The other day, I heard Senator Charles Schumer (spit) talking about the Alito nomination. Among his other frothings and rants, he said George W. Bush “wants to radically change the balance of the Supreme Court.”
Even a blind pig occaionally finds a truffle, and Senator Schmuck triggered a thought in my head:
George W. Bush is, in some ways, no conservative. In fact, he’s a radical liberal, a progressive, of the type that puts many of the great leaders of the Left — past and present — to shame.
One of the hallmarks of Conservatism has been, well, conserving. Keeping things the way they are. Maintaining the status quo. Preserving the current Order. Holding firm against radical changes.
Bush doesn’t hold with that. He sees it much more simply: if something is bad, you fix it. Even if there are benefits to the broken system, it still ought to be righted.
For decades, the Middle East has been a festering sore. But one of the biggest bugaboos was “stability.” Every step anyone took had to be carefully weighed against “destabilizing” the region. The idea was that the current situation was horrible, but tolerable. If one’s primary concern was avoiding an all-out war, then a certain level of hostility, violence, and killing had to be tolerated. It was fine if people were killed or maimed in attacks, as long as it was held below a certain threshold.
After 9/11, Bush looked at that, tossed the nuances aside, and figured it was long overdue to upset the applecart. So the US invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban, and helped institute a more democratic government. Then it was on to Iraq, where the slogging was a lot tougher, but we’re seeing more and more signs of progress and success. And those efforts have led directly to positive moves in Lebanon and Libya. Further, even the UN is waking up, and leaning on Syria after it has spent literally decades oppressing Lebanon. And the Lebanese themselves are looking to get rid of some of the Palestinian terrorist groups that occupy chunks of their land, and that might even end up with actual diplomatic ties between Lebanon and Israel.
On the domestic front, Bush looked at Social Security and saw it was heading for a fall — perhaps a fatal one. True, it was decades away, and had been called “the third rail of American politics” for its history of killing any politician who touched it, but it was broken. His plan (which I thought was eminently sensible, and was promptly demonized by the left) has been defeated for now, but a LOT of people are now thinking and talking about it. He may not have won the battle, but the issue is out in the open now — and won’t go away.
With all that in mind, what’s Bush up to with the Supreme Court? It looks like he’s simply looking for the best candidates he can find, those whose judicial philosophy seems to be compatible with his own, and puts them forward. (I dunno how the Miers nomination fits in, so I’m gonna call it an aberration.) And if that happens to mean that the Court ends up moving in a more conservative direction, I think that’s only fair — it’s been drifting leftward for decades, as more and more Republican nominees get caught up in the DC cesspool and find themselves making more and more decisions that please their new neighbors and social circles.
So, Senator Schmuck doesn’t like the idea of Bush “upsetting the balance” of the Supreme Court, replacing the squishy Justice O’Connor with someone who appears to have firm Constitutional principles. I dunno how he gets off acting so “shocked” by this — it’s just the latest manifestation of Bush’s radical progressivism.
But then again, Senator Schmuck has never impressed me with his intellect.
Jay, as an aside, since I live in NY I find myself blogging about ole Chucky quite a bit, and have found that, using blogspot, if you do a spell check the first suggestion to fix Schumer is ‘schemer’. They know of what they speak.
“…So the US invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban,..”
Nnnnnn…nnnnn-No.
Official linked to blowing up buddhas is elected
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/12933321.htm
1506 days since Bush said he’d catch Osama bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive!’
1,365 days it took the U.S. to defeat the nation of Japan after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Jay: I’m certainly no Bush fan, but to quibble a bit with your portrayal of him as a radical, one could argue that he’s taking radical steps, but only to keep things the same, and isn’t looking for things to be radically different.
Whether it’s the Taliban, terrorists, social security, the Palestinians or judges, he sees threats to the way he likes things and is doing what he can and needs to do in order to keep things just the way they have been.
> (I dunno how the Miers nomination fits in, so I’m
> gonna call it an aberration.)
Wasn’t it about a month ago here at Wizbang that I saw the suggestion that Harriet Myers was the Potemkin Village candidate? Bushie deliberately pushed her forward to rile up his conservative base and then substituted his preferred candidate when everyone was in a fighting mood.
Damn, that Karl Rove is a flamin’ genius…
“1506 days since Bush said he’d catch Osama bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive!’
1,365 days it took the U.S. to defeat the nation of Japan after Pearl Harbor was attacked.”
1506-1365= 141 days the nuke is overdue.
Jay, you’ve almost outdone yourself. Last week you objected to me calling you the “acceptable face of right-wing America” – I almost believed you and I retracted my comments because I’d broken a rule I usually adhere to…never to butt into a discussion on the domestic politics of someone else’s country because I will never know as much about it as those who live there. I broke that rule…and wished I hadn’t.
But here you are again spouting extreme right-wing nonsense. It’s so right-wing that you could form a new communist party and gather a bunch of disaffected Trotskyites and Stalinists around you. It’s already been done of course – that union of former enemies once seemed impossible it has been accomplished by others. A number of them have already rallied around Bush.
Pre-9/11, Bush had pretty much nothing to offer except kickbacks to his big-business buddies. Post 9/11, he allowed America to be taken over by the radical right. They were always there and they’d exercized considerable power during the delusional phase of Reagan’s administration…but post 9/11, Bush gave them more power than they had ever dreamed possible.
Yes, they’re radical – they hate the pragmatism of people like Kissenger. I don’t much care for Kissenger either, but my reasons are different.
What you are pushing is the “democratic revolution” espoused by the true believers of the neo-conservatives. It sounds nice. I quite like it. Well, I would like it if it wasn’t a huge lie.
What they – and Bush – stand for is more of the same…only MUCH more so. It’s big business with no restraint. It’s the Cold War without the “cold” part. And there’s no more need for pragmatism because there’s no one left to make pragmatism seem even remotely necessary.
Jay, you have claimed that you tend towards libertarianism. You have occasionally shown some evidence of that in your writing. And sometimes when you’re thinking, you even think like Chomsky and the young David Ben-Gurion.
But often, as in this case, you promote the views of those who have no use for libertarianism unless it can be subverted to further the goals of the empire.
Don’t you have any shame? I just took a quick look back at your post and the first thing my eyes fell on was your absurd claim that there are signs of success in Iraq. Jay!!! More people are dying in Iraq than at any time in this nightmarishly Quixotic adventure. More Americans. More Iraqis. How many more people have to die for your progress?
It’s a lie, Jay, and you really should have woken up by now and seen it.
B Moe,
You say “the nuke is overdue.” Could you please enlighten us as to where exactly that nuke should be dropped. Could you tell us who should be anihilated so that you can have your satisfaction? Will just one nuclear bomb be enough, or should there be several? How long should we wait before murdering tens of thousands more innocent men, women and children?
Or were you joking? By not thinking that indiscriminate mass slaughter is funny, have I proved again that I have no sense of humor?
We’ve, as a country, had thirty to thirty-five years of a liberal excess that a few generations now consider as “normal”: use the Supreme Court to modify and apply modifications to our Constitution, to reshape the Constitution to suit some social demands.
The biggest problem in the socio-political to my view, at this point, as to the objections by the Left, predominantly, is that they just HAVE to have a Supreme Court that will modify and edit the Constitution (it’s political activism) and are aghast that anyone could be on the Court who would not modify the Constitution, who just might say, “I am allowing the Constitution to provide the decision and am not going to modify the Constitution because I THINK it SHOULD mean something else.”
NO ONE among humanity, Supreme Court judges included, is exempt from the effects of their culture, morality and concept about what is ethical and what is not. BUT, the significant thing, where the S.C. is concerned, is whether or not someone can and will APPLY THE CONSTITUTION and not ‘REWRITE’ it depending upon what their sense of what should be may be.
The Liberal approach is TO rewrite terms, conditions, “rights” and such to accommodate social demands. Most among the Right, us conservatives, have always asked that the S.C. not be used to activate from the bench but to support and apply the Constitution. It seems that the Left has become far too accustomed to the “I want this and I am to be given this because this is what I demand” type of permissive social change — in my experience and my view as of today — and tend to seize upon the values and beliefs of ANYone who does not endorse that type of personal permissiveness as enemy, as threat.
As to my view, I am glad that O’Conner is retired, and I hope that Ginsberg soon will be, that gender means little as to what someone’s character is, or is not, that even people from non-ivy-league educational backgrounds are qualified for the S.C. (that’s a problem, that our culture seems to require an ivy-league background to be taken seriously in areas of elected office and the S.C., because the Constitution does not even begin to limit access to that extent based upon those characteristics), and that what is relevant here is that a person be qualified based upon intellectual ability and strong evidence of character (which DOES NOT exclude beliefs and moral code).
Unfortunately, the S.C. is today used by the Left to modify our Constitution and not to apply the Constitution. And that seems to be the root of almost all, if not all, the upset about it mostly from the left, at the very idea that there might be people on the S.C. who would NOT modify it.
I’m confident in Roberts, was in Miers, am in Alito. If Ginsberg can be fine to the Left to be a S.C. judge — a person who has among her professional affiliations the representation of the ACLU — then Alito, Roberts, Miers, with Christian values among more than competent professional histories, can be.
There just seems no ability by the Left to balance it’s own demands. The Constitution isn’t a credit card process to accommodate all demands for new conditions, it’s a document that sets into motion principles. Whether someone can respect the principles, or not, is the issue here.
Respecting principles doesn’t include reworking them because they’re inconvenient or even objectionable. It means, honoring them.
But, the issue as to Miers: the Right jumped the shark on that nomination because their concept of political activism in denigrating Miers, and President Bush for nominating her, was a shameful exercise in the same sort of political activism that they object to about the Left. I also think it’s empowered the Left to return to the same old arguments from Election-Past and relaunch their same old memes and causes here, perceiving a weakness and now launching upon it.
I’d have preferred from conservatives a degree of composure but instead what I just witnessed in the rush to remove Miers from nomination was no better than what I see from Democrats in the Senate today in the opposite extreme.
“By not thinking that indiscriminate mass slaughter is funny, have I proved again that I have no sense of humor?”
No, by not recognising that I was mocking a ridiculous comparison you have shown you have no sense of humor. Well, that and repeatedly being a compulsive humorless idiot.
Cat, please stop being more of a pinhead than absolutely necessary.
This whole piece was an EXERCISE. A GAME. I got annoyed at Schumer, and decided to put forth my take on the Bush agenda in a way that would royally honk off his detractors. I figured this just might be a fun way to do it — to argue that Bush actually represents the characteristics and beliefs that they claim to admire — and I was right. The fact that it drove you stark raving bonkers is an added bonus.
And for the record, cat: as with nearly everything I write, I consulted with no one about what I discuss, how I discuss it, or when I’ll discuss it. I am a completely free agent. I speak for nobody, and nobody speaks for me.
J.
Moe so what good is a nuke going to do when billions of dollars of military hardware is unable to defeat an insurgency run by 20% of a population of 25 million. Imagine if the majority shia population also rose up do you really think the casualty figure would only be 2,000, would the nuke help then.
Its amazing here in the uk we just had a minister resign today because how he broke some silly little rule about becoming a director of a company whilst temporarily out of the cabinet, over there you guys have Dick Cheney ex director becomes vice president, then his old company gets loads of contracts no one asks a thing, a load of oil tycoons running the country invade a country with second largest reserves
Wow, I thought only Americans could butcher the language that bad, apparently the public schools in the UK are failing as badly as our own.
No the schools here are doing fine but when your talking to a bunch if ignorant idiots you have to drop down to that level.
No the schools here are doing fine but when your talking to a bunch if ignorant idiots you have to drop down to that level, besides you should’nt be worrying about my english you guys have bigger problems than that to worry about.
It should be ” butcher the language that badLY…”
It’s an adverb not an adjective, mate. B Moe, before trying put someone down by pointing out their poor use of language, you might want to brush up your own grammar. Otherwise, you’ll look like a right tosser. Oh wait…
Sorry Bill. I’ll try to factor that in.
I stand corrected. Rather interesting how you point out and correct one minor mistake in my post while completely ignoring the incoherent ramblings of your countryman, who could really use some coaching. One could read alot into that, hmmmm?
First, its amazing how the conservative blogs are getting more left leaning comments than left blogs. I believe this is because liberals have an open mind, and look at different ideas and points of view.
Anyways, I’m sick and tired of American trying to take credit for what happened in Lebanon. Lebanon has nothing to do with the U.S.
Our great prime minister, Rafik Hariri was the greatest leader the middle east had to offer, promoting democracy in countries such as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia long before 9/11. He was born poor, and became rich, and invested his life and money into his country. So when he was killed, we got really pissed, and we did something about it. Now things are changing.
Stop bringing U.S. into the story, trying to justify the war in Iraq, they deserve no credit for what happened. You people are so full it. The U.S. Government has sent 4 Canadian Citizens visiting the state to Syria to be tortured. So, if Syria is there enemy, why do they interrogating detainees for them.
Get your facts straight!
American troops are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and is Iraq not a disaster, worst of all it is only 20% of the population causing this much havoc for them, this has resulted in the appeasement of the shia and their religious parties (basically kissing sistanis ass) or do you disagree with this assessment.
I am sorry that us Brits find it amazing when you guys have people like Dick Cheney handing out contracts to Halliburton, you have environmental ministers working for oil companies, its just over here there is corruption but its all hidden and when it does surface we get ministers resigning for acts such as filling in a passport or a visa for someone due to conflict of interest, now when us guys compare that to what
Jay Tea is one of my nicknames, and I am appalled that you are using it to spew your right-wing hate. Cease and desist immediatly, or face my legal wrath!!
I think you might need to ease up on the kung fu rhetoric, jay. These guys are needing a standing 8 count I’d say.
Bush is a sock puppet who spouts the garbage he’s expected to spout, and so are you.
Wow, this post really brought some left wingnuts out of the wood work, didn’t it?
Personally, I got it first time around, great post. Thanks, Jay.
saf — Iraq is neither the quagmire you describe it as nor a disaster. We have liberated a people who are grateful to us for what we’ve done, and a number of positive results have become manifest. Try reading something other than lefty “news” venues, where they tend to overlook{read that as ignore} everything they don’t see as casting Bush in a negative light.
I understand that there are a lot of people in the world that don’t give a rat’s derrier if the citizens of another country are being tortured on a whim by the ruling family, persecuted because of their religious beliefs, murdered in large numbers, etc, yet have the cojones to register their “moral” opinions as you have here, but then, like the cliche goes, it takes all kinds to make a world.
Cheers.
Crazy Leb,
Anyways, I’m sick and tired of American trying to take credit for what happened in Lebanon. Lebanon has nothing to do with the U.S.
I’m not sure what you are talking about… maybe you are meaning to refer to the fact that the Lebanese uprising was motivated in large part by the Iraqi elections. I wasn’t there, of course, so I can’t speak from experience.
However, there was a guy there named Walid Jumblatt who happened to be leading the protests, who had this to say:
Here, go do some reading and quit pretending you are from places that you aren’t. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html
And for faj…
“I aint no left winger or anything like that“… Yeah, and you also ain’t from England.
What is it about moonbats that makes them resort to the third-grade tactic of pretending to be something that they aren’t to make an untenable point?
My bad… the previous post should read “And for saf“…
While we’re at it, saf, you also seem to be a bit confused about Haliburton’s role, particularly historically, in government activities. Haliburton has been receiving no-bid contracts from the government for a LONG time, well before Bush took office.
If you have a valid point that is reasonable and founded in fact, by all means present it. But you must realize that at Wizbang you are dealing with a fairly intelligent audience who doesn’t by into stupidity.
Making ridiculous and slanderous claims about Haliburton and Dick Cheney is easy, but backing them up is impossible. This is why only complete idiots make the claims in the first place.
Meanwhile, in your “homeland”–if you are to be believed–officials at the highest levels of government in multiple EU nations were being paid by Saddam Hussein to oppose a war and for their refusal to enforce 17 UN resolutions.
You guys are SO superior to us! The fact that you guys suck at everything, have an inferior economy, can’t defend yourselves, have corrupt governments, die by the tens of thousands in heatwaves, etc, is pure happenstance. If only we could be so enlightened!
LOL… Europeans are funny, even pretend ones that say “ain’t”.
David:
First of all I aint from France that
Seth
You say Iraq is not a quagmire no of course not didn
Are you denying that the Lebanese started to protest after the assassination of their former leader, the Iraq war started in 2003 why did it take them 2 years then to rise up
Hey, saf… maybe you should check the timeline. A farily significant event occurred in Iraq in January 2005.
Anyway, the rest of your post was similarly uninformed, so I’ll leave it there.
Also, you should seriously consider dropping the “war for oil” meme, since the complete absence of oil has sort of, well… completely debunked it. The only people to whom that is applicaable or those such as your own George Galloway, who attempted to deliver “no war” to Hussein in exchange for oil.
I’m sure that most Brits are great, but you are giving the impression that you are all uninformed and primitive sheep.
Be careful.
Dave:
whats up cannot you argue with the points no more, you dont wana argue with my points because you cannot….are you one of those amazingly stupid people who thinks oil has got nothing to do with this war cuz if you are then no point debating because i dont debate with fool…
I know what happended in january an election where one ethnic group did’nt bother to turn up for an election held under the occupation of 150,000 troops unders rules written by the american run governing council yep thats what happened in janruary and did it make any difference to the carnage on the ground not a bit.
You cannot argue with the truth and your in denial you wont know the truth even if it smacked you in the face….your a fool and no the majority of my country feel the same..thinking of it the majoruty of the world feels that way….
As one british paper put it on bushes victory last year “how can 53 million people be so stupid”..well now i know
saf, I’d rubbish your arguments, but you’re doing a nice job yourself. Keep it up. The events in Iraq in the next year or two will make you look like the complete and utter fool that you are.
Rubbish the argument then, come up with evidence and tell me that i am lieing, i have layed down the facts about the middle east what the hell do you idiots know, less than 10% of you guys have passports, you watch fox news for serious news and you think you know everything about the whole world.
If things go well and i look a fool i will admit to it, why dont you in the mean time that all those who supported the war almost 3 years ago are looking like total fools today right now…..
My predictions for Iraq, it will break into at best two states worst 3 or more states, there will be a big civil war there not matter when the staying of the troops is only delaying it…any future war could well defnetly involve Iran and Saudi Arabia if not overt then covert support as is already happening….
Nicholos just go and check the histroy of the area and you may have a little bit of a clue…and lets see you try to rubbish the arguments because i am very well researched in the area i have been there lived there…