Uncharacteristically Weak

Jonah Goldberg writes in defense of cronyism.  Fine, I have no problem with a President staffing his own Administration with friends he can trust - elections have consequences, the President needs to assemble a team with which he can work, and if his team is not competent, the President will pay the political price (sorry about that, New Orleans...).

But the Supreme Court is *not* part of his Administration, the President does not work with the Justices, and we can't vote "his" judges out of office or expect "his" judges to leave when the President's term ends.

No comparison, and don't defend Miers this way.

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

Ha! Mr. Nepotism defends cronyism. The Onion couldn't write this stuff.

[Seven Machos]

Lucianne works for National Review? Tell us more, Geek.

[Mac]

uhmm... Tom, I think you need to re-read that column. It isn't about Meirs or the Supreme Court.

Cheers

[TM]

Not about Miers? I must have misread the opening paragraph:

Washington is suddenly hung up on cronyism. According to a quick Lexis-Nexis search, roughly 1,000 stories have mentioned "cronyism" and "Bush" in the last two months alone. It was Michael Brown's putatively dismal performance at FEMA that got the anti-crony buzz going and Bush's selection of Harriet Miers that sent it into the stratosphere.

Or maybe it was paragraphs three and four that confused me:

Continuing my string of mixed metaphors, Miers kicked the issue into overdrive because Bush placed so much emphasis on her status as a "loyal friend" — perhaps because there wasn't much else to go on. So now Miers is on a collision course with the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we will see if she is in fact the crash test dummy of the Bush White House.

I think the Miers pick was ill-conceived, but I'm remaining agnostic on her confirmation until those hearings. But I do think someone needs to say something in defense of cronyism.

Or near the end:

This seems to be the core of the argument on Miers's behalf. Bush knows her. He trusts her. He would consider it a betrayal of some kind if she "grew" on the bench. Clearly, for many, Bush's judgment isn't enough.

My bad.

[Toby Petzold]

Tom, this is extremely foul-mouthed and angry, but I just had to get it off my chest.

I very much hope that Miss Miers withdraws her name as soon as possible. I'll bet she's a very nice lady ---as it's obvious that she is an accomplished one--- but this nomination is the most tone-deaf thing Bush the Younger has done in quite a while and there is no mitigating it.

[TexasToast]

Sorry guys - the social conservatives are happy. Remember, there is no litmus test. (Wink).

[topsecretk9]

if what Dobson says is true...then well, gee thanks gang of 16...way to go to bat! ...if the majority had spine we would not be here.

[topsecretk9]

...we knew why we elected Bush...but Congress? backbone? ...oh thats right we have McCain

[Dwilkers]

I have no idea what the White House was thinking with this nomination.

They had weeks to consider candidates while Roberts was being considered after all. Yet this nomination has had the smell of a last minute 'oh let's just give it to Harriet she'll be fine' type decision from the start.

The NYTimes ran an article on October 9th saying the White House was putting together a dossier - this was nearly a week after the nomination was announced - supporting her nomination. A full week after the nomination and they're putting together a dossier on her? Now? As in, they didn't have one that they had carefully studied prior to naming her?

Where was Karl the-Evil-Genius Rove when they picked this nominee and decided they should defend her by calling the president's base sexist and elitist and using the 'trust me' line and saying we should support her because she is religious???

Clumsy, botched, poorly conceived, flat-footed, ham-fisted. This is what we get when we live in a one party state. The hubris and arrogance and flat out incompetence with which this nominee was selected and has been defended is astonishing coming from a supposed top line political operation.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

So, when JFK named his Navy buddy Byron White to the Court from his Deputy Attorney General post...

Or Truman naming his AG Tom Clark...Nixon his Deputy AG William Rehnquist....

[Cecil Turner]

My reading of Jonah's article is that the President knowing the nominee is a good thing. (And as a practical matter, reduces the chances of another Stevens or Souter.) Personally, I'd have preferred a Luttig or Gonzalez. But since I suspect neither would be likely to be confirmed . . .

[Geek, Esq.]

Seven Machos:

Have you heard of Lucianne Goldberg?

[cathyf]

I'm pretty underwhelmed with Miers one way or another, but I see the "cronyism" charge against Brown as being fundamentally unfair. Yes, he got the job via cronyism. But that's old news. The danger with hiring cronies is that then they are not competent and they make a mess of things. Once Brown shepherded FEMA through four hurricanes in Florida in 2004 he proved himself qualified. If you had some sort of hypothetical "clean slate" looking to hire a FEMA director in say, Jan 2005, and Brown had applied applied for the job, he would have been an excellent candidate based upon his own proven achievements in 2004. James Lee Witt, who apparently was a fine FEMA director, got his job because he was a crony, too. He was qualified because he had been the Arkansas emergency management director. I think anyone who argues that Brown was less qualified in Jan 2005 than Witt was in Jan 1993 is making things up.

Come on people, that's the way the world works. You get a job because of your contacts, or your accomplishments at previous jobs, or your school credentials, or some combination thereof. Because when you are hiring that's all you have to go on. But once you have the job, your ability to keep it and to advance is based upon your performance in the job.

What was different between hurricanes in 2004 and hurricanes in 2005? It was the same FEMA director. What was different was different states and different hurricanes. What was different between Katrina in Louisina and Katrina in Mississippi? It was the same FEMA director. It was the same hurricane. If anything, the damage was significantly more severe in Mississippi. What was different was different cities and different states. Blaming the New Orleans Katrina fiasco on FEMA and Brown is simply a cheat shot. Made by people who don't care about weakening our nation's disaster preparedness and response and causing misery and even death to their fellow citizens if it allows them to get in a cheap shot at Bush.

cathy :-)

[Seven Machos]

I have heard of Lucianne Goldberg, Geek. I know you are a brilliant attorney and all, so maybe you can explain to me how her employment with National Review.

Or is it enough being a part of the vast right wing conspiracy?

Geek, I have to shoot it to you straight: I'm beginning to think you are profoundly unable to understand world events. Maybe the second year of law school will help you sort things out.

[Seven Machos]

Cathyf: The problem is that there are hundreds of people more qualified who the president KNOWS. It's not he's got some little company in Dubuque.

[Mac]

Tom,

Ironically, being mentioned often in a piece isn't the same as being the subject of the piece. For instance, though Ms. Plame is mentioned quite often round here, she is rarely the actual subject of your pieces. See how that works? Goldberg's column is about the cronyism meme and its validity.

Cheers

[penis enlargement]

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

[penis enlargement]

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.