Bush rejects allegations of cronyism (Miers)

AP ^ | 10/4/05

[Uncle Joe Cannon]

Bush rejects allegations of cronyism

By TOM RAUM

WASHINGTON (AP) - In the face of criticism from the left and right, President George W. Bush insisted Tuesday that Harriet Miers was the best-qualified candidate for the Supreme Court and assured skeptical conservatives that his lawyer-turned-nominee shared his judicial philosophy - and wouldn't stray from a rightward course.

"I've known her long enough to know she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said.

Dismissing Democratic charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we're close." Bush has known Miers for more than 10 years, first as his personal lawyer and most recently as a White House counsel.

Bush called the news conference, his first since May, as he struggles to regain political strength sapped by a confluence of events - high gas prices, a rising death toll in Iraq and a bungled response to hurricane Katrina. His job approval rating, near the lowest point of his presidency, faces another test with the nomination of Miers.

In a wide-ranging news conference, Bush said he was considering whether the U.S. military should be used to help quarantine part of the country in the event of a pandemic of avian flu. "I'm not predicting an outbreak," he said. "I'm just suggesting to you that we need to be thinking about it."

On Katrina, Bush said he would work with Congress to "make real cuts" in non-security spending to help in rebuilding the Gulf Coast. "The private sector will be the engine that drives the recovery of the Gulf Coast," he said. But he said the country will continue to spend whatever it takes to support U.S. troops in Iraq.

Bush claimed progress on training Iraqi forces to take over the security of their country - a key measure for when American troops can begin coming home - despite last week's statement from the top U.S. commander that only one Iraqi battalion, down from three, was ready to fight without U.S. help.

He said more than 80 Iraqi army battalions are fighting alongside U.S. troops, and that 30 Iraqi battalions are capable of taking the lead in combat. "That is substantial progress from the way the world was a year ago," he said.

Bush also said:

-He has not reviewed a list of candidates to replace Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, who retires in January.

-He expects Congress will investigate whether Baltimore Orioles baseball star Rafael Palmeiro lied under oath about his alleged steroid use. "Steroids ought to be banned from baseball," declared Bush, a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers of the American League.

His choice of Miers dominated the news conference, with Bush struggling to please his political base without giving Democrats ammunition to block her confirmation.

Asked point-blank whether she was the most qualified person in the country to serve on the high court, Bush said, "Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put her on."

While she has never served as a judge, Bush said Miers will bring "a fresh approach" to the bench as a trial lawyer who was a leader in the Texas legal community.

Bush challenged Democrats to avoid a partisan tone in confirmation process. "The decision of whether or not there will be a fight is up to the Democrats," he said, urging Congress to put Miers on the bench by Thanksgiving, celebrated in late November in the United States.

[Sometimes A River]

No, impossible.

Wishful thinking.

[kevao]

What a bunch of turncoats. Bush didn't pick someone that will spark a drag-out fight in the senate, so his pick's no good?

I don't know. Bush is taking a pretty big gamble here. If Miers turns out to be not as liberal as everyone is saying, then her confirmation might be at risk.

If Bush really wanted to avoid a fight, he should have picked someone much more liberal. Sure, it would have offended the conservative base; but they're offended by the Miers pick anyway. Someone as liberal as Ginsburg would sail right through, no drag-out fight. Then we could declare victory and get on to avoiding the next fight.

[mongrel]

Crony simply means a good friend. Cronyism means favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office.

It is possible to appoint a good friend without resorting to cronyism. The question is what are the qualifications for office. Unlike the qualifications many are supposing should be there, the President has come up with his own list. From what I see it is that someone be a originalist and that he have a strong sense that they will remain so during their tenure. Secondly, that there be a reasonable chance she is confirmed. With these qualifications, Miers was the most qualified on both counts. A history on the bench is not evidence a la Kennedy. Since he sets the qualifications, cronyism does not apply here.

[adam_az]

"DU called, they need you back."

Nothing like the narrow minded somethingorother who thinks that there are only 2 kinds of people in the world - those that support Bush's every move, and those that are DU members...

Posts like yours are shamefully ignorant. I'm embarassed to be on the same message board system, frankly.

[adam_az]

"Why doubt him now?"

Let's see.

CAFTA, massive social spending, open borders, giving up on offshore drilling, LOST, promising to sign AWB if it came across his desk, lousy cabinet appointments, kissing Palestinian terrorist ass, looking into the soul of Pooty-Poot, letting Sandy Berger off the hook, refusing to kick some ass about Abel Danger, covering up for the Clintons, shall I go on?

[Sometimes A River]

I was being sarcastic. I agree with you 100%

Huck knows I was being sarcastic too, we've joked about this in the past.

[ConservativeWarrior]

""Why doubt him now?"

Let's see.

CAFTA, massive social spending, open borders, giving up on offshore drilling, LOST, promising to sign AWB if it came across his desk, lousy cabinet appointments, kissing Palestinian terrorist ass, looking into the soul of Pooty-Poot, letting Sandy Berger off the hook, refusing to kick some ass about Abel Danger, covering up for the Clintons, shall I go on?"

I missed the part where he's screwed us on jurist appointments. Go over that part for me, genius.

[ConservativeWarrior]

"If Bush really wanted to avoid a fight, he should have picked someone much more liberal. Sure, it would have offended the conservative base; but they're offended by the Miers pick anyway. Someone as liberal as Ginsburg would sail right through, no drag-out fight. Then we could declare victory and get on to avoiding the next fight."

Again, what are basing this on? You don't know anything about Miers, do you?

If I was Bush, and wanted to put a solid conservative on the bench, I could either nominate someone with a largely conservative paper trail, and fight, possibly losing, or I could nominate someone I have known for 20 years and trust to be conservative, with no paper trail, and get through without a fight, saving my political capital for the next battle.

The objective is to get conservative, originalist judges on the court, not to win a lengthy, bloody fight with the left.

The only gamble here is your piece of mind. You're uncomfortable because you don't know as much as you'd like to about Miers. Neither do the dems. But Bush DOES.

[David1]

It is not about turncoat. I put principals above loyalty to a man in something as vital as the supreme court. And believe me, I love Bush and have always supported him in the past. But this is the US Supreme Court. The nominee he puts up will be there for life. Bush is choosing 11% of the supreme court in this lady. Her ruling will affect our lives for decades to come. If not use political capital on this, then on what? Conservatives should not again be put in the position of hoping a nominee turns out good. We should not be put in a position to again just giving our blind trust to a politician over a position that will affect our lives. Conservatives should know by FACT how a nominee will turn out. Not by blind hope and trust in a politician. We should know, dammit!!! The Dems know what they are getting when they put up their nominee. Why can't we???

The freakin DEMS know for fact the way their nominee will turn out. Why is it then that we conservatives can't? Instead we always have to resort to blind hope and trust. My point is that we should know what we are getting. Not hope we get what we want. Like a guy said over the radio, I fear this lady will turn out to be Souter in drags. We conservatives simply should not be put in this position again.

[Terpfen]

That's something I'd expect on DU, not FR.

This crap is making it really hard for me to contribute to the Freepathon...

[TXBSAFH]

In related news he announced his vet is the new surgeon general, his gardener as the new sec ag, and Niel Bush to replace Greenspan.

[TXBSAFH]

Cronyism was nt right then, it certainly is not right now.

[ConservativeWarrior]

Instead we always have to resort to blind hope and trust. My point is that we should know what we are getting.

I understand what you're saying, and I wish we had been given Janice Rogers-Brown, or any other conservative with a solid, proven record, whom we could rally around, and "force" through. We won the elections, right?

Among the anger and (sometimes)hysterics of our own party, however, I really think it's worth pointing out that if Miers is what we want, and Bush knows this for a fact, then he is probably wise to push her as a stealth nominee, saving the politcal capital for other fights. Yes, SCOTUS picks are the important "spoils" of a Bush Whitehouse to me, too, but why expend political capital unnecessarily? Other GOP presidents have made disappointing stealth appointments, but in none of those cases did they have the personal, intimate knowledge of the individual over a long period of time, as Bush has in this case.

And with the gang of 14, and so many RINO's in the senate, it is not a "given" that a solidly conservative nominee would be confirmed, nuclear option or not. They could lose on a straight vote. Then what?

I'm willing to put a little more faith in W, difficult and uncomforatble as it may be.