NATO AIR
Senior Member
double ouch...
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/St...ectionID=803597D7-4BD5-45D5-BF88-E1AC85BF7FDF
George Bush, the Manchurian candidate
'Mr Bush is now close to destroying the Reagan revolution'
October 09, 2005
IT should have been the crowning moment of his administration, the opportunity to exercise one of his most important privileges as President by picking two new judges to serve on the Supreme Court, thereby stamping his mark on American society for the next few decades, as only a few presidents have done before him. Instead, President Bushs astonishingly short-sighted decision last week to nominate a close colleague with no judicial track record for the Supreme Court, following an earlier uninspired choice, risks condemning his administration to being remembered as the most debilitating since the sorry rule of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. There is no pleasure in recording this. This newspaper is second to none in its pro-American sentiments; in the early Bush years it devoted much ink to defending the President against the often malevolent and ignorant attacks of a congenitally anti-American European media. But we know a lost cause when we see one: the longer President Bush occupies the White House the more it becomes clear that his big-government domestic policies, his preference for Republican and business cronies over talented administrators, his lack of a clear intellectual compass and his superficial and often wrong-headed grasp of international affairs all have done more to destroy the legacy of Ronald Reagan, a President who halted then reversed Americas post-Vietnam decline, than any left-liberal Democrat or European America-hater could ever have dreamed of. As one astute American conservative commentator has already observed, President Bush has morphed into the Manchurian Candidate, behaving as if placed among Americans by their enemies to do them damage.
The importance of senior judicial nominations cannot be understated in American politics. There are only nine justices on the Supreme Court and they serve for life. Last months death from thyroid cancer of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the retirement of Sandra Day OConnor was a unique opportunity for Mr Bush to tilt the Supreme Court to the right, completing the reversal of the liberal dominance instituted under President Roosevelt seven decades ago. There is not much in Mr Bushs conservative social agenda that we admire but the two vacancies were an opportunity finally to bring down the curtain on the unconstitutional judicial activism which has dominated the Court since the Roosevelt years. Sadly but characteristically, Mr Bush has blown it: instead of the conservative intellectual jurists that his supporters had the right to expect, Mr Bush has made the mediocre John Roberts, a moderate conservative with an undistinguished legal track record, the new Chief Justice and nominated Harriet Miers for the OConnor vacancy. The Roberts appointment is not a disaster, though it shows a poverty of imagination. But the Miers nomination is pure cronyism. There are supposedly 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States, the most judicially-obsessed country on earth (no doubt there are already even more since that last count); out of this 1m-strong universe, Ms Miers would not make the shortlist of even the top 5,000. She has been nominated because she is a close confidante of the President, a former staff secretary, personal lawyer and currently White House counsel.
This is a missed opportunity of historic proportions. The modern Supreme Court has set the standard for Americas lesser courts to use the judicial system as a mechanism for social change, for which Americans did not necessarily vote, in areas ranging from school bussing and prayer to the death penalty and abortion (and most recently the powers of the President versus those of Congress in times of war). An extraordinary decision by the Supreme Court in June illustrates its power and the controversial nature of its decisions: it ruled five to four that local governments could force property owners to sell their homes to private developers whenever officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new projects success is not guaranteed. So, a new supermarket that wants to bulldoze local homes to expand its car park can now do so if it can convince local politicians (whose campaigns it might have bankrolled) to claim that this is somehow in the public interest, thus ensuring that homeowners are summarily kicked out; even the French would not give the state this amount of power.
It is this kind of controversial activism that conservatives, both radical and moderate, were hoping Mr Bush would put an end to through his judicial appointments. The liberal-left in the Senate, which can block Supreme Court nominations, was gearing up for a last-ditch battle to stop the President packing the court with right-wingers; the American Right, which has spent the past three decades waiting for this moment, was ready to seize the moment. For both sides these appointments were to be the mother of all battles in Americas Kulturkampf war, the final and most important showdown for the heart and soul of America, making last years bitter Bush-Kerry election look like a sideshow. So, when it became apparent that the President had ducked a fight, not once but twice, by appointing relative unknowns to the bench, with no real guarantee of any ideological commitment, an uncontrolled rage overcame the US conservative movement last week.
They were already furious at the Presidents incompetent selling of his social security reforms; they were equally angry at the collapse of his plans for major tax reforms through White House neglect; they have watched in despair as the Presidents upbeat rhetoric in Iraq was confounded regularly by tragic events, including an appalling American death toll and a neo-con mission clearly adrift; those who fought the good fight to restrain government in the Reagan years stood by in disgust as Mr Bush increased domestic spending faster than at any time since President Johnsons Great Society; and the nativist right is increasingly and dangerously surly at what it views as the Presidents failure to tackle illegal immigration and secure the countrys borders. This litany of failure, in the eyes of the presidents natural constituencies, was bad enough. Then came Hurricane Katrina, which crystallised what even conservative Americans had been thinking about their president and opened the flood gates, not just in New Orleans but on the President himself.
His presidency is unlikely to recover, as The Business pointed out at the time. Of course, Mr Bush is not the only one to blame for the countrys inadequate reaction to Katrina; but given the scale of the natural disaster, the buck was always going to stop with him. As far as most Americans were concerned, it did: suddenly they saw the same incompetence of a commander-in-chief who had created a deadly quagmire in Iraq played out in the streets of one of their own cities. A president who, whatever his other shortcomings, had claimed leadership skills and competent administration was stripped bare. It was not a pretty sight and the response to his political plight was typically Bush: he announced his intention to throw a massive $200bn into reconstructing New Orleans. This merely completed Mr Bushs demise among Americas wisest conservatives, who have always regarded his big-government conservatism as the greatest betrayal of all. Nor is it just the White House that is contaminated by it: when senior Republican leaders in Congress, who have presided over an orgy of public spending and pork-barrel, claimed that there was no fat left to cut in federal spending and that after 11 years of Republican majority weve pared it down pretty good, it was clear that the inmates had indeed taken over the asylum.
