No longer on the fence on the Miers nomination

Posted by: ST on October 20, 2005 at 4:54 pm

It was reading this article, referenced at Michelle Malkin’s blog, that persuaded me against the nomination. Key part from the article:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers’s response to the committee’s request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to “the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause” as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

“There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation — which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

That’s not comforting to read or hear. I can’t support someone who gets Constitutional law confused. Michelle has more links in her post from other bloggers who have dissected Miers’ answers to the 57-page questionnaire she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee – the arguments from those bloggers are very convincing.

John Hawkins has a roundup of less than complimentary commentary from well-respected conservatives on the Miers nomination that had me second-guessing my neutrality on this issue as well.

I don’t have anything to add to the argument against Miers. I will, however, say I have immense respect for those on the pro-Miers side who have done a great job of defending her nomination (like Hugh Hewitt and Beldar) who have had an uphill batttle to fight against the firestorm of criticism directed towards the President for what is widely considered a poor choice of a nominee for the USSC. Those who have argued passionately against this nomination without resorting to personal attacks, I praise as well. Those on either side who have made the arguments personal should step back and reassess their apparent inability to disagree civilly.

For the record, I won’t be joining the call for a withdrawal of the nomination. If the process works the way it should – with the lack of strong support being shown for this nominee – I think it’s a strong possibility she will not be confirmed.

Now excuse me while I attempt to rescue Patterico off that ledge.

Update: Make sure to check the comments section of the Patterico post I mentioned above for an interesting debate regarding the comments in question from Miers that I posted here (and have been posted at many other blogs, I’m sure).

Friday Update: Baseball Crank (a practicing lawyer) has a well-written post on why he, too, is no longer on the fence.

Related Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • UNCoRRELATED trackbacked with Jumpers?
  • Conservative Outpost trackbacked with The Miers Chronicles: 10/21
  • 26 Responses to “No longer on the fence on the Miers nomination”

    Comments

    1. Baklava says:

      I respect Hugh Hewitt also.

      I also read Patterico and saw his writings about Miers.

      While I concede that it doesn’t look good for her at this moment due to her answers to the questionaire, Americans and I understand making mistakes on tests (especially 57 page ones).

      While in the Navy, I was consistently 2nd in my class. Why wasn’t I first? Because on the tests I took, I kept making easy mistakes. I knew the material inside and out. I kept kicking mself. (Incidentally, it was a red-haired woman who was first in my classes :oops:)

      If out of 57 pages that is the worst they have to come up with and Harriet Miers comes back and says, I made a mistake on that answer and I know it’s a mistake or something then I’d understand it.

      What is a common theme among Americans also is to harsly judge and criticize as well. I’ve associate this trait mostly with liberals as they seem to have no perspective and hypocratically jump on people and judge them incorrectly and erroneously. The harsh rhetoric may be enough to do Miers in at this time but it’s be nice to see Americans get a grip soon. That’s for sure. Nobody is perfect. People make mistakes. And seeing the words written by journalists these days (how’s this perspective) makes me think 1/2 of them should be fired or withdrawn from any nominations for awards they’ve received in the last couple of years.

      Thank you. /stepping down from soap box.

    2. antimedia says:

      Read Powerline’s latest about her comments. It seems some of the “brilliant” ones may have completely misunderstood what she was talking about.

      There’s an element of self-reinforcement going on that leads people to jump to the negative conclusion about Miers very quickly.

    3. Brian says:

      Sister Toldjah said:

      Those who have argued passionately against this nomination without resorting to personal attacks, I praise as well. Those on either side who have made the arguments personal should step back and reassess their apparent inability to disagree civilly.

      Here are some statements from Sister Toldjah on President Clinton:

      “Moral compass? Clinton? Do the words “moral compass” and “Clinton” even belong in the same room with each other?”

      “We all know Clinton’s abuses of power were rampant, and that the guy could probably teach a college course on it”

      (over 50 million dollars were spent investigating President Clinton and no wrongdoing was found on his part other than a consensual affair with another adult)

      “former Clinton admin officials like Freeh are willing to go on record in discussing what a worthless leader Clinton really was

      “tops among them being to keep the ex prez. and his minions from successfully re-writing his utterly corrupt legacy”

      Sister Toldjah,

      Is this your idea of disagreeing civilly?

      BTW A common practice of corrupt leaders is to appoint their personal friends, such as college roommates, to important positions regardless of what their qualifications are.

    4. camojack says:

      I suspect, since she’s chief counsel for the White House, that da Prez has some inkling of her leanings. I’m just sayin’…

    5. “Is this your idea of disagreeing civilly?”

      Um, I was giving my opinion on a public figure Brian, not making an ad hominem attack on my opponent. Should I pull up your statments on President Bush and ask if that’s your idea of disagreeing civilly?

      You could stand to learn a lesson or two on arguing civilly considering your attacks here on me and others here on the basis of their Christianity … if I’m not mistaken, you’ve implied I’m a racist too and made some type of comment that I could ‘prove’ I wasn’t one if I said the things you wanted to hear.

      I cannot believe you actually had the audacity to even ask this question, considering your track record on disagreeing. I won’t pull up statements as I shouldn’t have to. You know what you’ve said.

      There are differences between stating an opinion on a public figure (as you and I have both done here and quite vocally) and making an ad hominem attack against your debating opponent. I thought you knew the difference between the two but am disappointed to discover that apparently not only do you not know, but that in what seems to be your definition of ‘not agreeing civilly’ (your definition being stating an opinion on a public figure) you yourself have engaged in the very types of attacks that you would consider as such if they came from someone else.

    6. PCD says:

      I am still on the fence. Like Baklava, I respect Hewitt, but I don’t always agree with him, especially football since he’s a Browns fan.

      Unlike Liberals, to whom an indictment is a conviction of a Conservative, but a conviction of a Liberal means nothing, I’ll wait for all the informateion on Miers go come out at the Senate hearing. Besides, I usually go against what Sen. Dirtbag of IL, The Old Sot, The VC Lover, and Barbara Check Bouncer want.

    7. antimedia: I haven’t checked out Powerline’s comments yet, but I suspect that are along the lines of what some of the debaters (a couple of whom are lawyers) in Patterico’s thread were saying. Assuming she gets confirmed, I hope I’m wrong about Miers. I really do. If she doesn’t get confirmed, it will just pave the way for someone with more obvious qualifications we can view (like JRB, for example).

    8. Patterico says:

      Read Powerline’s latest about her comments. It seems some of the “brilliant” ones may have completely misunderstood what she was talking about.

      Question: if numerous legal scholars “misunderstand” what someone says about their field of expertise, whose fault is it? The scholars’? Or the person who wrote the ambiguous statement?

      Do we want someone on the Supreme Court who can’t express herself clearly, so that recognized experts in the field can understand what she’s saying?

    9. Kevin says:

      N. Z. Bear is doing a round up of blogger’s feelings on the Miers nomination here. You should put in your vote Ms. Toldja! The nays win out over the yays so far.

      You need to click on the link in the update if you are interested in who’s on each side.

    10. Thanks for the tip, Kevin!

      Patterico, have you finally been coaxed off that ledge? ;)

    11. Brian says:

      Sister Toldjah,

      When you said, “Those who have argued passionately against this nomination without resorting to personal attacks”, I thought you were referring to people who made personal attacks on Harriet Miers or President Bush, not on other people. I haven’t come across anyone personally attacking someone who was defending the nomination or someone who was against it.

      I made my comments about President Clinton because whenever the subject of him or his wife is brought up, many conservatives will often make hateful statements and personal attacks on them. As President of the U.S., many of his policies were successful and by most objective measurements he did very well in office. The country was much better off when he left office than when he took over. Instead of criticizing any of his policies as president, many conservatives will just personally attack him and treat every accusation against him as an absolute fact.

      I have criticized President Bush because I disagree with many of his policies and I see many people worse off since he became president. I don’t just make hateful statements towards him with no basis. When President Clinton was in office, I saw most people better off as a result of his policies. I don’t agree with President Clinton on everything and I don’t disagree with President Bush on everything. Based on how well off the country was/is, I see President Clinton as having done a good and President Bush having done a poor job so far. If President Bush’s policies were clearly successful and the country was clearly much better off now than it was before he became president, I would not be criticizing him.

      I have not attacked anyone on the basis of their Christianity. As I have said before, I have nothing against people who follow the Christian religion. I am only against Christians who want to impose their beliefs on others and Christians who promote hatred towards others for various reasons, such as their sexual preference. I think I remember you posting condemnations of the Christian Minister who goes around to funerals with “God hates fags” signs. Do you consider that an attack on the basis of his Christianity? I think most people can see the difference.

      I never implied you were a racist. I said that if you don’t think that just because someone is born with dark skin it will make it more likely that they will turn out to be a criminal, then you’re not a racist. If someone thinks that just because someone is born with dark skin it makes that person inferior in some way, such as more likely to become a criminal, then I would consider that to be racist. The point I was trying to make is that the crime rate can drop, and has dropped in many places, without decreasing the black population.

    12. “When you said, “Those who have argued passionately against this nomination without resorting to personal attacks”, I thought you were referring to people who made personal attacks on Harriet Miers or President Bush, not on other people.”

      Why? Have you not read any of my posts here where I criticized how some on the right were taking their disagreements with others on the right too far?

      “I haven’t come across anyone personally attacking someone who was defending the nomination or someone who was against it.”

      You must not get around the blogosphere too much, then.

      “I never implied you were a racist. I said that if you don’t think that just because someone is born with dark skin it will make it more likely that they will turn out to be a criminal, then you’re not a racist.”

      Uh huh – then why did you say you’d “acknowledge I wasn’t a racist if ..” (emphasis added by me) in this comment if not to say you thought I was one?

      As to the rest of your post, all one has to do is look at some of your comments in this thread to see how you do indeed attack people on the basis of their Christianity.

      You can find *plenty* of posts where I take Clinton to task strictly on the merits (or lack thereof) of his policies and/or statements. In fact, the very statements you posted of mine were attacks on his policies and/or behavior in DC – all WORTH commeting on. Why you consider those statements as ‘disagreeing uncivilly’ I do not know. Going on that, you’ve been ‘uncivilly disagreeing’ yourself on any number of issues. You’re apparently still confused as to the difference between a personal attack and legitimately criticizing a politician, the latter of which has nothing to do with disagreeing uncivilly.

    13. Dana R. Pico says:

      Our dear hostess said:

      If she doesn’t get confirmed, it will just pave the way for someone with more obvious qualifications we can view (like JRB, for example).

      Well, maybe. It’s also possible that we’d get Attorney General Gonzalez. The conservatives wouldn’t like his positions, but they wouldn’t be able to argue against his qualifications.

      George Bush has a history of standing by his nominees: that’s why Janice Rogers Brown could even be considered as a replacement nominee for Miss Miers. He hasn’t had a problem with opposition from conservatives before, so that might change things. But if he loses Miss Miers, there’s no guarantee he won’t be just PO’d enough to nominate someone like Mr Gonzalez.

      Conservatives used to bash President Clinton for taking all of his decisions based on what the polls said he should do; now the conservatives want President Bush to change his decision based on what the polls say he should do.

    14. Lorica says:

      We don’t want him to change his policy Dana. What we want is what we voted for. We voted for a conservative, we don’t want closet liberals, or moderates, we feel that conservatives are regulated by the rule of law, and the intent of our founding Fathers. You know the good Christian men that gave up everything so that you and I might be free. We don’t want to become subjects of the European Union’s judgements in law. We don’t want to bow down to the UN. We want The Constitution to be followed as written by our founding Fathers. We don’t think they were ignorant men, that were clueless about progress. Recently Stephen Breyer was interviewed about his new book on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. I never thought in all my years such lunacy could come forth from a man. He wanted to say the Constitution was obsolete because of our progress, even used cars as an example. I think the 10 Commandments are obsolete because we have asprin. /Boggle If Europe had such a great way to do things then why didn’t a single democracy appear until 150 years after ours, but yet they have a better clue on how to run one. We feel that too many people are using their own judgement to interpret the “spirit” of the Constitution. Our Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever conceived by man. The genius of it all is totally amazing. I cannot tell you how many times I have read it and sit thankful of the sacrifice of these men. – Lorica

      LOL That and there is a treasure map on the back of it. Arrrrr!!!

    15. Brian says:

      Sister Toldjah,

      In the post you were referring to, I said “I would acknowledge that you weren’t a racist” because I wanted you to clarify your position. Before I made that statement I never said you were a racist and I didn’t say you weren’t a racist because I didn’t know your views. You were the one who decided to defend William Bennett’s statement that many people would consider racist and you used faulty arguments to defend it. Neither you nor William Bennett can predict the future and neither you nor William Bennett know how many black babies will grow up to be criminals. You were basing your argument on the assumption that you can use current crime statistics to determine what will happen in the future. Crime statistics are not constant so they are not accurate in determining what will happen in the future. If statistics showed that at the present time seven percent of blacks were criminals, it does not mean that seven percent of black babies will grow up to be criminals. It is possible that a much smaller percentage of black babies will grow up to be criminals and if this were the case, aborting black babies would not lower the crime rate. Neither you, nor William Bennett, nor anyone else can predict the future with complete certainty so William Bennett was wrong to make that statement. If current trends continue, the crime rate will continue to fall without aborting all black babies.

      Regarding my comments about Christianity in the thread you were referring to, I specifically said, that I was referring to the belief of many Christian Conservatives that their religious beliefs applied to everyone else, and not just themselves. I was not criticizing anyone for believing in the Christian Religion. I was criticizing those Christians, such as the President of the United States, who want to impose their religious views on others. It is still my position that it is wrong for the government to be imposing religious views on others and I do see this as causing many problems in this country. Maybe you don’t see this as a problem. If we had a Moslem or Wiccan president that was trying to impose their religious beliefs on you, you would probably feel different. There are currently serious problems with President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee because the President is unable to separate his religious beliefs from his job responsibilities. Instead of trying to find the most qualified person for the Supreme Court Justice, he nominated Harriet Miers “because of her religious beliefs”. A person’s religious beliefs should not be a factor in choosing a Supreme Court justice. Their knowledge of Constitutional Law should be the main factor, and I don’t even think this was a consideration for President Bush.

      Regarding President Clinton, I haven’t seen any posts by you criticizing specific policies. The only posts I saw were the one where you called his criticism of President Bush “vicious” and the one that I commented on in this thread where you called him a “worthless leader”.

      Before Bill Clinton became president, there were budget deficits of over 300 billion dollars. When he left office, there was a 200 billion dollar surplus. While he was in office, the stock market tripled, there were big reductions in unemployment and people living in poverty, and the crime rate significantly dropped. Given all these facts, how can you say that President Clinton was a “worthless leader”? If you are going to try to give credit to the Republican Congress for all of this, please remember that every Republican member of Congress voted against President Clinton’s budget that eliminated the deficit and Republican leaders were all saying that his tax increase would cause a recession. This is not to say President Clinton never did anything wrong, but how can you ignore what he did right?

    16. “Regarding President Clinton, I haven’t seen any posts by you criticizing specific policies. The only posts I saw were the one where you called his criticism of President Bush “vicious” and the one that I commented on in this thread where you called him a “worthless leader”.”

      Which has nothing to do with “disagreeing uncivilly” – a point you are still having trouble grasping.

      “This is not to say President Clinton never did anything wrong, but how can you ignore what he did right? ”

      I don’t ignore what he did right, I just don’t think he did much that *was* right – I could easily turn that question around on you, Brian, because I don’t think I’ve seen you acknowledge anything good about anything the President is done. Please stop holding me to some standard you don’t even follow yourself.

      I’m at a loss to understand how this conversation even got to this point outside of the fact that you keep getting the concepts of disagreeing civilly and criticizing a public figure confused. It’s probably best if we drop this.

    17. Baklava says:

      Brian wrote, “You were the one who decided to defend William Bennett’s statement that many people would consider racist

      Brian. Many people would consider that the majority of Democrats are racist due to their pro preferential treatment based on race stance. That is based on their admitted beliefs.

      William Bennet has no racist belief (that I can tell) and hasn’t stated a belief that is racist. You have simply attacked and accused and continue your pattern without facts (only your opinion and other leftists opinions).

      Your last paragraph has been an incorrect position of yours that I’ve tried to help you fix a few times.
      Again:
      1) Presidents do not hold the purse, Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) does. Expenditures is not controlled by the President and therefore the president cannot control how much more or less is spent than revenues coming in. This is true whether the name is Bush or Clinton. This is basic stuff.

      2) The president does not control the economy, stock market and therefore cannot control how much revenues (a result of taxation on the good, decent, fair or bad economy) is flowing into the government. This was true with Clinton, FDR, Kennedy and Bush. Suffice to say that if the economy is doing good then more revenues will flow in. If tax rates are reduced, this has the effect of HELPING the economy so that more revenues can flow in.

      3) When the economy does better unemployment goes down. When the economy does worse unemployment goes up. Again the presidnt doesn’t control the economy the american people do. Policy can affect how the american people behave and so can events like 9/11. The president cannot simply say BOOM (John Madden lingo there) and the economy increases and unemployment goes down. Clinton benefited from the fact that every corporation and state and federal agency had to prepare for 2000 and spent money to address computing issues. I’ve stated this to you but you are choosing to stay uninformed or not believe it.

      Clinton was not responsible for all that you stated in your last paragraph and people are free to have their opinion about Bill being worthless because the country went along just fine whether he addressed terrorism or not or any other issue.

      President Clinton’s budget of 1993 (represented by BILL HIMSELF) was only supposed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his presidency.

      You can only (if being fair) give equal credit to both the Republicans in Congress and Bill for the lack of deficits in 1998 or 1999, but that wouldn’t be taking into account that the purse strings are held by the House of Representatives and BILL ACCUSED them of cutting (even though that wasn’t true) everything under the sun including school lunches (4.5% increase) and Medicare (7% increase per year for 7 years). Why do I think Bill was worthless? Because he lied just like you do when you and Bill attack people without being factually oriented.

      And why is the dominant media losing? Because they lied for 5 months straight (in 1995) by repeating Bill’s accusations that the Republicans are cutting Medicare by 270 Billion (when they were 7% increases per year) – as one example.

      If you want to have a substantive discussion it means being able to talk about the foundational facts truthfully and then each person can then state their opinion. But if we can’t even agree on the foundational facts then we are doomed to have this cyclical non-debate argument with you thinking that we are evil and uncompassionate and us trying to defend ourselves from your attacks.

    18. Baklava says:

      OOPS. I didn’t see your post ST until after I posted :oops:

    19. That’s ok, Bak – if you want to pick up this debate with Brian and he with you, that’s fine by me. I personally wanted out of it, though, as I felt we were running around in circles.

    20. Brian says:

      Baklava said, “Many people would consider that the majority of Democrats are racist due to their pro preferential treatment based on race stance. That is based on their admitted beliefs.”

      The topic of the thread I was referring to was about William Bennett said. It had nothing to with whether or not Democrats are racists and it had nothing to do with pro preferential treatment based on race stance. Whatever the Democrats position on pro preferential treatment based on race stance is, it doesn’t make what William Bennett said any more right or wrong.

      Baklava said: “William Bennet has no racist belief (that I can tell) and hasn’t stated a belief that is racist. You have simply attacked and accused and continue your pattern without facts (only your opinion and other leftists opinions).”

      You are distorting what I said. I never said anything about William Bennett’s belief. I did not “attack and accuse without facts”. It’s a fact that William Bennett made a statement that included saying “aborting black babies would reduce the crime rate”. This implies that just because a baby is born with dark skin, it makes it more likely that the baby will grow up to be a criminal. Many people would consider this statement to be racist, and it’s not just liberals. The White House also condemned William Bennett’s statement.

      Baklava said, “1) Presidents do not hold the purse, Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) does. Expenditures is not controlled by the President and therefore the president cannot control how much more or less is spent than revenues coming in. This is true whether the name is Bush or Clinton. This is basic stuff.”

      Presidents can make proposals and presidents do have a lot of influence on the budget as presidents have the power to veto the budget sent to them by Congress. Do you really think that President Bush had nothing to do with all of the tax cuts passed during his administration?

      Baklava said, “2) The president does not control the economy, stock market and therefore cannot control how much revenues (a result of taxation on the good, decent, fair or bad economy) is flowing into the government. This was true with Clinton, FDR, Kennedy and Bush. Suffice to say that if the economy is doing good then more revenues will flow in. If tax rates are reduced, this has the effect of HELPING the economy so that more revenues can flow in.”

      The President does not control the economy but there is a lot the President and Congress can do, to influence it. Laws passed by the government can have a lot of influence on the economy. Reducing taxes is not an end-all magical solution for every economic problem as many conservatives seem to believe. There are times when cutting taxes are appropriate and can be beneficial to the economy. There are also times when tax cuts are not appropriate and can be harmful to the economy. Tax cuts can cause inflation, higher interest rates, budget deficits, and can weaken currency. There is nothing wrong with tax cuts if they are done responsibly. Cutting taxes while at the same time running deficits of hundreds of billions of dollars and running up trillions of dollars of debt is not responsible.

      Baklava said, “Clinton benefited from the fact that every corporation and state and federal agency had to prepare for 2000 and spent money to address computing issues. I’ve stated this to you but you are choosing to stay uninformed or not believe it.”

      I never said President Clinton was solely responsible for the economic success during the 1990’s. There are factors other than government policies that affect the economy. This does not mean that the President’s policies have no effect on the economy. As I said before, there’s a lot the government can do to influence the economy.

      Baklava said, “You can only (if being fair) give equal credit to both the Republicans in Congress and Bill for the lack of deficits in 1998 or 1999, but that wouldn’t be taking into account that the purse strings are held by the House of Representatives and BILL ACCUSED them of cutting (even though that wasn’t true) everything under the sun including school lunches (4.5% increase) and Medicare (7% increase per year for 7 years). Why do I think Bill was worthless? Because he lied just like you do when you and Bill attack people without being factually oriented.”

      Once again you are distorting facts. You are not able to understand that increasing spending on a program from one year to the next does not mean money isn’t being cut from that program. You need to compare what is actually being spent on that program to what is necessary to spend to keep the program at it’s current level, not compare the spending from one year to the next. Every year, the number of people receiving Medicare benefits increase, the cost of healthcare increases, and the value of the dollar decreases. It is necessary to increase spending on Medicare every year just to stay even. The Clinton administration stated that their own budget called $124 billion of cuts in Medicare. If President Clinton was trying to lie and discredit the Republicans by accusing them of cutting Medicare, why would his administration state that they were proposing to cut Medicare themselves? President Clinton was not the only one who used the term “Medicare cuts” to describe the GOP plan. Conservatives including George Will, Charles Krauthammer, William Weld, Warren Rudman—even Dole national chair Vin Weber—have all used the term “Medicare cuts” to describe the GOP plan. Newt Gingrich is the one who lied by accusing President Clinton of misleading the public about GOP cuts and personally attacking the president, calling him dishonest. Newt Gingrich himself called for “entitlement cuts” in an interview with Tim Russert:

      TIM RUSSERT: Congressman Gingrich, if I could talk—if you could—looking at this chart—this is the year 2002, where you said you [will] have a balanced budget. Could you explain to our viewers what areas of the budget you could seek cuts in?

      GINGRICH: Sure. I would say to our viewers that we have to look at transforming virtually every area of the budget except Social Security…You’ve got to look at defense, you’ve got to look at law enforcement, you’ve got to look at every entitlement.

      RUSSERT: What I’m asking you very specifically is, can you balance the budget without making entitlement cuts?

      GINGRICH: The answer, of course, is no. That’s a nonsense question. The fact is, we’re going to have to change entitlements dramatically.

      Below are some quotes from people who do think President Clinton deserves credit for how successful the economy was during the 1990’s:

      Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, 2/20/96: The deficit reduction in the President’s 1993 Economic Plan was “an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.”

      · Business Week, 5/19/97: “Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity.”

      · Goldman Sachs, March 1998: One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for “the best economy ever” is that “on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit.”

      · U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: “President Clinton’s budget deficit program begun in 1993… [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency.”

      · Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: “The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that… and I think we’re seeing some benefits.”

      Do you think all of these people are wrong?

    21. Patterico says:

      Patterico, have you finally been coaxed off that ledge?

      Nope.