Something I Will Never Understand
Kathleen Parker, who usually supports George W. Bush with a Noonan-esque fervor, writes:
President George W. Bush’s baffling nomination of Harriet Miers, an inexperienced jurist and relatively unknown lawyer, to the U.S. Supreme Court has nearly everyone stumped. What was he thinking?
Of course that’s the wrong verb. Thinking. When Bush has an important decision to make, he doesn’t rely so much on intellectual skills as he does instinct. Like a shaman examining entrails for clues to the future, he prefers to divine a person’s interior.
Jonathan Chait makes the same point, but with a much-needed dose of shrillness:
Why did Bush select her? Because Miers has a personal rapport with the president, having known him from serving as his personal lawyer before following him to the White House.
Most presidents would want their cronies to have some reasonably impressive legal credentials before ascending to the high court. But Bush seems to harbor a principled disdain for meritocracy. Cronyism is one of his core values.
Any sane person realizes that this is not a good quality for any elected leader to have, let alone the frickin’ President of the United States. And as Brad DeLong noted a while ago, we have ample evidence that Bush’s poor intellectual skills have resulted in bad policy decisions:
We have Bush budget policy: a $#@!-up. We have Bush tax policy: $#@!-up. We have Bush employment policy: a $#@!-up. We have John Di Iulio’s report on Bush social policy: a $#@!-up. We have Bush stem-cell policy: a $#@!-up. We have Bush global warming policy as reported to us by Paul O’Neill: a $#@!-up. We have Bush energy policy: a $#@!-up. No matter how hard Gregg Easterbrook tries to convince us that the only reason Bush environmental policy is lousy is because of liberal attacks on Bush, his environmental policy is still what it is: a $#@!-up. We have Bush’s behavior on September 11, 2001: a $#@!-up. We have Bush’s inability for a week afterwards to say “Pervez Musharraf” reliably (rather than “the leader of Pakistan”): a $#@!-up. We have Bush’s decisions on how to fight the War in Afghanistan, ending at Tora Bora: a $#@!-up. We have the postwar reconstruction of Afghanistan: a $#@!-up. We have the Medicare drug benefit: a $#@!-up. We have the run-up to the war in Iraq: a $#@!-up. We have the role played by the INC: a $#@!-up. We have the diplomatic skill used to gather a coalition for the war: a $#@!-up. We have the postwar reconstruction effort: a $#@!-up. We have Abu Ghraib: a $#@!-up. We have claims of presidential powers to imprison never even claimed by Henry VII: a $#@!-up. And we have this week’s Cuba policy: a $#@!-up.
Indeedsky. And keep in mind that DeLong wrote this long before Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina, which I needn’t remind you was a terrifyingly, mind-blowingly horrendous $#@!-up.
The question I have is this: why on Earth does anyone continue to support George W. Bush? For as Tristero (posting at Digby’s place) notes today, “37 % of the American people still approve of Bush. Incredible how many people remain duped.” Exactly who are these 37%, and why don’t I actually know any of them? Most conservatives I know have been appalled at one time or another by Bush’s handling of:
a.) The Iraq War
b.) The Terri Schiavo situation
c.) Hurricane Katrina
d.) U.S. Fiscal Policy
e.) Some combination thereof.
What’s it gonna take to make the remaining 37% of the country realize that George W. Bush is a stunningly inept and dangerously unqualified president?
UPDATE: As this editorial by Kevin Korenthal at michnews.com makes clear, there is nothing this president can do to isolate some of his wingnuttiest supporters:
But my question today to those that chose to demand that the President withdraw his Supreme Court nomination is, are you serving the needs of the party and the nation or your own desire for Bush to pick someone you would chose?
And other than being completely unqualified, is there really any reason you can think of to oppose Harriet Miers?
Certainly there were many other well qualified choices that Bush could have made.
I agree. So why didn’t he make any of them?
He went with the candidate that he knew best, someone from his own administration. You?ve got to admit that in the sense of putting his own mark on the Court, Bush has certainly done that in choosing Miers.
And just like a dog pissing on a tree, Bush has used Harriet Miers to mark his territory.
There was a poll a month or so again that asked (something like) “if Karl Rove did divulge the identity of a CIA operative, should W fire him?” and it was around 75% yes. WHO ARE THE 25% who said no? Did they keep calling Bar Bush?
But if Kathleen “You Know You Want Me” Parker is badmouthing W, she might be moving ahead of MJ in the “WILF” category. If she could come up with some other profanities besides “$#@!”, she’d be perfect. Talking dirty is only fun if there’s some variety.
On other news, we have to wait until tomorrow to see the Yankers lose. I’ve got 5 Tom Waits CDs in the player on shuffle and a case of beer. I may need bail at some point tonight.
If she could come up with some other profanities besides “$#@!”, she’d be perfect.
Actually, the “$#@!”‘s were courtesy of Brad DeLong…
Well, I thought that was a bit odd for Pristine Kathleen. But now I’m concerned that Brad DeLong needs to shake his obscenities up a bit. A little variety is the spice, Brad D. – and maybe flowers once in a while (and not just when you’ve done something wrong.)
Indeedsky Indeed.
“What’s it gonna take to make the remaining 37% of the country realize that George W. Bush is a stunningly inept and dangerously unqualified president?”
Functioning frontal lobes.
Like you had to ask…
I believe that for the hardest of hardcore Bush supporters, the tipping point of their support will not be reached until he preempts WWF Smackdown! to bugger a billygoat on live TV. And it will have to be an ugly billygoat. And openly gay.
I used to enjoy political discussions down at the local bar – you could talk some issues, take some jabs, and still buy your republican friend a beer. I kinda stopped after the standard reaction got to be “you’re a terrist!” .. now I don’t do it because it’s kind of sad. Idaho is a dang red state, but more libertarian than hard-core conservative, I think .. but now there’s just a sense of “yeah, maybe we were wrong” that I get from those who supported him. Granted, I’m not hanging out at the redneck bars, where that 37% are still talking about Clinton’s blowjob, but it’s interesting to see the erosion among what I consider some hard-core supporters. I hope we can get back to the discussions where we buy each other a beer. Ok, I’m rambling …
tg- a good 37% of the country have always been a little bit crazy, these are the AM talk radio children, they won’t turn until a) the Bush policies explicitly affect them and b) Rush, Hannity etc, and maybe even the more hard core jocks turn. Also, the jocks will need to give them the out “we were all fooled” because they would never admit to being wrong, even though in truth they started out wrong and only lied to themselves.
I’m assuming the other thirty seven percent of us are, creepily enough, basically sociopathic personalities who manage to keep it mostly in check, or at least legal.
A lot of them are basically people like Bush himself in that they made a gut decision that they didn’t like Kerry and they did like Dubya, and admitting, even to themselves, at this point that they were wrong is calling into question a whole mess of shit about themselves that they’re not willing to touch. Like homophobes who refuse to even consider the possibility that leaning to cook could be a decent occupation for a man, because doesn’t that make you queer: They don’t understand the nuances, so they need stuff in black and white. Bush provides that.
Combine that with the vicarious thrills at least some of them are obviously getting from the shit Bush is pulling–killing Ay-rabs, pushing homos back into closets, appointing judges and bureaucrats who’ll make sure the little sluts can’t have sex without getting pregnant or diseased, talking shit about the French and the democrats and all those smart college guys and environmentalists, etc–and you’ve got enough pathology to keep them pissing Kool-Aid for at least the next three years.
A significant percentage of them simply won’t renounce Bush, because it’d mean deconstructing themselves and starting over, and they haven’t got the toolkit to do that, not to mention the idea scares the shit out of them.
It’s all entirely understandable, I suppose. But, man, the costs on that are killing us.
They are the same people who blame a child for pissing off an adult so much they just had to beat them. The ones who think there is no such thing as rape unless you are beaten unconscious. That the pastor was seduced by the six year old. In short, the patriarchy and I blame them.
Pinko Punko – the problem is is that the Bush policies ARE bad for them, but they keep voting that way. And I know this is painting with a pretty broad brush, but I agree that they don’t have the right tools in the box to get it. They’re not going to get it, ever. It’s just Britney, saying we need to support our preznit, no matter what.
D. Sidhe – ayup. That type of epiphany ain’t gonna happen. We think like we do because of a lifetime of experience (not trying to start some nature/nurture issue here), and it’s not (or rarely) going to happen because of a war (that one hasn’t fought in) or $5 gas. The mind is an amazing thing when it comes to protecting it’s internal consistency.
Like homophobes who refuse to even consider the possibility that leaning to cook could be a decent occupation for a man, because doesn’t that make you queer
D. Sidhe, the lack of an “r” in the word “leaning” changes the meaning of that sentence to a somewhat smutty one.
I think that the right wing noise machine has done such a good job in demonizing liberals, gays, the non-barking mad religious, uppity women and people who aren’t WASP’s over the last 30 years that those 37% probably don’t see that there’s any real choice at all: it’s either the Rethuglicans or total anarchy where pastry chefs break in to their houses to steal their Bible and sodomize their children, there’s no in between.
I actually knew someone who was worried that my mom letting me learn to cook would turn me into “a gay”. This was the same person who was shocked that my family wasn’t afraid of the prospect of moving to Germany, and believed that there were 53 states. Needless to say, she thought Bush was doing a great job.
D. Sidhe, the lack of an “r” in the word “leaning” changes the meaning of that sentence to a somewhat smutty one.
Dammit, Brad stole my R! Letter hog!
Entirely my fault, of course. Sorry, missed that one.
It doesn’t sound particularly smutty to me, which I think means I probably ought to do something about the migraine, since generally I have no problems identifying smut.
I imagine I’ll be snickering later.
Like a shaman examining entrails for clues to the future, he prefers to divine a person’s interior.
Is George Bush Harriet Miers’ mystical proctologist? How far up did his hand have to go for him to say he “knows her heart”?
That should read “Posted by: shystee”. $#@!!
Like a shaman examining entrails for clues to the future, he prefers to divine a person’s interior.
That’s a ‘your mom’ joke waiting to happen.
Frankly, if we brought back entrail divination we’d probably get BETTER results than we do now. At least the decisions would be based on something besides cronyism, greed, or hatred.
It doesn’t sound particularly smutty to me
Not so much smutty, as, you know, homer-sechsal. “leaning to cook” has long been one of the more lesser-used code-phrases for gay. I, for one, stand absolutely straight up, lock-kneed, when I bake that quiche. The fact that I’m wearing fishnet stockings is no indication of anything, I just happen to be comfortable in them. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The 5 hours straight of Tom Waits has taken it’s toll. Time to pedal on downtown.
Is George Bush Harriet Miers’ mystical proctologist? How far up did his hand have to go for him to say he “knows her heart”?
I’m going to be laughing about that all night. Jesus.
Is George Bush Harriet Miers’ mystical proctologist? How far up did his hand have to go for him to say he “knows her heart”?
OK, that’s damn, damn funny.
Bush policies ARE bad for them, but they keep voting that way
I’ve gotten the impression that if one feels that Bush’s MORAL policies are in line with what they want, they don’t care what else happens. Someone on some blog was talking about a woman who moved to Sweden and enjoyed the healthcare and whatnot there, but felt it was somehow “immoral.” There are just people like that.
What baffles me about the sudden Bush criticism is that HE’S NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT. It’s not as though the entire administration hasn’t been behaving the same way and doing the same thing all along for years now. I just think it’s interesting that the new critics are saying the same things they lambasted liberals for as recently as last year, calling us traitors who need to be deported. And as far as I can tell there is NO hint of “The liberals were right.” Not that I expect one, but it’s not even as if they’re ignoring it. It’s as if it hadn’t occurred to them at all.
That should be last MONTH, probably, not last YEAR.
D. Sidhe, I actually read your typo sorta dyslexically so that in my mind it came out, “…leaning to cock…” Sigh. Typical of the little gay duck.
I think my Mother-in-law still likes Dubya, and I don’t know about cooks, but she does think all waiters are gay. (bangs head on desk until the pain stops)
Wasn’t it around 30+% of the German population that lead that country down the slippery slope to hell under the Nazi party? (Ooh-I said the ‘N’ word…)
At least one nice thing about 37% of Americans still thinking Bush is doing a good job… it means there’s a good chance one will be near enough to see his brains splatter the wall as his head explodes when the entire Chimpministration gets indicted for conspiracy and perjury later this month.
Remember, perjury == lying. And it’s not about the sex, it’s about the…
Is there a Sally Strothers correspondence course I can take to become a mystical proctologist?
Since everyone here already took the choice words, I’ll just point out that my fucking eyes bleed from the black-on-white type and hope/demand a return to white-on-black type. Thank you.
Exactly who are these 37%, and why don’t I actually know any of them?
My father-in-law likes Bush because he’s not Clinton.
Now, he’s not so blinnd as to be unable to see the disastrous results of many Bush Administration policies. But he is deluded enough to try to blame them on Bush’s “advisors” – and when I point out that this is a red herring, because Bush hired these incompetents in the first place and has the ability to fire them but does not do so, he sticks his fingers in his ears and yells, “Clinton was a scumbag!”
My brother is neither stupid nor religious. He was appalled at the repubs’ interference in Schiavo. But he and his friends still support Bush. Why? They are wealthy. To quote my brother, “Bush saves me money.” He really does not understand my rabid dislike of Bush.
To quote my brother, “Bush saves me money.”
That, at least, is a rational reason. But that’s gotta work for, like, only 1-2% of the population. What’s everyone else’s excuse?
Brad R., at least one study has shown that way more Americans than you’d expect are delusional about how wealthy they are compared to others. In other words, some people think they really are rich.
But that doesn’t totally explain it. I think there are people who feel that someday, they will be rich, and they want policies in place that protect them. Ironically, the way things are going now it’s much harder for anyone to get rich. Dumbasses.
Also, these actual wealthy and the wannabees always neglect the fact that if the country’s entire infrastructure is neglected and winds up breaking down, it’ll effect them, too. Mind you, in many ways the fabulously rich have a cushion against these sorts of things, but if they choose not to suffer with the rest of us it then costs them money. Directly. And they don’t like that either. And there are plenty of areas where a little taxation now, a little preventative maintenance can avoid some catastrophic results later that can be very costly, even to the ?ber-rich, such as avian flu, where a bit of R&D money toward a vaccine now might save lives, ‘cos later, with its 55% fatality rate, a rich man doesn’t have a significantly better chance of survival than a poor one. So in the end, Republicanism is bad for everyone.
Hey, I just wanted to point out that the Yankees Shawn Chacon is pitching a perfect game. perfect. perfect perfect.
Nice, as I wrote that, Matsui made an error.
But it’s still a no-hitter, no hits no hits no hits. no-hitter over here…
Sorry to be OT but there is no one else here to talk about Chacon’s no-hitter with.
Hello,
Shizzle on this!
Peace,
Sorry to be OT but there is no one else here to talk about Chacon’s no-hitter with.
One-hitter.
Like a shaman examining entrails for clues to the future, he prefers to divine a person’s interior.
I read about the “gut feeling” as an intelectual approach of W before, but normally it was described as a GOOD THING. So why the sad face now?
On top of everything, Miers is probably an experienced jurist — 30 years of practice give it or take. And being a “relative unknown” seems superior to “the cookiest fruitcake among the CA judges”. Or being a famous advocate of torture.
I knew a guy back in ’00 who was going to vote for Bush because Gore was big-business, and that was just not cool.
Can I join the banging-head-pain-reliever party?