a little wallowing: Claudia, do go and learn something about the Electoral College, or else you’re just going to have to trust me that this is the mechanism that decides presidential elections in the United States. George W. Bush did indeed earn enough votes to become president twice according to that mechanism. If you disagree on Florida, you can check the “corrections” section of the New York Times for clarification. Search under “Krugman.”
Claudia, I don’t care whether or not the ham sandwich is accepted by the other 434 meats and breads and mayo and mustard. All I care is that he has a vote and he’s accepted by his diners (constituents). And I expect that is all he cares about, as well.
“did not find the Clintons guilty of anything”
Plenty of their henchmen (and women) were found guilty, though.
Pardon me for straying from the topic at hand. “Bush on Miers”
Here’s George Wills opinion:
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’s confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
And Pat Buchanan”
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had — and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.
And to Miss Elephant:
Your supercilious remark to me on understanding the electoral process is touching.
How have I managed to survive as a US citizen for as long as I have without brilliant people like you instructing me in how our democracy works.
“Your supercilious remark to me on understanding the electoral process is touching.”
It’s just that you seemed sort of confused about it before.
How do you set up your charts when looking for a stock trade…
One of the most common questions is: “How do you set up your charts when looking for a trade?” First, you have to know the basic timeframe of the trade you are about to make. Is this going to be a 30-200 minute trade? A 1-2 day trade? A 3-4 week trad…