Excellent!

" but the very fact that so many conservatives are ripping into Bush over the Miers nomination ..."

Mr. Hawkins is apparently more concerned with appearences than substance. Kind of like most of the left.

I know, appearances

Well, I'm a conservative who thinks Bush has earned my trust. He has certainly frustrated me on occasion, but only a fool would think that his has not been a consequential presidency. He takes on big issues and seeks meaningful long-term solutions - exactly the kind of thing politicians looking only to get re-elected DON'T do.

This is not simple 'cronyism'. There is nothing about the man that would lead one to believe he would take something this important so lightly.

Two points:

1) As you've often pointed out, Bush spends a lot, but he does so in a new way - he introduces market forces and choice into his proposals. The money is the spoonful of sugar, but the free market is the medicine.

2) Social Security Reform may be DOA in congress right now - but large reforms are seldom won in quick, sweeping blows. The American System of internal improvements took generations to be realized; the war against the National Bank took both of Jackson's administrations, and really wasn't fulfilled until the very end of Van Buren's term when the Divorce proposal finally passed; it took generations and a war to end slavery; there were Women's Suffrage movements in the 1840's, but no 19th Amendment until 1920; civil rights, the Great Society, and today's conservative movement - all these huge shifts take time. Why people seem to think that one vote or one poll spells defeat for an idea is just beyond me.

Bush may not accomplish Social Security Reform by 2008, but he's laying the groundwork, and he's defining the terms - market reforms vs. doing nothing. It's not like this issue is going away. And when the time is ripe, the work he's already done will have a profound impact on the course we eventually take.

And if, in the end, Clinton 44 signs the Social Security Private Account Act (just as Clinton 42 signed Welfare Reform), it'll be as much Bush's victory as if Bush signs it - because he took the initiative, framed the debate, and set the course.

To sum it all up: dude isn't thinking about his next chess move; he's thinking about how to teach his children to beat your children.

Thanks John, you made my day.

I wonder if conservatives aren't getting a little itchy and insecure right now. They know Bush will leave office in '09, but they don't know what comes next.

The result is any sense of being on the same "team" has eroded.

This can help and hurt. It assists the GOP's image by demonstrating strident introspection, something lacking in the Dem's these days. But it can also be self-defeating: the petty snarking about cronyism and incompetence in Bush's administration will legitimize the same complaints by the GOP's opponents in "06 and '08.

Condi will have to wash off all this mud before she runs against the Dem's gleaming, white horse, Hillary.
-Steve

I think that most Republicans and most of the right-wing bloggers don't know much about Sun Tzu or strategy.

Here's what one who does know has to say:

http://artofwarplus.com/wordpress/?p=586

Secrecy about your plans and capabilities is one of the basic rules of strategy....
Secrecy is necessary in strategy because if opponents know your moves, they will act to prevent them. A good recent example in the political world is the appointment of Miers to the Supreme Court. Even more than Roberts before her, Miers’ views are not necessarily a matter of public record. In nominating her, Bush is establishing a position that is, by definition, hard to attack because it is unknown. This tells us that Bush is concerned primarily at this point about defending his nominee and is not confident of his party hanging together under attack to support a more controversial conservative pick. [Hello, Sen's Chaffee & Snow!]

Strategy also teaches that direct person-to-person communication is the most reliable source of information, and that seeing how someone acts over time is a better indication of character than anything anyone says. By this standard, Bush certainly knows Miers, having worked directly with her for years, while the public and especially Bush’s opposition cannot. The question is: can the public trust Bush’s judgment? It really doesn’t matter with the Republicans in command of the Senate and a Bush nomination that is difficult to attack, even on the issue of gender.
...
When her rulings come, America will find that her positions will be close to Bush’s, which means that she is either an extreme conservative or a weak conservative, depending on the perspective of your own position. Bush was clearly more interested in an easy win here than a big victory, which is, by Sun Tzu’s definitions, the hallmark of good strategy.

I'm with Ethan. Bush always adds a "poison pill" when he spends money. The pill is to let market forces into the mix. In the long run that may be the most effective in controlling costs and undermining the liberal "dependency society." After all, no one is arguing that we can't afford these social programs now. The problems, always, are down the road. And that's how Bush is thinking. Down the road is diminated by private sector market discipline.

Though an evangelical Christian, I still threw a rather undignified hissy-fit on Monday. But since then, I've heard from James Dobson and Miers' minister, and in both cases have been reassured.

I don't buy into the need for another constitutional "genius" on the court. You don't even need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution and understand it. The nature of Harriet Miers' heart and motivations are the real concern.

George Bush knows her heart. The decision has been made. Did he choose the best?

I think its time for conservatives to choose the best course of action... and that is to get off our soap boxes and support this nomination. Its the smart thing to do.

I pray for this president every morning. This is where the faith part comes in.

You don't keelhaul a winning coach because he kicks a field goal instead of running on fourth down in the third quarter of a close game. He may be following a game plan, and there's still time for touchdowns.

"Faith-based initiatives. Decisively attacked the notion that "separation of church and state" should mean atheist government."

It should mean agnostic government. Not advocating atheism or theism.

I know faith-based initiatives are great for conservative christians, but I don't understand how supporting faith-based initiatives is desirable for non-christians. Great, your favorite brand of rent-seekers are getting more money, but comeon, have you forgotten about limited government? Are republicans any less statist than democrats?

I do understand that religious organizations are solid organizations that promote thoughtful and respectful decision-making the majority of the time. However, this is not a justification in and of itself to promote them via taxdollars. If they are viable organizations, they should not need my income to survive. I know that we are spending money on worse things right now, but that is not a justification either. Such an argument only further supports the expansion of the state.

"The drug benefit was probably going to happen no matter what--the political pressure was too strong. But with it we got HSA's, which liberals have been blocking for decades. They will be an important component of the Ownership Society. And we got private-sector competition built in to the drug benefit, which is already causing projected costs to fall."

So, did you just decide not to address the exhorbiant amount of spending increases?

Remember, part of his argument was: "It goes without saying that Bush is worse than Lyndon Johnson in the big spending department. In his entire time in the White House, he has never even vetoed a single pork laden bill."

The leviathon has not grown at this rate since the 30s! Conservative? How? Socially, yes. Fiscally - give me a break. Any attempt at labeling this administration conservative must be done outside the bounds of a reality-based world.

I'd love to hear why I'm wrong - and I'm sure I will!

This post is a bit misleading, because I'm sort of assuming the reader knows points that I've made elsewhere. Sorry. See this post for an example.

From a traditional conservative viewpoint you are absolutely right. And if I could wave a magic wand and make government shrink to a tenth of its size, and only undertake a few vital tasks, I'd do it. But I don't think that's going to happen, so I'm a supporter of another strategy.

I'm also a bit of a theocon, and I think the health of a nation is much dependent on having a population that believes in God, and not just in personal fulfillment. And I strongly suspect that the decline and decay we see in Europe is intimately connected with the loss of faith. (Can't prove it, but here's an interesting bit of statistical evidence ). So I think you too may have a stake in the health of faith-based groups. (But I can't be sure that giving them government money is actually good for them!)