Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Yes. But, remember, Bush I nominated Souter. He made a judgment call on him, and it didn't turn out well. It made people skittish. ("Of or pertaining to skit.") With Miers, Bush II is making a similar judgment call, and we all have even less knowledge of her than we had of Souter. Granted, no one really could have ferreted out back then that Souter would turn into . . . well . . . Souter. But, people would like the chance to try. Miers' known characteristics are so limited that there's no past performance or writings to even guess as to how she will perform - and there are several very highly qualified, vetted, known quantities out there whose histories DO make it possible for people to feel confidant in their nomination. Miers is just too much of a chancy pick.
Bush is saying "trust me" in a situation where he didn't have to fall back on that. He could have picked one of the people for whom there is widespread confidence. I still admire those qualities in Bush of which you spoke - the conviction in the face of bad PR, etc. - but, given the excellent candidates for this important position, this is all so disappointing.
|
I'm sure Bush II does not think of his "trust me" as a fall back position. He no doubt thinks his "trust me" is as good, if not better, than 15 years worth of scrutinized legal opinions. To Bush II, the word of a trustworthy person carries more weight than accordian file full of data. This is why we like him. It is a reson why the voters chose him. He has strength of conviction.
And I would like to distinguish Souter from Miers. Bush II knows Miers a whole lot better than BushI knew Souter. Indeed, Souter was Sununununu's pick, while Miers is clearly Bush II's pick. BushI erred in trusting Sununu, who had misinterpretted Souter. Here, Bush II has first hand knowledge of Miers.
