What is he Thinking, is she Qualified?

Welcome back, but I have been busy not watching the World Series until 2:22 in the morning. I think it is a forgone conclusion the Astro’s are toast. Now let us move onto issues that are more important:

What is he thinking? Is she qualified?

“The President would be both ashamed & afraid to bring forward for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same state to which he particularly belonged or of being in someway or other personally allied to him or of possessing the necessary insignificance or pliancy to render them obsequious instruments of his pleasure”

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers

President Bush in what seems like another move based upon his infinite wisdom on what “he” wants has nominated his personal lawyer, Harriet Miers, to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Now, I was going to attempt to withhold my opinion on this issue, since I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar. I had assumed, much like Alexander Hamilton did 200 years ago, that the President would take this nomination seriously and not nominate a crony or significantly unqualified candidate. Now, Mr. Bush has done exactly what our founding fathers suggested would not happen. Ms. Miers, record is sketchy at best.

She has served as the commissioner of the Texas lottery, she was a corporate lawyer and worked as the White House Legal Counsel, beyond that not much is known about this candidate. She has never been a judge, she has never been a law professor, she has no written opinions on any legal matters and it is appalling to think the president believes she is qualified to sit on the bench because she is an evangelical Christian. I am not sure what value this actually has, other than to provide a wink to his conservative wing. Even with this wink, they do not seem happy with this nomination either. Robert Bork, a failed nominee himself and leader of the neo conservatives attempting to shift the balance of the court to the far right lambasted her stating that she is not qualified for this position. What else is there to say?

I find it slightly amusing and awfully offensive that she provided incomplete answers to a Senate questionnaire asking her to respond to relevant legal questions and how she would rule. I found it disgusting that the White House refuses to release any papers regarding her roles and responsibility or opinions on how she would rule as a justice. I find it reprehensible that she has stonewalled the press and said that only she knows her opinion on hot button issues. Part of the vetting process is to evaluate the validity of nominee’s credentials to determine the worthiness of giving someone a job for the rest of their lives. Now, we can argue the idea of giving justices a job for life but that is another issue. Personally, I believe it is fine for a justice to serve for life, since they need to be above the politics of worrying about re-election or if their rulings will get them removed from the bench. A judge needs to be impartial, look at the constitution, and rule without worrying about how their can affect their career. That is why a lifetime position is a good idea.

In spite of all the objections from the right and the press on both side of the aisle, the president has refused to withdraw her nomination. Once again, he is going obtusely on his own path, believing he knows what is right and refuses to listen to any dissenting opinions. A good fight is in store and it could be avoided if Bush just stepped up and did the right thing. Harriet Mier is no John Roberts and she will be Borked when this comes to the Senate for confirmation.

It will be interesting to see what happens with his henchman, Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney with this Valerie Plame issue. All of a sudden, Karl Rove is an invisible man. What happened to the claim to remove anyone suspected of or convicted of wrongdoing? This was supposed to be the president who cleaned up the oval office. I guess he is not getting blowjobs from interns, but his political advisor and staff of the VP, can hang people out to dry for going against their wishes. Very scary!!! I remember seeing a quote from one of Nixon’s aides. He was responding to the question of how could they have allowed Watergate to happen, and he answered that the power corrupted them in 3 short years. One has to wonder if we are looking at a similar situation now 30 years later

Remember the beginning of the year, when George W. Bush talked about his mandate for the next 4 years. He believed he had a mandate based on winning 51% of the popular vote. He the thought he was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Not even, close. He has failed with Social Security reform, he has failed in Afghanistan, he has failed in Iraq, he has failed in his war on terror, and he has failed in controlling his cabinet and staff. It is going to be fun to watch how he handles the remaining time in office. I see a good possibility that Cheney retires and the new VP becomes the front-runner for 2008. Sorry Condi, I doubt it will be you.

It should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats in the mid-term elections next year, but they are so disorganized that they cannot come to consensus on the simplest of issues. They have an excellent opportunity to step in and take on the republicans on the hard issues, such as the war on terror, their own criminal indictments and the growing deficit. Instead, the democrats have been passive and are losing the focus and relevance. It is possible that the Democrats are going to go the way of the Whig party in the 1850’s and just disappear. In order for that to happen, another political party needs to emerge and I believe the time is right now. Where will this new political party come from?

Ross Perot stumbled onto a good idea with the independent party in 1992, but he was the wrong messenger. Ross Perot was a first class nut job, but he had many good ideas which electors were attracted to by the fact that he got 18% of the popular vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996.. Unfortunately, the Independent Party was hood winked and swindled into irrelevancy by the likes of Jesse “the Body” Ventura and Pat Buchanan. Therefore, unless a well-known, well-respected person rises the independent part is not going to be the solution. Maybe John McCain if he does not get the republican nomination in 2008.

A friend of mine has suggested the New Democratic Majority Party as an alternative. Straight off the bat, they have a terrible name and any new party will need to completely disassociate itself from the existing Democratic Party and must appeal to those in the middle of the political spectrum, not just the disgruntled members of the left. The libertarian’s have a perception problem, since they tend to be associated with the Michigan Militia types. All the other parties (right-to-life, green, conservative, liberal, etc) are too fringe or stuck to a single issue and would never appeal to the mainstream.

Maybe it is time to start a Federalist party. Anyone interested in joining?