Miers Withdraws

Miers withdrew her nomination today. Here is a copy of her withdrawl letter





The next question, will Bush get it right this time?

Before Bush chose Miers on Oct. 3, speculation focused on Miers and two other Bush loyalists: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's longtime friend who would be the first Hispanic on the court; and corporate lawyer Larry Thompson, who was the government's highest ranking black law enforcement official as deputy attorney general during Bush's first term.
Other candidates mentioned frequently included conservative federal appeals court
judges J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder and Samuel Alito; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan; and Maureen Mahoney, a well-respected litigator before the high court. AP

Wolfowitz: End Farm Subsidies cause it hurts poor

Why do I find myself agreeing with France on this one?

"Rich countries must abandon farm subsidies and give more market access to poor states if the Doha trade talks are to succeed, the head of the World Bank said today. Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz made his appeal amid fears that the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting of ministers in Hong Kong was in jeopardy because of the absence of progress on farm subsidies.
Writing in the Financial Times, Wolfowitz said the need to reduce protection on agriculture was a central element of the Doha talks. He warned that unless serious concessions were made by all sides, the Doha talks would fail "and the people who will suffer the most are the world's poor".
Wolfowitz, formerly a leading Pentagon official, called on the U.S. to step up efforts to cut farm subsidies and urged the European Union to do more on market access for products from poor countries. He added, however, that developing countries also had to open their services and manufacturing markets and lower their own agricultural protection.
Wolfowitz said it was not morally justifiable for rich countries to spend $280 billion (£158 billion) - nearly the total gross domestic product of Africa and four times the total amount of foreign aid - on support for agricultural producers.
The current round of WTO talks stalled in Geneva after wealthy countries failed to reach an agreement on lowering domestic agriculture subsidies and tariffs earlier this month.
Mark Vaile, the Australian trade minister and deputy prime minister, said the E.U. and "particularly France" were responsible for the deadlock because they had refused to accept a plan to cut European farm aid.
"They need to understand they are threatening the future of global trade and cheating millions of the world's poor out of new hope," Vaile said. "It's not enough for them to provide aid and debt relief when the benefits of liberalizing trade are so much greater."
An agreement in Hong Kong is supposed to pave the way for the conclusion of the Doha development round next year, but deadlock on farm subsidies has threatened to scupper the entire process.
The E.U. - generally seen as the villain of the piece by developing countries and the U.S. - is working on a second and final offer this week. The move follows what the U.S. described as its "bold" proposal for trimming the most damaging of its multi-billion dollar agricultural subsidies by up to 60% and phasing them out within a decade.
Development activists say the U.S. scheme is double-edged because it insists on poor countries opening up their manufacturing sectors, a step that could lead to the sectors' collapse in the face of foreign competition.
The U.S. plan has put the E.U. on the spot, and it has struggled to come up with a unified position. France believes the latest round of common agricultural policy reforms - which cut the link between the level of subsidy and the amount farmers produce - went far enough, and is refusing to budge.
The idea of cancelling the Hong Kong meeting has been proposed, but Australia has rejected it. "I don't believe the meeting should be postponed, even if the E.U. does not put forward a better proposal," Vaile said. "I believe the E.U. and France would need to account for their actions before the parliament of world opinion."
Wolfowitz increased pressure on the industrialized world when he said the temporary discomfort of industrialized countries in getting rid of farm subsidies was "nothing compared with the daily discomfort and deprivation faced by the world's poorest people". Free Internet Press


Now we know Paul Wolfowitz is an international socialist. If the culture of African governments was better, there wouldn't be any problems. Remember Zimbabwe used to EXPORT food. The problem lies with the governments of the poorer countries not subsidies. Subsidies actually keep food cheap in the respective countries so the poor of those countries can easily afford food. If subsidies are taken away, farmers stop growing as much food in order to raise prices. Who gets hurt? The poor. Wolfowitz sounds like an international socialist.

Why Does the Non-Story Get the Press?

Someone, somewhere determined that a "leak" by a Bush administration official would be the story of the decade. Some desk clerk at the CIA named Valarie Plame is being dubbed an "agent" as if she was James Bond. News flash: No one cares... except people in the beltway. The quickest way for me to turn of the radio or TV is for the host to start talking about this "case." Let it die and let us be on our way.

Much more important is this:

"... a journalist has been convicted by a Kabul court under the country's blasphemy laws. Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, the editor of "Women's Rights," a monthly magazine for women, was sentenced on Saturday to two years in prison by Kabul's primary court...The prosecutor called for the maximum sentence of death, accusing the editor of apostasy, so the two-year sentence appears to have been a compromise. But it is a reminder that Afghanistan is still ruled by Islamic Shariah law and that, on issues of religion, conservatives are determined to enforce it." NY Times (yes, I know)

This should be a much more important story. A Jeffersonian Democracy with its freedoms of the press, speech, etc, is incompatible with Sharia. Sharia will end up superceeding any stated freedoms. So the freedoms will look pretty on paper, but be meaningless. This should be a note to our efforts in Iraq, which included Sharia in the constitution. All the feel-good terms can be included in the Constitution, but ultimately Sharia will trumpt all laws and the muftis will be in charge...because they "intrepret" Sharia. It's pretty simple to figure out.

Contrast this to post-war Japan. The Emporer lost his divine status. The Japanese Constitution is based heavily on the US Constitution. These are major differences in our post war treatment of Japan and Iraq. Wait until about 2 years after we leave Iraq. Then you will start seeing cases like this in Iraq.

Bush Border Bluff

Bush had a nice "get tough on the border" speech today. So he is told he is in trouble because of the Miers nomination. So in order to attempt to appease the conservative base, Rove has Bush touting border security, something that has irked conservatives for years. However, he only talked in generalities, and still values his "guest worker" program. For a man who rather recently call the Minutemen, "vigilantes", his "get tough" speech lacks credibility.

This is definitely a move to try to win back crumbling support, but it's missing it's mark.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Tuesday argued for his temporary worker plan for foreigners, hoping to win over skeptical conservatives with get-tough promises about illegal immigration.

"We're going to get control of our borders and make this country safer for all our citizens," said Bush. He commented as he signed into law a $32 billion homeland security bill that has large increases for patrolling borders but fewer grants for local first responders and a freeze in transit security funding....

"I'm going to work with members of Congress to create a program that can provide for our economy's labor needs without harming American workers, without providing amnesty and that will improve our ability to control our borders," Bush said.

Quag-Miers for the Dems & Reps

Due a horrible nomination by Bush, Republicans has found himself in a pickle, but so have the Democrats.

Bush:
Bush must withdraw this nominee. Maybe she can come down with the bird flu? Either way, if she goes before the Senate, Bush's ever declining popularity will slip further...and no, it's not because of Iraq. We, conservatives, just don't trust Bush anymore. There have been too many letdowns. When Cheney went on Rush's show to do damage control, the only thing he could say was "trust me." Why? So us your track record. I don't think Bush will withdraw Miers, though. He doesn't understand "what the fuss is all about."

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. Ummm.... No. If Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown were appointed, conservatives would be cheering. Laura Bush has just picked a card from the liberal playbook to attack her base.

Look for Bush and the blue-blood Republicans to try to throw some bone to the conservative base like proposing an anti-flag burning amendment.

Republicans:
Well, the Senate Republicans have a decision to make. If the support the President, and Miers turns out to be a Souter, they can kiss their careers goodbye. Conservatives may not even wait that long. There could be a backlash in 2006. An outspoken conservative Senator could make a name for himself by openly opposing the nomination. Obviously this is also risky, if by some 1% chance Miers turns out to be a Scalia, he'll be the odd man out. Likely many will stay on the fence and see if the opposition by bloggers and pundits continue until the hearings.

Democrats:
Well the Democrats have two choices: believe the "dodged a bullet" with Miers and confirm her... or join conservative Republicans in rejecting Miers in order to "stick it" to Bush. The former might be better in the long run for the liberals, but their angry-left constitutents will be angry (obviously) that Democrats appointed a Bush crony and passed up an opportunity to "stick it" to Bush. Although they seem relaxed, Senate Democrats are not living on Easy Street.

The Presidential Report Card

Presidents' are scored via their "approval rating." Respondents are limited to two choices. However, a yes or a no can give a misleading indication. Someone very conservative could be called, and answer "no" because of Bush's immigration (or lack there of) policy. This lower rating may be interpreted by the media as "people wants Bush out of Iraq" when it could be criticism from the right.



Foriegn Policy: B

It would be impossible to discuss the foriegn policy of the Bush administration without first talking about Iraq. In a strong effort, Bush ignored much criticism and pressed forth with the Iraqi invasion. Some of his actions since are questionable and I fear Iraq will fall under Sharia with little effort. The trouble began shortly after Baghdad fell. As an overall reaction from the lack of WMDs, the administration felt forced to justify the invasion as for the benefit of the Iraqi people. After not appeasing France & the UN, Bush proceeded to begin appeasing the terrorists. After contractors were hung in Fallujah, we sat idling. Our first offensive into Fallujah was halted for political reasons. Instead of militarily dealing with radical cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr, the US brought in Ayotollah Al-Sistani to quiet him. Although this was largely successful, it strengthened the hand of the clerics in the new government. In order to quell complaints that they are "occupiers", the administration quickly handed over the reins of the government without any major stipulations. Democracy was not taught to the populace as was done in post-war Japan. Reports have cropped up that Islamic militants run Basra. An Islamic Iraq would make our efforts in Iraq a complete failure.


Homeland Security: C

Borders, borders, borders. On one hand, Bush has managed to prevent a 2nd terrorist attack. On the other, he has refused to address the growing concern of illegal immigration. He has gone so far as to call the Minutemen project "vigilantes." He refuses to address the problem due to one of two (or both) political reasons. He has big donors that like that cheap labour or he is try to "court the Latino vote." I'm still not positive that Latinos who immigrated legally are terribly fond of the border jumpers.

Federal Spending: D

Who needs Democrats when you have the Republicans we have in Congress? Bush has been giving away money left and right. $15 billion for AIDS in Africa, $300 million to the Palestinians, more to Africa. He has not attempted to curb pork spending by Congress. This is not your father's Republican party.


Taxes: A-

While Bush's tax policy deserves high marks, little if any effort has been made to make these cuts permanent. Some have already expired and many will be phased out over then next 6 years including the elimination of the marriage penalty which has already expired. (Hertitage Foundation) He did press hard to try to change social security. His failure on that issue was more due to the lack of support from Congress. He could press for more tax cuts now that he has a more friendly Senate. I would reccommend he press to make the tax cuts permanent before he leave office.


Economy: A

Although the President doesn't control the economy, some of his policies can greatly affect it. There is no doubt in my mind that the economy could have fallen into a big depression like 30s if the President made poor choices. Remember the Great Depression didn't occur immediately after Black Tuesday. The collapse of the bubble coupled with 9/11 could have done the economy in.

Judicial Nominations: C+ and sinking

Many of Bush's nominations to the appellate courts have been stellar. Prior to about 4 months ago, his grade would have been an A. However his appointments to the High Court have been mediocre at best. By now, John Roberts must seem like a staunch hard right conservative after Bush latest pick of his personal lawyers, Miers. They stand as likely to be the next David Souter as they do the next Clarence Thomas....but I still ask the question: Why not the Best?


Gun Rights: A+

The President has been a good supporter of the second amendment.

Social Conservatism: B

He pushed for bans on partial birth abortion. Regarding Terri Schiavo, he originally supported her but backed down when it was too politically contenious. Only go for the easy ones, eh? Although he is supposedly pro-life, he has never criticized Roe vs. Wade. Nonetheless, his record is decent.

Education: B-

I think the quickest way in my book to get an A is to scrap the department of Education and put education in the sole scope of the states. Why did he put Teddy Kennedy in charge of education? The people vote Republican because they believe in their platform more so than the people believe in the Democrats platform. Politicians supposedly have their platform as their ideas to make the country better. So why should such great extents be made to comprimise...especially to a certain senator who has unsurprisingly stabbed him in the back.

Social Security: B

I liked his plan for Social Security. I view Social Security as a pure tax. I expect nothing in 40 years. Was his plan DOA? We seem to be at square 1 again.


OVERALL: C+

What we say in summary? Slightly above average. He has 3 years left, in which to salvage his declining legacy.

A David Souter in size 6 shoes

"Why not the best?" That question was once asked by Admiral Rickover to Jimmy Carter, and it applies here. Why does the RNC need to be in full defensive mode, when there were many superior candidates for the high court? Why must conservatives be asked to play roulette when there are 55 Republican senators? The "stealth" nominee would have been acceptable with a Democratic Senate, but the Republicans are in the majority and they need to start acting like it.

The fact that Senate Democrats like Ms Miers is a troubling fact, not a comforting one. I wanted a nomination that made Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy hopping mad. We are being asked to trust a party which has been recently failing its base on the issues of government spending and illegal immigration. All of that could have been forgiven with a outstanding Supreme Court nomination. I hope Senate Republicans are very confident in the selection, because their future careers are tied to her. Make no mistake about it. A "David Souter in size 6 shoes" will stall the careers of those Republicans who supported her.

No amount of spin by the RNC can help.

The Jihad Shuffle

I've decided to coin the term "The Jihad Shuffle" for the routine one must go through when going through airport security. It consists of: Waiting in line, taking everything out of your pockets and taking off your shoes, watch, belt and rings, walking through the metal detector, the getting redressed, putting everything back in your pockets. I can never help to think that a few people's actions has caused everyone to go through the Jihad shuffle. Beginning with Nobel prize winner, Yasser Arafat's hijackings in the late 1960's/ early 1970's, the FAA began screening passengers in 1973.

I wouldn't mind it as much if they weren't so politically correct. Arab-looking young males are given a pass while 8 year old white girls and old grandmas are patten down. How many Muslims are security screeners, by the way? Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist, but a recent Times (UK) poll revealed that 10% of British Muslims would not turn in a fellow Muslim who he knew to be planning aterrorist attack. While 10% is in a strong minority, 10% of 3 million US would yield 300,000 collaborators. So let's use 10%. 10% of Muslims security screeners would give a pass to Muslim terrorists they found with a bomb. Comforting right?

It's not too late to reject Ms. Miers

Although probably a very nice woman, the conservative base was promised a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. That mold had a paper trail. A conservative paper trail is something to be proud of, not ashamed.

The personal lawyer of the president should not be nominated either. The Wall St. Journal opined and refered to the Federalist papers "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate?...It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters...from personal attachment" (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354)

Conservatives are saying "Democrats/Republicans" all the same. They will stay home demoralized in 2006 & 2008. If Miers turns out to be O'Connor, the Republican party will be sunk for 20 years. Are Senate Republicans willing to chance their future careers?

I should have been nominated for SCOTUS

If the lack of a "paper trail" is the leading qualifications for a Supreme Court nomination, I don't know why I wasn't picked? There is nothing on me! Okay, I'm not personal friends with Bush...which is the other major qualification.

Forget brilliant writing, excellent opinions, and judicial leadership, President Bush has determined that personal friendship and a quiet mouth are leading attributes for the Supreme Court. This is the United States, not Mexico. Nepotism and cronyism are growing atttributes in America.

The nomination of Harriet Miers is going to sink the conservative base. The Republicans . Even Republican cheerleaders, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, couldn't rightly defend the nomination. "Trust me" is what Dick Cheney said today. Why? Why should anyone be relegated to solely "trust" when Republicans are supposedly in control of the Senate?