Apparently, George W. Bush suffers from the incurable delusion that the choice of who to nominate for the SCOTUS vacancy was his to make. The fact that it’s not is creating an ever-expanding crisis in leadership (or at least in the rhetoric machine that W’s been hiding behind). I mean, here I’ve been told on conservative blogs these many long years that the American people knew when they elected Bush what they were getting (on Iraq, on taxes, on the environment, on abortion rights, on SCOTUS, etc.), so there’s no use in my arguing that his administration and spinmeisters were pulling the wool over the voters’ eyes. He was his own man. He spoke plainly. And when he promised "healthy forests" or "mission accomplished," for example, you damn well knew what this Texan meant.
He was the Commander in Chief who stayed the course, looked only to his father (I mean, Father) for guidance, and deserved our trust, even when the evidence coughed up was flimsy or the plans that would affect all our lives were being drawn up behind closed doors with God-only-knows-which-CEOs advising him.
But now…now that he makes a decision on what many on the Right are claiming was the single most important reason they’ve supported him, trust is not enough. No, now we’re hearing the cacophonous chorus of chips being cashed in, and blow-hards who had claimed Bush was the right man for the job readying to challenge him and openly bray "Yo! Yalie! Who’s Your Daddy?"
From Marshall:
Okay, maybe I’m willing to be a bit bolder now (though probably late for the party) and say that no, I’m not at all clear that Harriet Miers is ever going to sit on the Supreme Court. The Times today quotes a staff lawyer to one Republican member of the Judiciary Committee saying: "Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact."
Down further into the article we find out that Judiciary Republicans actually have their staffs working on anti-Miers research. If the Times report at all accurately reflects what’s going on up there, that is a very big deal.
Clearly, at this point Miers has significant, if still silent, Republican opposition in the Senate. They want her gone. But they’re not yet willing to have it be at the expense of dealing the president a major political reverse.
So how many Republicans will prove willing to come out against her? And which ones?
One interesting dimension of this Kabuki theater exercise is that it’s not even completely clear which part of the Republican caucus open defections could come from. The White House now seems to be banking everything on the claim that Miers is a down-the-line evangelical Christian (I guess we might call this ‘extreme originalism’). But Sen. Brownback, one of the most staunch pro-lifers in the Senate, seems to be most out in front questioning whether she should be on the Court.
As I wrote a few days ago, I think the real issue is not that there’s yet that much focused and public opposition to Miers. The issue is just who the White House can find to champion this nomination or defend it. So far, I don’t think I’ve heard one senator come out strongly for her. Pretty much the same thing with the standard GOP pressure groups on the outside.
With so little force propelling this pick forward, it won’t take much to knock it back for good.
And when it does, what will the faithful (if any are left) tell us next? Are we still to trust that Bush’s vision is clear? Or will we hear a crescendo of opposition among the contenders? Will the way to distinguish oneself among the GOP become to say "Hmppf. I’m your Daddy." With so much of the mystique, indeed the myth, built around decisive leadership, what will remain of this POTUS after he’s shown to have blown the only decision he was put into office to make?
The suspense is killing me.
Apparently, George W. Bush suffers from the incurable delusion that the choice of who to nominate for the SCOTUS vacancy was his to make.
odd, in how every other nomination W’s sent to the Senate, we’ve been told by the Professional Right that the meaning of “advice and consent” meant something like “rubber stamp with chest puffing”, and that Bush, being so well-endowed with political capital was entitled to get his picks approved quickly with an “up or down vote”.
i guess something changed.
what will remain of this POTUS after he’s shown to have blown the only decision he was put into office to make?
gelatinous wiggliness
…the meaning of “advice and consent” meant …
do meanings have meanings ?
It’s a fight between the oligarchs and the religious fanatics for the soul of the Republican party.
Don’t be silly, lily. The Republican Party sold its soul to the segregationist South 35 years ago. This is a fight for power, not principle. And for all our chortling, they’re still in charge.
Putting cleek’s comment into pictures is The Philadelphia Inquirer’s political cartoonist on one of his rare good days.
Cleek. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Miers should not get an up or down vote. We are arguing that she should get a vote and that the vote should be no.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Miers should not get an up or down vote
well sure. but there was a little bit more to my post than that.
Despite all the talk, does anyone really believe that Bill Frist and Arlen Spector are going to go up to the White House, sit down in the Oval Office and tell George Bush that they can’t get his Supreme Court nominee confirmed?
She’s going to be on the court unless she withdraws her name from consideration. I can’t wait to read the first opinion she writes.
Cleek, we all know where the ‘every nominee deserves an up or down vote’ mantra went – back up the same orifice into which the GOP stuck it back in 1994.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that Miers should not get an up or down vote. We are arguing that she should get a vote and that the vote should be no.
But what if there are only, say, 48 nays. Would a filibuster be an acceptable tactic?
I’ve really been facinated by this meltdown on the right. One conservative comment that keeps coming to mind (I forget where I saw it) is: “This is why we’ve been defending you these last five years.”
And I was having trouble understanding wh ythis seemed to sum up the whole Meyers reaction. When Dr Biobrain cleared everything up in one paragraph.
And let’s not forget that, despite appearances, these people are human; and it’s just not fun to defend a leader sitting at 40% approval ratings. Bush has put them through a lot of hell, and I’m sure they’re getting a wee bit tired of it. Everyone has their limits, and defending lies on WMD’s, terrorism, taxcuts, and Katrina incompetence (just to name a scant few) must really push those limits to the max.
I know that us lefties blame Bush for, well, everything bad that has ever happened in the last five years. But looking at the other side I try to think what it would be like to have to defend your golden boy, the one on whom who have built this wonderful vision of how things are going to be now that he’s running the show. Low taxes, strong military, puppies and sunshine and candy from Iraqi children.
And now here we are, no WMDs, out of control budget, torture sanctioned by administration officials, and more inditements than you can shake a stick at.
This appointment was the one last thing that many righties where clinging to, their one ray of hope for that utopia that seemed so close on that bright January morning of 2000 might still emerge. And what did they get? A nothing, a nobody, a real big WTF.
So as the post-cotal glow of schadenfruede fades, I do feel kind of sorry for all the conservatives. Just remember guys (and gals) you’ll always have January 2000.
A Bainbridge Poll
Remarkable.
The optimal solution is to find a illegal nanny or heroin abuse or a donation to Hilary Clinton in Miers past. The damage would be, at least publicly, minimal to everyone. But the lady looks squeaky clean, and I expect her to be confirmed.
I also expect her to be a much more substantively effective judge than it appears to everyone other than Bush and I. She has assets, qualifications, and experience that will be, I think, astonishingly useful on the bench. They are not the assets of Luttig or Rogers-Brown. Conservatives understood that Bush himself did not bring great intelligence or experience to the Presidency, and (discounting the Texas legend) had nowhere even demonstrated the “people skills” that Miers has with an impressive history and record. The lady can schmooze.
I will herewith wager, tho I would not mind odds, that if Harriet Miers is confirmed, by the end of Bush’s term of office, one sitting justice will change his position on Roe to such a degree that the anti-abortion forces will feel themselves victorious. Roe may not be overturned, tho I would not rule it out, but it will be significantly weakened.
On the other hand, if Miers is not confirmed, and is replaced by Luttig or McConnell or whomever…I really can’t foresee what Bush would do if humiliated, maybe nominate Tribe…Roe will not be effectively changed without an additional new justice.
Harriett Miers auto-biography, circa 2022:
“Well I was have cookies and milk with David one day, and we were talking about how abortion was just totally dominating national politics, and I thought it was just so awful that the country was so angry all the time. And David said, but Harriet…”
The optimal solution is to find a illegal nanny or heroin abuse or a donation to Hilary Clinton in Miers past.
You don’t say.
With so much of the mystique, indeed the myth, built around decisive leadership, what will remain of this POTUS after he’s shown to have blown the only decision he was put into office to make?
The suspense is killing me.
Nah — its the suspense over Plame that’s killing us. Miers is great theater!
What would be really funny is if Fitzgerald indictments create such a firestorm that all heat is off Miers. How can Repubs stick W is the back over Miers when they should be rallying the wagons to defend their idiot leader?
It’s a fight between the oligarchs and the religious fanatics for the soul of the Republican party.
Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner folks. That’s it in a perfectly phrased nutshell.
The only thing is, the oligarchs will most definitely win that contest if push comes to shove.
“It’s a fight between the oligarchs and the religious fanatics for the soul of the Republican party.”
Cute. And which side am I on?
Cleek. I don’t think anyone is arguing that Miers should not get an up or down vote. We are arguing that she should get a vote and that the vote should be no.
Is that the royal “we,” or is there a mouse in your pocket? Charles was insistent that Ms. Meirs is such a bad pick that she needs to fall on her sword.
Sebastian: being an individual, I’d say you constitute a little-known side all by yourself.
Sebastian (07:48 PM) – You’re a conservative, which means you don’t get to play in modern GOP politics. Put slightly differently, you’re not a player, you’re the prize (or at least your vote is). Of course, this would be an excellent moment for the real conservatives to get into the fight.
And which side am I on?
there’s more to it than the ‘soul’…. there has to be.
Put slightly differently, you’re not a player, you’re the prize (or at least your vote is).
I hate to say it, but being gay Sebastian’s actually…
…I’ll stop now.
Cute. And which side am I on?
You’re the soul they’re fighting for Sebastian.
now that Pat “The Assassinator” Robertson has issued a fatwa against those who oppose Miers, all those non-fundy Republicans had better watch their backs… just sayin.
I bet she’ll be confirmed–or if not it will be because of a Democratic filbuster (which seems unlikely to me but who knows). The religious right has bet too much on this administration, at this point, to admit that they may have bet wrong. Maybe Brownback will oppose her but I sincerely doubt he’ll have much company.
Does “up or down vote” mean that it is okay or not okay for the committee to vote no? I can never keep track.
The Democrats ought to jump all over this Dobson stuff. I think they get that.
The Democrats ought to jump all over this Dobson stuff. I think they get that.
They’ll have to beat Specter to it.
“It’s a fight between the oligarchs and the religious fanatics for the soul of the Republican Party.”
Considering that the Republican Party governs with all three branches of government, I would say it is a fight for the soul of the country as well, which gives me no comfort whatsoever.
I want neither side to win, and I’m not interested in any kind of middle that can be fashioned out of those two sides, even if it did please Sebastian.
Would the oligarch Warren Buffet and, say, the religious fanatic Joe Lieberman on the Democratic side please you Sebastian?
At this point, I’d go for it. Even though I take it personally in very intense ways when I think a reference to Buffet and Lieberman is targeted at me. 😉
“It’s a fight between the oligarchs and the religious fanatics for the soul of the Republican Party.”
There is at least some discussion about whether the Miers pick isn’t meant to satisfy precisely these two constituencies. Miers as long-time pro-business corporate lawyer satisfies the oligarchs; Miers as evangelicals satisfies the religious nuts. I don’t know what you’d call the group being shafted, as they mostly fall into one camp or the other, but Robertson seems to be calling them “movement conservatives.” (Is that some sort scatalogical humor on Pat’s part?)
The optimal solution is to find a illegal nanny or heroin abuse or a donation to Hilary Clinton in Miers past.
If I were a Republican who wants to say no, but doesn’t want to cross Bush directly, I would focus on the fines that Miers’s law firm paid while she was president. “Integrity and the appearance of integrity are important, particularly at this time in our nation….”
Those fines, and the actions that led to them, show a serious lack of judgement on Atty. Miers’s part.
Is that the royal “we,” or is there a mouse in your pocket? Charles was insistent that Ms. Meirs is such a bad pick that she needs to fall on her sword.
That’s right. And if she does go to a vote, I hope she’s voted down. After days of bad political spin, together with few or no valid reasons for supporting Miers, I’m now firmly in the Rebel Alliance camp. She should go down in flames.
Funny, I didn’t know I was an oligarch. Or was that religious fanatic? My fellow Lutherans would have a chuckle about that. I’ll settle for conservative. Bush said he picked a conservative, but the way in which he did it was decidedly unconservative, since he bypassed decades of established practice in vetting and selecting nominess and went with a goddam crony.
Charles,
I thought I heard that Harriet was on Reid’s list, or is that just a rumor? If so, it suggests the President did ask for and listen to input, no? Or is that false?
“The religious right has bet too much on this administration, at this point, to admit that they may have bet wrong.”
I honestly don’t know what is going on here, I follow this via Bainbridge and RedState. It appears to me that it is the intellectual right, the elite right that is the most unhappy with the pick. Correct me if I am wrong. Altho I may be wrong soon, they can lead at least part of the base away from Bush.
Bainbridge showing a poll calling Bush a drunken fool. I don’t honestly ever remember seeing this level of internal dissension in a political party. If you think the base turned on Johnson in 68, you weren’t there. Humphrey easily got the nomination. Ford & Carter had their parties. Bush I had his detractors for the budget deal and Souter, but not this vitriolic.
Something is going on.
I thought I heard that Harriet was on Reid’s list, or is that just a rumor? If so, it suggests the President did ask for and listen to input, no? Or is that false?
I don’t know if Bush submitted a list to Reid, and Reid put yes’s and no’s next to the names, or whether Reid submitted his own list, or whether Bush and Reid actually dialogued in any depth about judges. I also don’t know why Reid gave her his stamp of approval, other than his statement that the USSC could use someone who is not a career judge. Judging from the rumor mills at Redstate, she wasn’t vetted and she was rushed to the fore when other potential nominees bailed. This is not the act of a president who had weeks, perhaps months, to decide on a candidate.
I see the whole conservative / Republican flap over Miers as a SERIOUS dicussion about the qualifications of a Supreme Court candidate. Now, I understand that John Roberts got confirmed even though his son is gay, and that he doesn’t care about black people, etc., or that in a man-to-man John Roberts talked about legalisms instead of how he actually FELT about issues. But now the objections to HM are actually about qualifications, and what I think are justified charges of cronyism, and they were brought up by Pres Bush’s supporters.
Pres Bush made a huge mistake when he thought he made a “safe choice” for Supreme Court Justice. But in the end, that is not going to persuade Pres Bush to hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda.
Bainbridge showing a poll calling Bush a drunken fool.
And yes, Laura Bush killed one of her high school boyfriends in a car accident.
Fine, I’ll never vote for Bush again. But I’m not going to vote for Teddy Kennedy, or Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean or John Kerry, either. Show me somebody that doesn’t drink the Michael Moore / Ramsey Clark / Cindy Sheehan / Cynthia McKinney / Jim McDermott Kool-Aid, and I’ll think about it.
“Bainbridge showing a poll calling Bush a drunken fool.”
The point, obviously, comes from who Bainbridge is. His latest post is pushing Bruce Bartlett’s new book, which is a vitriolic attack. The last post I read at RedState talks of the “bushes” in small case. No, this is longer about Miers or SCOTUS or process or qualifications. This
is about Bush.
Boy, wouldn’t that be a trip, if the Republican Congress impeached their own President. That I can imagine such a thing shows why I vote the other side of the aisle.
Again, can someone please explain to me why you Reds think Dean is some sort of crazoid? He’s pro-guns, pro-balanced budget, and anti-Iraq war. And on the last, seriously, you people need to get over yourselves. You were wrong. Again. Accept it and move on. Next time there’s a generational policy question in the air, maybe check with us first. But you really, really need to come to terms with your mistake this time.
Jeebus. At this point, I want strong states’ rights, up to and including state ID cards and restrictions on access to benefits. And if it takes voting for Blue Republicans to get it, I’m in.
Boy, wouldn’t that be a trip, if the Republican Congress impeached their own President.
That happened already with Andrew Johnson. And I recall that Howard Baker and Sam Ervin were pretty hard on Nixon. But this isn’t the case now. Maybe they won’t hang on Bush’s coattails in the 2006 elections, but they should run on their own merits, right?
Sorry, this is the closest thing to an thread on this topic that I can find. I am not in any way a Thatcher fan, but I can’t help but pass this on, but Tina Brown’s piece in the WaPo has this
The former chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, Lord Palumbo, who lunched with Mrs. T six months ago, told me recently what she said when he asked her if, given the intelligence at the time, she would have made the decision to invade Iraq. “I was a scientist before I was a politician, Peter,” she told him carefully. “And as a scientist I know you need facts, evidence and proof — and then you check, recheck and check again. The fact was that there were no facts, there was no evidence, and there was no proof. As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return.”
Ouch.
As a politician the most serious decision you can take is to commit your armed services to war from which they may not return.
One of only a handful of things Maggie’s ever said I agree with. I know W claims he knows this, but I really don’t believe he takes it to heart.
I think at this point that if Miers makes it out of committee, the committee no longer has much of a purpose at all.
I am curious to see what how people would vote if it came to that, but I’m not sure I’m curious enough to be rooting for a full vote. I mean, there are plenty of less-qualified candidates, but that’s not much of an endorsement.
First Bob:
Humphrey easily got the nomination.
I’m not sure I’d use the word ‘easily’ to describe the assassination of one’s principal rival. I’m not suggesting that LBJ or HHH had anything to do with it, in case some of you mind-readers out there are getting bad reception.
Ford & Carter had their parties.
Barely.
Bush I had his detractors for the budget deal and Souter, but not this vitriolic.
It was pretty vitriolic, but not as much, I’ll grant, because support hadn’t committed in the same total faith, cult of personality kind of way.
And DaveC:
Show me somebody that doesn’t drink the Michael Moore / Ramsey Clark / Cindy Sheehan / Cynthia McKinney / Jim McDermott Kool-Aid, and I’ll think about it.
I’d be interested in an actual quote, in context, from John Kerry that puts him fairly into this category. He was nominated because he wasn’t one of these.
Andrew Johnson was a Democrat.
At least he was when he served in the Tennessee House (’34-’41) and Senate (’41-’43), the US House (’43-’53) and Senate (’57-’62), and Governor of Tennessee (’53-’57).
The convention from which he was nominated to be VP was not denoted Republican, but called itself “Union.” AJ therefore could and did claim never to have been elected as a Republican, and that the charge of ‘apostasy’ was groundless.
John Kerry, to his credit, didn’t freak out during the presidential campaign, when he was catching heat. He appears to be a pretty stable guy, which is a major qualification for President. I think that the Democratic primary presented problems for Kerry, because there was so much one-upmanship in the Bush-bashing that serious, non-Kucinich policies were not worked out until after the convention. I believe that Kerry really understood the gravity of possibly being elected President, and really was working on the plans that he claimed he had, for what that’s worth. The time frame of Sept-Nov 2004 was a little too short for my liking.
So yes, Kerry was a serious candidate, even if I really, really, had doubts about him, but I would have preferred Lieberman or Gephart, neither of whom made it far into the primaries.
Charles Bird writes: “This is not the act of a president who had weeks, perhaps months, to decide on a candidate.”
I think I saw her name come up well before her nomination. Perhaps in the discussion when O’Connor retired and/or Rehnquist was in the hospital.
That was a fair while ago, which suggests she was on the shortlist.
I suspect that Bush fell victim to his own strong proclivity for elevating trusted insiders / cronies.
The idea that she was a rushed pick doesn’t make any sense, given that O’Connor is going to sit until a replacement is available. It’s not like there’s an empty seat on the bench. Bush could even have named O’Connor as Chief Justice.
The only way it could be a rushed pick would be if he wanted to name her as a diversion from some other matter in the news. Which is entirely possible, but his history of crony appointments leads me to think that, even if he was rushed, Bush didn’t think he was settling for Ms. Right Now, instead of Ms. Right.
“I’m not sure I’d use the word ‘easily’ to describe the assassination of one’s principal rival.”
Chicago 68
“Humphrey came to Chicago with the nomination virtually sewn up — he had between 100 and 200 more delegates than he needed, as well as the support of blacks, labor groups and Southern Democrats. However, he still felt his nomination was in jeopardy.”
I should probably google more deeply, am going on personal memory.
Kennedy entered the race very late, pretty much enraging everyone, but especially Gene McCarthy. He had very few actual delegates, even including California. His delegates, IIRC, went to George McGovern as a compromise, which further upset the McCarthyites.
Humphrey was assured of a first ballot victory. There is some dispute over whether Bobby’s charisma and organisation could have forced the convention open, but I have no real reason to believe it. The convention was fractious and even violent for a lot of reasons, but one of them was that the anti-war faction was a powerless tho passionate minority.
The left wing did manage to make important changes to credentials and rules for 72, but this was largely in response to Dixiecrat and urban machine corruption. So by 72 the left fringe had taken over. But in 1968 the “Old Democratic Party” remained firmly in control, supported the war, and would not have given Bobby the nomination. He was never a serious rival.
IMO. All things 60ish are forever in dispute.
I’ll back your memory of the 1968 campaign, Bob. If it were not the case that Humphrey had it sewed up, there’d have been more focus on McCarthy, more “work from inside”-ism, more hope, and less anger outside (even before Daley’s cops set to work).
OK, if we’re talking *memory* (abetted by a couple of double Manhattans), I’ve got to demur a bit from Nell & Bob. Yes, by conventional (heh heh) standards, HHH should have had the nomination in the bag, but this was ***1968*** for goodness sake, when incumbent LBJ should have had New Hampshire in the bag and almost blew it to remote outsider anti-war whoishe McCarthy! Given (latecomer) Bobby K, who had much more credibility (and better connections) than Gene, I have to believe that Chicago might have been a HELL of a fight without the assassination. I suspect lots of “solid” Dem delegates who could never be persuaded to switch to Clean Gene might – given the proper inducements – have been persuaded to switch to Bobby, who had a much better chance of beating Nixon.
As always, YMMV.
PS: My (radical) brother was actually tear-gassed in Chicago in 1968. I, on the other hand, was safely ensconced in Fort Myer, Virginia, helping to defend the nation’s capital from sneak attack by those sneaky Vietnamese.
I’m with dr. ngo on 1968. Bobby might very well have won the nomination, and election.
I would have preferred Lieberman or Gephart, neither of whom made it far into the primaries.
Odd combination, DaveC. I don’t doubt your word, but we read a lot of this sort of thing from Bush voters these days. I wonder if it would have held up had Lieberman, or whoever, actually been the Democratic nominee. In that case the Rove slime machine would, undoubtedly, have produced the equivalent of the Swift Boat smear, among other things. The question is whether you, or others, would have voted for a Democrat in the face of what the Republicans would have thrown at him.