Just a thought from a Mike Kelly column in July of 2001. It’s a reminder that this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the “trust me” attitude from President Bush. And it isn’t the first time he’s been very wrong, either:

“I looked the man in the eye; I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul. . . . He’s an honest, straightforward man who loves his country. He loves his family. We share a lot of values.”

— George W. Bush, June 16, 2001, on Russian President Vladimir Putin

“Mr. Putin was far from deserving the powerful political prestige and influence that comes from an excessively personal endorsement by the president of the United States.”

— Sen. Jesse M. Helms, June 20, 2001

To understand what put Sen. Helms in such a tizzy that he felt compelled to publicly spank a president of his own party, you have to first consider the matter of Sammy Sosa.

In 1989, Sammy Sosa played for the Texas Rangers, a baseball team partially owned by one George W. Bush. Bush, who had only recently been made the Rangers’ chief executive and who had much to learn, took a sense of Sosa’s soul and traded him to the Chicago White Sox. Considering that nine years later with the Chicago Cubs, Sosa was in a chase for the home run record, this was a mistake.

To further grasp the implications of Bush’s judgment of Putin, and of Helms’s unhappiness over that judgment, you have to consider that baseball was something with which Bush had some experience. He came from a baseball family — his father played for Yale; his great-uncle George Herbert Walker once owned 6 percent of the New York Mets — and he had played the game himself in Little League and on a varsity level at prep school. He was a lifelong avid fan, and he would turn out to be a natural at running a ball team.

As the Putin example shows, Bush puts great stock in his gut instinct — his ability to look into other people’s eyes (he is forever talking about this) and getting a sense of their souls. As the Sosa example shows, he is quite capable of getting the sense completely wrong — even where he is knowledgeable.

Now you come to the presidency, Russia and Putin. Here, inarguably, Bush knows very little. He cannot know a lot (at least firsthand) about being president, because he has not been president for very long. He cannot know a lot about Russia, because he has never been there. He cannot know a lot about Putin, because he had never met him before this month’s trip.

So what you have here is a situation in which a prudent man would begin by knowing his limitations — by admitting ignorance, proceeding with study and basing eventual judgments on facts, not first impressions. . . .

. . . what is worrisome is that Bush — and in this he seems dangerously to resemble the foreign-policy-disaster-prone John F. Kennedy — does not seem to understand, or care about, the limits of gut. He does not seem to want to bother with the tedious business of study and fact-assessment that is the process by which right decisions are most often arrived at — which is even then not so often. He does not seem to want to work at the thing.

The idea that he does not know what he does not know does not seem to ever occur to Bush. This is a problem and one that is a great deal more consequential in the case of Putin than in the case of Sosa.

Maybe I should just turn Galley Slaves over to Patterico for the coming week. More good stuff from him here where he finds a January 1993 Texas Bar Journal article by Miers, who wrote:

In his October [1992] Opinion in this Journal my colleague, TYLA President Steve Martin, artfully assailed the Republican administration for seizing “the perceived low public regard for lawyers to fashion a campaign strategy based on the disparagement of lawyers.” Lawyers, in large number, want the State Bar and other organizations to “fight back.”

Patterico says the rest of the article “is devoted to explaining how the State Bar can help find an ‘antidote’ for ‘lawyer bashing’.”

Patterico has more good stuff, including Dan Coats defending Miers:

“If great intellectual powerhouse is a qualification to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole,” Mr. Coats said in a CNN interview.

A big welcome to Gary Andres, a wise old Washington hand (oh, he’s not that old), who just launched a blog, PoliticalSherpa.com.

Level 3 is the devil.

The Wolverine Law Library has put up the complete archive of Miers’s writings. To which John Lindgren says:

I have read about a half dozen of Miers’ pieces so far–nothing particularly good or bad about any of them. They are pretty standard practitioner fare, apparently fully competent, but seemingly no better or worse than a thousand lawyers at good firms in Chicago would do. There is none of the flair that showed in many of Roberts’ memos in the Reagan Administration. I’ve read nothing intellectually substantial by Miers so far, but then I’ve just started working through the list. If she has any sharp analytical skills, they are not apparent in the pieces I’ve read. Given Miers’ genuine success in practice, I suspect that she is a better advisor and negotiator than writer.

Which prompts this reply from Patterico:

That’s okay. I have little doubt that the Miers defenders will soon tell us that it’s not important for a Supreme Court Justice to be a good writer. They have law clerks to draft their opinions, after all; the important thing is the vote, not the writing; do you want someone who’s good at grammar or someone who’s good for the country; stop being an elitist. Etc.

Paul Mirengoff gives what I consider to be the most persuasive argument for voting for Miers:

My view (subject to possible revision as the process continues) is that the Senate should confirm Miers. Under all past standards, she is qualified for the position, and the suspicion that she may not be a true conservative does not constitute sufficient reason to oppose the nomination.

It may well be that, from a senator’s perspective, this is the final and decisive question. That’s why in an ideal world, the president would withdraw the nomination.

No chance of that, of course.

I know, it’s thin. But this anecdote is pretty excellent. Asked her favorite Justice, Harriet Miers responded “Warren.” Asked to clarify–did she mean Earl Warren or Warren Burger (who can keep them straight!)–she said she meant Warren Burger. Here then is Jim Lindgren:

I find this story disturbing on many levels. Perhaps Miers couldn’t think of anyone appropriate off the top of her head and thought that Leahy would like it if she said Earl Warren, but then caught herself when she realized that (rightly or wrongly) he was the poster boy for judicial activism. It would be odd to refer to Chief Justice Burger simply as “Warren.” So perhaps the question was too difficult for her to answer without stumbling (of course, we all stumble in answering questions some time).

A second possibility is that she really does admire Earl Warren the most, but was unwilling to admit it to Leahy. That would seem a reasonable choice for a Democratic nominee, but not for a Republican. Further, to try to hide her choice from Leahy would show both cravenness and a lack of candor.

The third possibility is that she genuinely admires Chief Justice Warren Burger more than any other Justice that she could think of. If so, one wonders about the quality of Miers’ judgment or whether she has read enough Supreme Court cases to form a reasonable opinion.

Burger was reputed to have done a good job running the federal court system, but is usually viewed as an indifferent or poor justice. I have never met anyone (conservative or liberal) who said that they really admired him, but I expect that many of his former clerks do.