We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A conservative rebellion? So is GWB really facing ‘rebellion‘ by conservatives over his choice of nominee to the Supreme Court? It has long puzzled me why he has been cut so much slack for so long given that his conservative credentials were never very strong to begin with. I guess just not being Bill Clinton was enough for the GOP’s supporters to stomach his significant expansion of Big Government and clear lack of any interest in trying to revive the squandered Reagan legacy.
But is this the straw that breaks the camels back or just a storm in a media teacup? Are there really enough people in the GOP willing to derail his latest nominee to the Supreme Court on ideological grounds and do they think there is any chance of them getting someone more to their liking from a Big Government statist like George Bush Jr.? Is this ‘outrage’ on the right going to make a difference? I will be curious see how this is really going to play out.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Given how much power the Supreme Court has amassed over the decades, the makeup of the court is nearly as significant in the long run as the occupant of the White House, with respect to our rights and freedoms.
Conservatives have been forgiving Bush’s many, many sins for two reasons only: the war, and the thought of him nominating two or three solid conservatives to the court. Now that he is going the wimpy route, a lot of people are furious.
The above poster is right: conservatives, many of whom don’t agree with much of the GOP’s recent activity, actively supported them over the past few years *because* of the likelihood that the prez would have the opportunity to nominate one, and if lucky two or more nominees to the supreme court, significantly shaping the ideological makeup of that institution and directing the philosophical context in which many important social and legal issues are decided.
Roberts was an mediocre nominee, and not neccesarily the best- but his significant scholarship and experience made him an acceptable choice. Miers lacks any of the qualities that tipped the scale in Roberts favor.
Conservatives and libertarians have worked hard to elect majorities in both houses of congress, and in the executive branch. There is absolutely no reason why the president couldn’t have nominated an absolutely qualified candidate- someone with a long track record of decisions, law review articles, etc. setting out consistant legal philosophy… This sort of candidate would have been hard to confirm- but confirmable. It is hard to reach any other conclusion but that he didn’t want to nominate a difficult candidate at a time when he is personally suffering in the polls/
In this case, it appears that the president is not only betraying the base that elected him, but acting in a way that is inconsistent with his own campaign promises. It is ludicrous to think that of all the eminently qualified people in this country to be nominated, his pal with no record to speak of is *the best.*
I think conservatives were willing to put up with a lot of the pork and baloney that they knew would come out of a Bush white house- after all , there is no question that a Democrat president like Kerry would have been worse when it comes to issues like governemnt spending, taxes etc. But to think that we are getting all of this governemnt waste, coupled with the fact that he has essentially bailed on his plan to privatize social security, coupled with the fact that he is chickening out on who he is nominating to the SCOTUS… collectively that is a bit too much to bear. I think Miers nomination is an over-the-top example of how the administration is squandering the unprecedented opportunity the American people have given them- and it *is* the fabled straw that broke the camel’s back.
I am by bo means a die-hard republican, but IW as willing to support Bush for a few specific reasons: national defense, taxes, his social security reform proposal, and the opportunity to nominate justices to SCOTUS. At this point I feel like he has bungled every issue that constituted an affirmative reason to support him (as opposed to a negative reason- like *not* wanting a Dem in office.) He has been handed an unprecedented opportunity by the American elecotrate, and so far he has screwed it up. And I’m pissed.
It’s hilarious. It’s turning into class war and the snobs of both parties are going to find out who really has the whip hand. Hell, I’m for Miers just because all the right people are getting pissed off. Truth, Justice, and the American way. Will and Bork can fuck off now.
Well, if Dubya’s the most brilliant man Miers has ever met, then why can’t Miers be the best qualified for the job? Bork’s sputtering mad, but really, why should he be? Dubya himself has assured us that Miers is a devout Christian. And that’s what’s really important, right? I personally had hoped to see a nominee with righteous views on Kelo, rather than righteous views on the Lord; and for awhile there I went hog wild and dreamed of a nominee with a little practical experience in constitutional law. Silly, eh?
I’ll take comfort in the fact that James Dobson himself has assured us that Miers passes the religious litmus test. He can’t publicly say why that is; but, like Bush, he asks us to trust him because of what he knows about her. Maybe in a come-to-Jesus moment she told Dobson where Bush can find the WMD.
Oh, absolutely silly. It’s right up there with the idea that Reagan was a small government man. Hey, he did some good stuff, but small government wasn’t part of it.
The one thing I really like about Miers so far is that she is a working stiff. Works her ass off, matter of fact. Quite the contrast.
The GOP sent out a fundraising “survey” and wanted to know if I intended to vote in 06 and 08.
I let them have it, as I usually do. And not 1 red cent!
Don’t be gulled by the ruse. Brer Bush’s shills are just sitting there begging “please, please Brer Democrat, whatever you do, don’t fling Miss Miers into that Supreme Court.”
He really is a lot smarter than he likes his enemies to think he is. Funny how the people around whom he keeps running circles remain clueless.
I think people need to chill on that “betrayal” stuff.
President Bush’s conservative credentials have never been rock solid except for a few very important issues. He is not very confrontational with the other party and that’s part of his “compassionate conservatism.” The best assumption to make here is that he understands that this is an important issue for us, and that it is a major reason for why the Republican Party has been winning elections, so he is not about to appoint another David Souter and destroy the political and economic progress and reform that we have been working towards.
Thomas Brewton makes an argument (in Marshall vs Miers) that I am sure is close to where the President is on this issue, which is basically “that deep immersion in the socialist cesspools of Harvard or Yale law schools ought to be viewed more as a disqualification than a recommendation for responsible office. The fact that Ms. Miers attended Southern Methodist University at a time when it still was a school influenced by religious principles and the fact that she is a born-again Christian suggest the possibility that she, like [Justice] Marshall, may be influenced by sound general principles.”
I suppose this is the much shouted about quagmier the dems have been going on about all these years!
Whatever…
Political and economic progress? Such as…?
Which is rather what I am curious to know: is this indeed just an inconsequential hissy-fit or is it a serious ground swell?
Miers is an RC turned evangelical Christian who has functioned for years as a kind of lady overseer or gatekeeper on the Bush family plantation. She went to a third-rate law school (Southern Methodist), has never practised or published on constitutional law and spent most of her career in humdrum Texan business litigation. No objective observer would rate her in the top 10,000 of America’s 1.1m– count ’em– lawyers, far less among the top hundred or so judicial philosopher-kings from whom solons are normally drawn.
Brits can’t understand that now the USA is a kritarchy, in which the Supremes can pretty well override any domestic legislation (usually to defend social liberalism and big Federal government), nominees to the Court matter more than the results of most elections. Conservatives licked their lips for 10-15 years at the thought that one day a socially conservative and/or strict-constructionist majority would be restored by the Grim Reaper.
Bush Jr had not one but two opportunities at a stroke to do the job. He was in a second term with no electoral blowback to worry about; the GOP had majorities in both houses, a muted opposition (hey, it’s wartime) and ample evidence from the gay-marriage referenda last November that the country wanted less judicial activism. So what does the First Boy-Man do with his winning hand? He nominates a cagey mediocrity, Roberts– who may well turn out a RINO like so many before him– for one seat, and a crony for the other who will probably tag along behind Roberts.
As a result, conservatives are spitting feathers and declaring that on top of all the civil-liberties infringements and statist spending splurges Bush has tolerated, this is the final insult. Even Bush’s neocon drumbangers, such as Kristol, Krauthammer, Will and John Podhoretz, have deplored Miers’s nomination and described it as a turning point. The Senate may well shoot her down to express alarm at Bush’s craven refusal to fight for his policies and beliefs at home (not one bill vetoed in 57 months!) while he risks American lives overseas.
Since Bush has no more elections to fight, he could defy them and probably force Miers through, but he has a desire to be remembered for a bit more than taking America into the least necessary losing war in its modern history. With his Social Security reform and No Child Left Behind programs looking wonky and a recession and oil crunch looming, Bush desperately needs to warm the cockles of his supporters’ hearts, not kick them in the teeth. He is so arrogant and insecure that he may refuse ‘on principle’ to admit that Miers is a mistake which dramatises his and his clan’s worst qualities; but the threat of being remembered by history as a klutz who failed all along the line could save the day.
Perry, I strongly recommend reading what Virginia Postrel says about the Miers appointment. In her ladylike way, she points out what a joke this nomination process is. Randy Barnett – one of the best legal scholars around – has also been scathing.
I really do sense that a lot of the conservative/libertarian commentariat, who have been fairly kind to Bush despite the massive spending, etc, are turning on him. But who really does speak for small govt conservatism in the Republican Party these days? Bob Barr, maybe and Ron Paul. Otherwise, nobody of note.
If you examine his record of previous nominations, Bush has been nominating strict constitutionalists his entire term but all were struck down because Senator McCain and his Gang of spineless idiots did not have the backbone to fight this judical war. It is important to McCain’s image that he appear a Hillary centrist
This war was already lost when McCain and his Gang cowered to the Democrat’s filibuster threat. Bush has learned an important lesson, don’t trust certain Republican Senators to watch his back or fight for Republicans.
If Bush had nominated yet another strict constitutionalist with a paper-trail history, no doubt McCain and his Gang would have cowered like they had done time and again with all the other strict constitutionalist candidates.
Why not wait until we hear the candidate’s testimony before jumping upon an hysterical bandwagon. Since Dems have not heard Mier’s testimony either, the only reason Democrats are giddy is because they hear Republicans speaking hysterically like Democrats, not because they consider her a ‘safe’ candidate.
Johnathan: Bob Barr has been out of the House for two years. He spouts on the radio instead.
Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, so you wouldn’t like him when he’s not angry. The good doctor is simple-minded enough to think those funny old guys in wigs and breeches knew how to run a federal nation better than Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
The neoconservatives and their pragmatic allies, the cynical fixers such as Karl Rove and Tom De Lay, have turned the GOP into a wasteland for fresh thinking, a machine for graft and favors. Yet they continue to dream of more wars– Iran or Syria or both?– while preparing their defenses against the indictments that will follow Larry Franklin’s plea-bargain.
Outrageous gall must lie behind the recent Republican celebration of the 11th (sic) anniversary of its ‘Contract with America’. Considering what has happened to the ideals of small government and political accountability espoused by Newt Gingrich and his boys since the warhawks swaggered in with Bush Jr, you would think GOP bosses would have the sense to keep schtum about what the party of Eisenhower and Reagan used to believe in.
Vote Republican for superfluous and unwinnable wars abroad, Federal insolvency, endless infringements of liberty, tax cuts for the richest with the best lobbyists and pork for every kvetching minority interest.
No wonder the latest CBS News poll finds Americans more weary of Bush than ever and pessimistic about the future:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml
You’re all missing the point. Bush wants to win elections. He doesn’t seek to please GOP or Senate members, nor the MSM. It’s all about staying in power.
Sure he could have gone for an unknown brilliant lawyer. However by nominating a ‘normal’ person like Miers, Bush connects with the massive silent majority that keeps him in power. He is on their side, against the elites – both Republican and Democrat – and against the liberal elites that the average Joe in the US feels despise him.
Bush is slowly positioning the GOP for the next election. It is likely he will push for Rice as president, as she is a black woman and would probably be an awesome president anyway. It is likely he will take action against Iran, as this is what the same silent majority want. It gets votes.
The nomination of Miers is therefore brilliant politics. Whether it is brilliant leadership is another matter entirely – and probably not relevant for Bush. Then again, such issues do not resonate as important for the majority in anycase.
If you want to see an example of a leader who has used this successful strategy for 12 years now, look to John Howard in Australia. I have no doubt Bush is influenced by him.
This man is not dumb, but quite probably one of the most brilliant politicians America has ever seen. He continually plays to be underestimated, with great success.
Starting to get it?
Per Matt O’Halloran:
Now, that would be really tasty. I doubt it’ll happen, but it would put Bush on notice that only an authoritarian, breathing fire if not actual fire and brimstone, would be fitten. Such a nominee would stir slumbrous moderates and liberals to life. Wouldn’t that be fun to watch?
Miers’s nomination has served notice to the intellectuals in the “conservative coalition” that they can be put on ice while Bush caters to all the little nutsoids who vote for him because, as he often reassures them, he takes his orders from The Big Guy. This is why it’s been so important to him (i.e., Rove) to get the word out that Miers is right with Jesus and with James Dobson. (If you don’t know who Dobson is, hold your nose and go to (Link) to get an idea what he’s up to.)
Miers will get through. If she doesn’t, Bush will have to nominate some who will all but cause a civil war, and he’s already trying to manage one of those. So Miers will be rammed through, at great cost to Bush and his. The intellectuals aren’t going to take this insult lying down.
Their open hostility bodes ill for the “conservative coalition,” which always has been an ugly patchwork of intellectuals and Jesus-lovin’ populists. A brawl is about to ensue, and the vast majority of the fist fighters are people who fundamentally have no use for actual ideas and the intellectuals who spout them; and who (albeit unconsciously) live in terror of the onrushing future. It’s pretty obvious to me who’s going to win this one. Look for a lot more Jesus, and a lot more pork.
Good Point about W wanting to win elections.
I remember that Ronald Reagan was often raked over the coals by conservatives for his actions. This SC hoohah reminds me of the way conservatives went after Ronnie for being too close to Gorbo. In fact he was encourgaging the complete demise of the USSR.
Small government conservatives in the US had their chance with Bob Dole,who, in spite of his Senate role, really was philosophically closer to them than either Reagan or Bush. Like the rest of the Conservative coalition they could not really bring themselves to support a man who only agreed with them 70 percent, (or more) of the time.
The nomination of Miers is therefore brilliant politics.
I don’t think so, see below why.
…. “conservative coalition,” which always has been an ugly patchwork of intellectuals and Jesus-lovin’ populists.
Correct.
Bush has managed to enrage both parts of his conservative coalition – the intellectuals by naming an unqualified crony, and the “Jesus lovin’ populists” by not naming a “safe” anti abortion candidate.
This nomination was not motivated by healthy political instincts, just by crass cronyism. It is a major blunder, and all are aghast at the incompetence this nomination revealed. You need to consult people and assure yourself a solid base of support before you nominate someone. Bush’s failed to do that. His assistants failed to steer him away from this blunder. He shot himself in the foot.
However, Bush cannot be removed, he will stay on and do his best, which won’t be much – forget Social Security or tax reform or any new iniciative.
Harriet Miers appears to have no other qualifications for the Supreme Court – given her lack of experience – other than her dealings in protecting GWB from bad press (drunk driving and military record). This looks very much like a pay back as thank you.
What always amazes me is that the Supreme Court judges are picked for their political leanings, and less for their ability to provide the last instance in the judicial system of such a nation.
Pi.
Traditional GOP voters won’t stray from the party and W knows that.
Jacob says:
Bush has managed to enrage both parts of his conservative coalition – the intellectuals by naming an unqualified crony, and the “Jesus lovin’ populists” by not naming a “safe” anti abortion candidate.
So what ? W knows that, Jacob. Like I said, he ain’t dumb, but very cunning. He also knows it doesn’t matter because both ‘camps’ will always vote GOP. However, if he distances himself from both camps in the eyes of traditional Democrats looking for a right-wing/centrist, like Blair, he can start steering the GOP toward a bigger voting base. So he’s courting the disaffected democrats, of which there are many courtesy of the democrats being so useless at the moment, safe in the knowledge that the GOP base is secure.
Smart politics. This is what Howard has done in Australia, as a result the Labor party (Democrat equivalent) has a much smaller pool of predictable votes available. If successful, he can steal a march on Hilary come 2009.
Pi – the slanders and libels against Bush’s legal and military records have all been discredited. Do some reading from other sources than those which confirm your prejudices and make you comfortable.
I agree with Atrios (and other folks) who theorize that one major reason the ‘base’ is riled up is because he stole the moment in the sun they had been dreaming of for years. What the based wanted was a giant, public, loud F-YOU against …. well against everyone else. They wanted an out “strict-constructionist” as the nomination as public notice to all their enemies that the days of the court doing things they don’t like are O-V-E-R. They did not want two stealth nominations (if that’s what they are) in a row.
My take (which may of course be hugely mistaken) is that this nomination is a blend of cronyism gone bezerk and evidence that W doesn’t much care about the social policy issues that drive the evangelicals and get them to vote Republican year after year. He’s not against them, but he doesn’t get all hot and bothered by them and he’s certainly not gonna go out on a limb for them.
I really don’t think that you Brit-cons can really talk when it comes to defending the West’s values because you have bigger problems than we do in terms of sound government.
I think that critics should at least wait until Miers’ confirmation hearings -if her nomination makes it to that point which I think it will- to make a better evaluation of the President’s choice. I’m not going to base my judgement about his decision here on his fiscal and economic weaknesses, which he ran for election on. The boat is still slowly turning around in the right direction on that matter. This is what I mean when I speak of economic progress and reform, Perry. The President can still choose from a a good number of strong reforms in terms of taxation and social security which Conservatives (I usually use the big “C” since I don’t really recognize irrelevant political parties) can build upon.
I have to admit, that I admire Ms. Miers’ background and think that President Bush’s argument in support of his decision is not as bad as I thought it was, initially. She carries with her very important practical experience in terms of business, law, and the war on terror. I believe that the president’s nomination is is O.K.
This is the big one.
It’s nice to have somebody vote your way in court.
It’s not what you need, however, since justices pass away, their decisions, if not stellar, get overruled or just forgotten.
It’s more important for the libertarian/conservative movement in the long run, that our arguments get made, than we win every battle in the short term.
Putting Miers on the Court, even if she (surprisingly) turns out to be a reliable conservative/libertarian vote, does nothing at all to further our principles, sine it appears she is not particularly inclined towards making brilliant, scholarly law and policy arguements – though she is a fair trial lawyer and a strong administrator. Big deal, the S.Ct. is about rarefied, scholarly appellate law topics, and the Chief Justice is the only guy with real administrative duties.
This is a bit of a stab in the back, and it is in keeping with the Bush Administration’s abject failure to articulate any rationale for anything it does in the law & public policy arena. Compare and contrast to Reagan, who was a veritable preacher man on behalf of libertarian and conservative ideals.
I have to say, your argument is a little more substantial than many others who make the claim that the President’s Supreme Court nominee isn’t that; substantial.
Also, I want to say that the word intellectual has been thrown around too lightly, I think. So much so that it has become unavoidable for me to use it more than I usually like, here, because some pretty formidable intellectuals have been running out of gas intellectually in trying to maintain their position that Ms. Miers doesn’t have the “right stuff” to handle the job that she’s been selected to carry out.
Not to compare apples to oranges here, but there was a similar problem that we had with the nomination of Judge Roberts, wasn’t there? That was that he hadn’t been a particularly publicly ideological activist. We really are upset because neither is Harriet Miers, apparently. But the President has viewed her as a valuable asset in the highest levels of government and I think that that should count for something. I understand the excitement here, I really do, but it doesn’t appear very judicious. Pun intended.
People are becoming weary of the use of the term “mediocre” here, especially coming from those with the inflexible attitude that leads some otherwise erudite and well tempered friends to accept nothing more than ideological or political carbon copies of the confirmation debate expectations about getting back at the left by taking it, intellectually, to the woodshed for all of its abuses and offenses in the style of Ann Coulter or Chris Hitchens. But the President’s temperament is a different one. Not all firebrands are identical or play the same roles. A good understanding of the economic concept of the division of labor might be useful to understand the big picture, here.
Anyway, useful information which supports supports previous arguments that Ms. Harriet Miers does indeed have “the right stuff” continues to become available. No one can deny, for long, that she is a professional and exceptional woman, and maintain their credibility.
Quote:
“In Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), the key issue was whether a wholly owned Disney subsidiary incorporated in Delaware could be subjected to the personal jurisdiction of the Texas courts. That in turn took the case into a thicket of both constitutional and nonconstitutional issues — including an analysis of whether there were sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ between the subsidiary and Texas so that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not be violated by forcing that subsidiary to respond to a lawsuit in the Texas courts. And that in turn depended on a complicated mix of factual and legal issues involving both agency and contract law. Ms. Miers lost on the personal jurisdiction issue at the trial court level, but then took an extraordinary interlocutory appeal, and won in the San Antonio Court of Appeals. Although her opponents tried to persuade the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case, Ms. Miers apparently persuaded that court to decline to hear it on jurisdictional grounds — meaning, in all probability, that she filed a persuasive brief in the Texas Supreme Court, and then did not have to appear for oral arguments on the merits (and risk losing) precisely because her brief was so persuasive
“What does it say about Harriet Miers and her intellect and her skills? Some may say that this was ‘meat and potatoes’ stuff, even on the constitutional issues, and it’s not the sort of case that was likely to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. BUT NEVERTHELESS, IT OBVIOUSLY WAS COMPLICATED ENOUGH TO PERPLEX THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO (ACCORDING TO THE APPELATE COURT) GOT IT WRONG. It was a close enough case that Ms. Miers’ opponents thought they had a shot at getting the Texas Supreme Court to hear it, even after losing at the court of appeals level. The facts and law were complicated enough that this case would have made a reasonably good law school exam question. And I’m reasonably sure that to Ms. Miers’ corporate client, getting this six- or maybe seven-figure fraud case thrown out of what it would have regarded as a hostile, pro-plaintiff venue — the famously dusty streets of Laredo in Webb County, Texas — was a pretty significant victory.
“But what do they know? They’re just cartoons and stuff.”
Some of us righties just have no patience when it comes to pulverizing the left. But discipline is very important in any campaign or battle. And President Bush, not Bill Kristol (nor any other intellectual champion of the right), is the Commander in Chief at the moment. All in due course.
It is helpful, for those who don’t know, to understand that this is an important issue to “W”, and he knows that millions of Americans have put alot of energy into making sure that we don’t get burned again, here. You have to realize that some very influencial people who were not not judges made some of the most drastic “contributions” to what is taught in law schools today through the Supreme Court.
The president has decided to step out of the scholarly and theoretical (think Souter and FDR’s “Brain Trust” gang) and into a more practical world in his decision. Many, including myself, didn’t expect that. And that doesn’t seem like a very bad idea in a deeply politicized academic environment which would mean that the President has a good understanding about what he is doing and is seeking an intellectually well-grounded, rather than unhinged, person to carry his torch when he is no longer in the White House.
This is one of the things that he wanted to make an impact on, as I understood, when I voted for him in 2000 and 2004, though I didn’t agree with some of his early “Compassionate Conservative” platform items; I think that people would be cheating themselves of actually knowing what’s going on by assuming that the weakness is married to the strength in that context. One can exist without the other, and in this case they definitely do. The assumption and basic argument that they don’t here is to assume that President Bush is a retard.
It is most likely that Harriet Miers has some out of the box (and I think that’s healthy) insights to contribute to the 9 member body that is the third branch of my government.
The president has decided to step out of the scholarly and theoretical (think Souter and FDR’s “Brain Trust” gang) and into a more practical world in his decision. Many, including myself, didn’t expect that. And that doesn’t seem like a very bad idea in a deeply politicized academic environment which would mean that the President has a good understanding about what he is doing and is seeking an intellectually well-grounded, rather than unhinged, person to carry his torch when he is no longer in the White House.
This is the reason why I believe that it is most likely that Harriet Miers has some out of the box and not necessarily un-intellectual insights to contribute to the 9 member body that is the third branch of my government.
A clear indication you have done something right as a Republican: You get slagged off by
Christian FerretGary Bauer. A wretched little man that makes anyone who meets him cringe. He is the living embodiment of what is wrong with the Christian Right in the US.NB: This is the idiot that criticised Alan Keyes (then a Presidential Primary candidate) for crowd-surfing at one of his rallies. Gary said it was un-Presidential and that the music being heard at the time was “satanic”.
Miers is a great choice.