the Centrist

I must candidly admit it makes me uneasy finding Bush Supreme Court Nominee, Janet Miers, name on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s short list. Why is it that President Clinton can get ultra leftists named to the court (ACLU attorney Justice Ginsberg and former Kennedy staff person Justice Stevens) and a conservative must pander to the left? I and million like me, have worked for years to get a majority in the Senate and a President who would nominate and confirm traditionalists. As a traditionalist I believe the Constitution should be followed as the Founders envisioned. It is a document that guarantees our freedoms, as soon as we consign to it characteristics such as ‘changeability’ i.e. ‘a living document’, then those guarantees are mut. After almost a half a century of following this errant philosophy by activist jurists we have seen our freedoms diminished in almost all areas of the guarantees: gun rights, assembly rights, and private property rights. Not only that we have seen many ‘fabricated’ rights brought under the umbrella of a ‘living constitution’: i.e. the rights to a Miranda reading and the right to privacy. Furthermore, under the ‘Living Constitution Philosophy’ technicality has become more important than guilt and the victim has fewer rights than the perpetrator.
Traditionalists had believed they had at long last achieved the ‘perfect storm’ with a majority in both houses and the executive branch. But those to whom we had entrusted this awesome responsibility have failed us. For instance the majority in the Senate is like a circular firing squad. Rather than assert their power, they form a collation with liberals, i.e. the gang of 14. These guys seem inept at everything but grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. It has become painfully apparent that they are more interested in what is best for their personal future, rather than our beloved nation.
So enter Doubleya and his new pick Miers. Bush admitted in the last Presidential debate that he had made one major mistake: he had surrounded himself in his first term with men and women who did not share his philosophy. Soon after, most of the Cabinet, save the Sec. of Defense, resigned and were replaced with close Bush confidants. With that in mind, one can understand the Miers selection. After all she is a close confidant of this President. Yet there are others that are close … but without her baggage. Why pick a person so hopelessly entwined with the Texas Lottery Scandal?
The scandal is important because at its nucleus is the oldest and most tired unfounded accusation against this President … his record with the National Guard. Most will remember the demise of CBS’s anchor Dan Rather. He brought to the forefront a man named Ben Barnes. Barnes claims he personally assured G. W. Bush of placement in the Texas Air National Guard, rather than service in Viet Nam. It is no secret that Barnes is an avid anti-Bush Texas former Lieutenant Governor who has contributed to all things liberal. Barnes is also connected to GTECH, the Rhode Island Firm which manages state lotteries, and has been named as a recipient of a $500,000 bribe in the Texas Lottery scandal. The claim is that Bush’s Texas Chief of Staff made a deal with Barnes to give GTECH a no bid contract if Barnes would destroy documents proving Bush received this favoritism. Thus, the rational for Barnes’s forged documents. Remember there is no proof to these claims, but should Bush not retract this nomination things will get interesting. Former Assistant to Lottery Czar Miers was Larry Littiwin who has been subpoenaed to testify in the Senate Confirmation Hearing. In addition, Littiwin had been under a gag order in a settlement involving his dismissal by Miers. He has been released from this gag order for the hearings. Litten settled with Texas and GTECH recieving $300,000 in compensation in exchange for the gag order. According to columnist Jerome Corsi of Worldnetdaily.com Littwin will claim: “the GTECH contract was preserved on a no-bid basis by then-Chairwoman of the Lottery Commission Miers in order to ‘keep the lid on’ the National Guard controversy involving then-Gov. Bush.”
So there you have it … while it is understandable, albeit maddening, that Bush, given a Senate Majority void of a backbone, would need yet another stealth … why consider a nominee tied to the media’s favorite anti-Bush claim … his National Guard Record? As Paul Harvey would say, as to the Miers withdrawal … “And now you know the rest of the story”.