Friday, October 07, 2005

Bush's Brain

It has been a staple of Democratic rhetoric that the President has no brain of his own, pointing instead to that pudgy, big-headed Rove guy as the brain-in-chief. Then Bush nominates Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court and “Harry” proclaims that Bush is the “smartest man I know.” So which is it, no brain or brainiac?

In the Miers’ case the right wing intelligentia are also questioning Bush’s intelligence and his conservative bonifides too. I was struck by the strength of anti-Miers sentiment among my friends, including some of my readers. This from Garrett Mack:

I was wondering what everybody thought of Bush's Supreme Court nominee. I have always been a big supporter of Bush, but lately I am having BIG doubts. First spending SOOO much money on hurricane Katrina and now nominating Miers. I always said conservative first, Republican second, but now I think I am no longer a Republican and not a Bush supporter either.We finally have control of the government and what do we do. Spend money like Democrats and have a president that is trying to be accepted by them. Someone please comfort me and tell me that I am way off base here. I want to be wrong on this issue more than anything but I got a feeling I am not.

I appreciate Garrett’s feelings and am here to provide comfort. It’s important to begin with some perspective. Remember that were it not for the Electoral College and a rarely sane Supreme Court decision we might have Al Gore as commander-in-chief. (SHUDDER!!!) So as we go through the President’s report card, keep in mind how it might have been.

The most important federal responsibility is defense, and I’m sure we all agree that Bush has done a masterful job in the war against Islamic fascism first in Afghanistan now in Iraq. And don’t forget the subsidiary successes in Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, all this in the face of nearly worldwide criticism and Democratic obstruction.

The Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department are critical defense initiatives. Bush has had to show supreme courage to keep the country on the right war footing. Since conservatives believe that defense is nearly the only federal responsibility, we should be very happy with Bush.

Though I think the Feds ought not to be involved with education, I have to applaud Bush’s No Child Left Behind law. In fact it may take a federal law to reform the education establishment by shining the light of measurement on the woeful performance of public schools. Bush has also strongly supported vouchers, again showing courage by standing up to the teacher's unions.

How many times have you heard the mantra of “tax breaks for the rich”? Bush had the guts to reduce the taxes of those who actually pay them, thereby reviving the economy and providing additional government revenue.

Oh yes, tort reform is on the way due to this President, and liberal trial lawyers hate him for it.

Conservatives place the judiciary just after defense when it comes to Presidential responsibilities. Here again the Bush record has been masterful, from Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens, and several other strict constitutionalists for the appellate courts, to John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But the conservative base is now largely criticizing the latest nominee Harriett Meirs. Is that because she is not a conservative? No! Is she pro-abortion? No! Is she anti-religion? No! Is she an Ivy Leaguer? No,.. and there you have it, she is not a member of the elite intellect club.

Here I’m reminded of my son John’s reason for being a Republican: Because they are the “adult party.” When I think of the recent antics of George Will, Billy Krystol, David Frum, etc., I wonder if they forgot the adult thing.

Garrett and many conservatives are concerned about runaway government spending. I am too, but the Republican Congress is more to blame than the President. We also worry about illegal immigration, and there are other problems we need to work on.

But, when we have a President and a Party that takes care of defense and the courts, reduces taxes and fights the entitlement factions we should be very happy and motivated to continue the Reagan-Bush revolution.


Blogger Bill Lama said...


I, too, loved the speech. Too bad the usual democrat suspects just don't get it. How many times a week does he have to spell it out? He has never wavered from his policy. I don't constantly have to be told and have the whole thing explained time and time again. I guess they think that if the press keeps hammering him, he will lose his resolve. Ha! That only gives him more strength. Enough of my soapbox.


9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understand that Bush is head and shoulders above Gore, but the problem i have is that i don't like the idea of voter for the "lesser of two evils". I am only using that phrase as a metaphore. I definatley don't think bush is evil at all. I think he is a great person and probably the exact opposite of evil. unlike gore, who meirs gave money to. it is something like 9 of the supreme court justices were appointed by republican presidents and we all know how that turned out. I think the problem we have with meirs is that we don't know if she is pro-choice, a conservative, pro-religion, and we don't want to have to just HOPE that she is. Bush should elect someone that we KNOW will hold our conservative values. The democrats are happy about this appointment for a reason. doesn't it raise red flags that she gave money to Gore's campaign. i know this doesn't prove anything but i would be more confortable with someone who didn't. We have fought to long and hard to not be 100% sure this is the person we want. we need to start electing republicans that understand what us conservatives stand for and are willing to fight for it. Hopefully Bush knows what he is doing and not just comprimising. It shouldn't matter what kind of judge O'conner was when selecting the next judge.

Garrett Mack

8:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home