This screed seems to mention the SCOTUS nominees in passing (characterizing recklessly Roberts and Miers as seemingly two peas in the same pod) as a launch pad for a jihad against Bush for wrecking the Reagan revolution, and is not bothered with many specifics. Just what was the Reagan revolution, and just how is Bush wrecking it? Reagan and Bush both didn't mind spending money to grease the political wheels, both were into deficits and tax cuts (well Reagan largely reversed his, and Bush hasn't reversed his but whatever), and both were strong on defense, and both favored or favor in effect immigration amnesties. The only thing I can see Bush wrecked was Reagan's gift for communication, which Bush does not have, and never did, and never will.
I suspected that the Roberts slight would draw particular notice, and I disagree with that point as well. Roberts was in fact an inspired choice, and is eminently qualified for the position in my view. Now, whether he is the ideological rock that one might wish him to be is another matter altogether. I think it's the latter that induces the comment, because as I've said from the beginning, Roberts is in fact a tabula rasa on far too many issues. A very brilliant tabula rasa, but a tabula rasa nonetheless.
W. has allowed non-security-related federal spending to grow faster that has any President since Lyndon Baines Johnson. There is no way to excuse it.