.. Gonzales appears to be what the Senate Dems claim they’re looking for: another, albeit gender-challenged, Sandra Day O’Connor. My advice would be to go for it, and hope the liberal-libertarian alliance on presidential war powers can defeat any Roberts-Thomas-Gonzales axis of authoritarianism.
Back to Main
October 27, 2005
WB: Rear View Miers
Comments
That is a very, very, very dangerous tactic in a strategic game.
What’s the alternative?
Posted by: Billmon | Oct 27 2005 19:56 utc | 2
It seems to me like you give the Dems too much credit. Miers withdrew today (instead of hanging on for a few more weeks) because Bush needed someone and something to distract us from Fitzmas, NOT because of anything the Dems did or didn’t do. The same, or similar, will be true of the next nominee(s). And I really don’t see how else the Dems could have responded to this pick — even though I’m sympathetic to your view of the way the court really operates, I can’t see how any Democrat could support a nominee like Miers, for a whole slew of reasons. Principles do matter. To me, at any rate Even though it’s probably true that she might have been the best we could hope for. It’s a terrible situation, no doubt about it. And as for Gonzales, Rogers Brown, and probably all the rest of them: No way, no how should any Democrat support those nominations. The one nice thing about the Miers debacle is that it will be harder (though not impossible, given the Repubs’ incredible adaptive abilities) for the Republicans to chant “up or down vote,” now that the far right has preempted one for Miers.
Posted by: mary | Oct 27 2005 20:21 utc | 4
What’s the alternative?
Being an opposition party maybe? Something that seems to be forgotten or lost in US politics.
As an opposition you fight and lose, you fight and lose and you fight and lose again and then you win. If you are convinced to be right you fight. If this means the nuclear option – go for it. Other times will come and they will be better if people stop wiggling around like folks try to do now.
Do you want Jeb as President with three, four, five SOCUS judges voting for free reign of the executive?
Gonzales is the dream candidate of these folks. Beat him.
Gonzales is the dream candidate of these folks. Beat him.
Amen, Bernhard.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Oct 27 2005 20:34 utc | 6
My question to Bush on the Miers debacle: is it hairy yet?
Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 27 2005 20:35 utc | 7
I agree with Bernhard. I’m no expert, but I think the Dems need to filibuster over and over, if necessary. I’d rather they opposed Gonzalez, both for his “quaint” understanding of the Geneva Conventions/justifications for torture and his cronyism. Yeah, he might be slightly less extreme on rightwing nutcase issues, but I have a suspicion that the Rethugs don’t really want the Court to overturn Roe or take a lot of the positions the Religious Nuts would like anyway. If that happens, what will they use to fool the faith-based electorate into voting for R. Folks might realize that all they got left is their perennial “more riches for the rich” platform. I may be naive about this–perhaps they already have a new Madison Ave strategy for holding onto that part of the electorate.
Nonetheless, I think the Dems need to keep fighting every lousy nominee. With each fight, they help educate the people about the real stands of Bushco, and the views of the crazy right are NOT the views of most Americans. No matter what, the final Bush nominee will be dreadful in some way. When Kerry lost, we lost the SC.
Posted by: Sagacity | Oct 27 2005 20:37 utc | 8
That is a very, very, very dangerous tactic in a strategic game.
What’s the alternative?
Isn’t that the platform that Nader ran on last election? Didn’t work out too well for him.
Anyway, Gonzalez is NOT the dream appointee of the right-wing nutcases, as he’s fairly moderate on abortion, as I recall.
Posted by: Rowan | Oct 27 2005 20:41 utc | 9
OT – sorry if you have problems accessing the site. I am evaluating alternatives. Please stay patient.
The real question is what guarantees has Dubya received from either the Roberts or the old guard repugs (and yes they may well be one and the same), that his freedom will not be put in jeopardy by the unraveling scandals.
One of the critical issues for Bushie is knowing the Supremes will never permit a former prez to be subject to international law.
Of course Pops will have promised him that the party looks after its own no matter how recalcitrant the member may be but lets face it as Turdblossom is finding out that doesn’t mean a whole helluva lot if you find yourself standing between the party and the cookie jar.
About the only thing the Dems can reasonably hope/lobby for is an aged nominee.
SCOTUS will get a dyed in the wool conservative no matter what because the party as whole must be getting worried that the god bothering sheeple will become totally turned off by any more stories of corruption which don’t end in a good burning at the stake.
I haven’t spent much time around the superstitious so I can only rely on art and literature to give me insight into how these people behave.
A couple of glances at Carnivale tells me the congregation turning on the fallen idol is a common theme.
Even an unimaginative sociopath like the Little W must be feeling vulnerable to this.
So if the Dems really are as pragmatic and self serving as they have been behaving throughout 43, then they will only put up token resistance to a nominee who is only likely to live long enough to make sure that Bush doesn’t get indicted before the mid terms.
No wait hear me out. As long as the Dems don’t overtly support this candidate the effect of Chimpee running free will be a major negative for repugs in 2006.
New justice falls offa the twig before he/she can do too much damage and the mid terms restore Dems majority.
The Dems decide to hold on to their electoral advantage by supporting the best legal mind available whatever particular beliefs may have been ascribed to him/her.
If the Dems made it plain they had retired from SCOTUS nomination=pissing contest, apart from the rabid at each extreme most people would be supportive.
Because as I have always suspected, the personal beliefs of most associates isn’t worth a pinch of shit in a snowstorm for predicting which way they will vote.
The link Billmon provided appears to confirm my belief that supreme/high courts the world over ‘go with the flow’ that is they usually support the prevailing world view of the power elite, no matter if it’s a repug prez and they’re allegedly ‘liberal’ or vice versa.
Posted by: Debs is Dead | Oct 27 2005 21:01 utc | 11
What’s the alternative?
Being an opposition party maybe?
But being an opposition party also means choosing your battles – or choosing how you fight them – carefully. The WH is in a bind, and there’s not that much any of us can do about it. Let them squirm. If W nominates Abu G., absolutely go with the libertarian/civil-libertarian objections, because they’re real and fundamental; if W nominates someone really insane, like Brown, dare them to provoke a constitutional crisis – the Unconstitutional Option, which I bet isn’t quite as popular in the GOP senate caucus as it once was. Can Cheney command the votes? The closer the election gets, the more heebee jeebees some of those GOP senators will have to get, knowing they could be in the minority either next year or in three years – less than one term. The hardest thing for the dems is if W nominates another Roberts-type, someone who is personally affable. But would someone like that molify the fundies? This is supposed to be ‘their’ pick. I predict that they’ll (the fundies) take what they get and like it, as always (as with Miers, to some extent); ‘please sir, may I have another?’ They thrive on abuse, in a way. And that will further separate – and already has done – the cynical fundie-pols from the true fundie believers. Let THEM (the GOP coalition) stand up for THEIR ‘principles’, now that they’re not so sure what they are….. my my.
The GOP does NOT want to run the ’06 elections on Jeff Sessions or the obstruction thereof, nor the NO; but the dems don’t want to run on the obstruction of someone like Danforth, who I think has been floated. He’s not an evangelical, but he is a minister. That would be interesting. He might get more support amongst true fundie believers – like Lindsey Graham – than among the self-appointed fundie-pols. I could live with Danforth. He did some good work in Sudan, and doesn’t seem to be an ideologue. His political spinelessness worries me a little, but…think of the alternatives.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Oct 27 2005 21:07 utc | 12
The link Billmon provided appears to confirm my belief that supreme/high courts the world over ‘go with the flow’ that is they usually support the prevailing world view of the power elite, no matter if it’s a repug prez and they’re allegedly ‘liberal’ or vice versa.
sorry I had to take link out so typepad would accept. No not paranoia. I reckon current Washington dramas are puting blogserver bandwidth and storage.
Posted by: Debs is Dead | Oct 27 2005 21:07 utc | 13
b
re gonzales
yes yes by all means
beat him
but beat him senseless
at the moment b there is not a jurist on the bench worthy of that name – small time legal laymen & even the touted satanic scalia is not as bright as he himself imagines
they do not come within a breath of a frankfurter, marshall, burger or even a warren
gonzales is a hood is a hood is a hood is a hood
& the only thing hoods really understand is a good beating
just ask the tataglias
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 27 2005 21:26 utc | 14
Has it occured to anyone that Miers nomination was doomed by the prospect of Sponge Dobson being called to testify and the threat that posed to Karl Rove and the administration if someone has been lying about Miers?
Under oath, Dobson would have to swear that Karl Rove gave him no inside information about Miers. At that point, perhaps some Senator would decide that they wanted to ask Karl Rove himself (under oath) what he said to Dobson and others regarding Miers.
So now it becomes quite a can worms, anyone else who was party to a conference call or private conversations with Rove or other administration officials would have the chance to contradict Rove’s sworn testimony IN PUBLIC HEARINGS televised to the nation and featured in soundbites on all the news and political talk shows.
This would be Karl Roves grand debut before the American public, all eyes watching him attentively. What if he didn’t “play well” on camera. What if he comes off as the real creep he is?
What if someone or several people come forth and call him a liar?
Not a very good position to be in with the White House already facing so many legal problems. My guess is that is the real reason Miers was withdrawn, not to placate the far right but to protect Bushco from further scandal.
I believe she was appointed because Bush wants a sychophant like her on the SCOTUS to protect him from the legal troubles coming his way. But Dobson opened his big mouth and made Miers an immediate threat of even more scandal.
Please let me know what you think of this idea, thanks
Posted by: blakey | Oct 27 2005 21:28 utc | 15
Is there any evidence for Gonzo’s moderation beyond his once or twice saying something critical about Priscilla Owen and her refusal to actually apply Texas law on abortion? Gonzo is only “too moderate” because he forgot to lie for the team once or twice, as far as I can tell.
As for the Democrats “choosing their fights,” they have chosen so carefully that they don’t fight at all. All this self congratulatory talk about keeping their powder dry is wearing really thin.
Posted by: BenA | Oct 27 2005 23:10 utc | 17
Re: The Mendoza Line….
My question is, can the Shrubbery and his Scouting Staff even tell the difference in the swings of MM and Dave Kingman given their similar career BA’s?
___
As an aside: Back in the days before the Halos got smart and hired Mike Scioscia I went to their spring training complex in Arizona to catch a couple of not-so phenomenomal phenoms a friend of mine recommended as Fantasy league futures….and who do you think was acting as the hitting instructor? Let’s just say it wasn’t Rod Carew.
.
Halloween Tale
Filibuster R.I.P.
Republican ghouls
’06 Resurrections
Stench of Impeachment
Bring It On
Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 28 2005 0:47 utc | 19
“Bush Stung As Miers Withdraws Nomination” on my yahoo start-up page. Anything that raises the W’s blood pressure should be good.
Posted by: christofay | Oct 28 2005 3:04 utc | 20
If there are still free elections, or sort of free like last time, there’s no way Jeb is going to get the nod. At some point, failed war in a third world nation, recession with 10% unemployment and inflation at 5% +, wing nuts all but wearing conical white as rice hoodies running around with crosses in the pick-up looking for someone to sacrifice, most Americans are just going to give up on the Bushites, right?
I do predict, I predict, the Republicans will be going with a white southern male again. No one north of the Mason Dixon line is going to be the GLOP’s man.
I think b is right. If you’re in the opposition, better to do as Groucho Marx says, “I object.” At some poing the Democrats have to win a couple. It’s better than the act of Lieberman as a Republican Coke Lite. The Athenians had exile, the Democrats should have expelling from the party. Let there be two Republican senators from the Conn state pandering for financial interest re-election dollars.
Posted by: christofay | Oct 28 2005 3:15 utc | 21
Moon melancholy
Fallen leaves rustle Miers;
Bernanke gozen.
Posted by: tante aime | Oct 28 2005 3:58 utc | 22
Watching Charlie Rose, the right is ecstatic about events. So we have a Battle Royal now to occupy the sheeple, forget about war and corruption, and still lose the fight. Bush’s approval rating climbs to 45% as his base comes back. Anyone care to refute?
It’s Friday night where I am and I have to tell ya that even tho its not yet friday in the US something doesn’t feel quite right.
If the grand jury went down to the wire , expired and nothing was said BushCo would have all weekend to get his ducks in a row while distracting sheeple with the SCOTUS nomination.
“I’m waiting for my man
Twenty-six dollars in my hand
Up to Lexington, 125
Feel sick and dirty, more dead than alive
I’m waiting for my man”
It’s getting close to the point where alla the myriad scenarios about what could have happened are just too worn to be credible.
We want the man to turn up as though nothing is the least bit outta whack and pretty soon we’ll have completely forgotten about this waiting angst.
BushCo have done nothing to indicate that the last couple of weeks have been other than business as usual.
If there has been an auction and Pops has had Scowcroft running around as bagman, pimping what’s left of W’s ass to desperate disparate corporations Fitzmas will be cancelled without a whimper much less a bang.
A
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 28 2005 5:42 utc | 24
Rove touches everyone. Any Bushketeer under oath will be a sword hanging over his stenchy head. Even if he squeezes under this indictment, he can’t just resume his feared whisperer role. That makes some part of me happy.
Woodward is one of the craziest koolaid stories ever. On King in full prevent defense against the criminality of leaks, overzealousness of the prosecuter, pleading for understanding for these overworked, overwrought, ‘real people’ at 1600. He has risen to the level of court apologiste.
What fire melted his character? Who is holding the lighter?
Posted by: canucklehead | Oct 28 2005 6:03 utc | 25
say it aint so, Debs
the cabal will probably end up in a better position after this. then what?
Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 28 2005 6:09 utc | 26
Americablog has some bits from leading Eastern papers Fri. editions. Time to throw celebratory bottles at the walls if any of its true. rove may not even be indicted. scooter just w/lying to GJ……c’est tout……
Posted by: jj | Oct 28 2005 6:17 utc | 27
…the cabal will probably end up in a better position after this. then what?
then the gates of hell open, hunting season will commence on all decent starting w/ “radicals”, that’s you and me…
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 28 2005 6:24 utc | 28
Canucklehead, I saw that Woodward performance on King, too. Yuck! I was so repulsed. What a sad tale his life must be, reaching the pinnacle in his youth and now doing any kind of pimping to stay close to power.
Posted by: Sagacity | Oct 28 2005 13:09 utc | 30
Cheney is the target. Bush family is the orchestrator. Ergo Fitgerald won’t bother Rove.
Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 28 2005 14:03 utc | 31
Can everyone PLEASE stop pimping the notion that Miers was derailed by the “radical right.” It’s Democratic spin and it’s bullshit. Dobson and Bauer held their fire on Miers, saying they’d wait till the hearings. It was “elites” like Krauthammer, Will, and the boys at the National Review and Corner who attacked Miers head-on based on her qualifications and cronyism charges. These people are NOT the “radical right.”
OK, with that out of the way, who will Bus pick?
It won’t be Gonzales and it won’t be Janice Rogers Brown. Gonzales would be seen as a swipe at the wingnuts (who do still count, after all), and Rogers Brown would run afoul of the moderate Republican Senators, who won’t support a firebrand.
So who will it be?
Luttig or Alito.
The White House will repeat the Roberts nomination, albeit with a conservative judge with a longer judicial track record than Saint Roberts. Luttig and Alito are classic white, conservative guys. While they would both overturn Roe v. Wade, they have more than enough experience to satisfy the “elites” who derailed Miers. Most average Americans would support either guy based on looks alone. As for the wingnuts, well, they’ll whine a little before realizing these guys will do the deed. Then they’ll shut up and act like the bitches they are.
In the Senate, Dems will be back to fighting the nominee on ideological grounds, which will be tough with Brownbeck and friends running interference. In the end, it will all come down to the “Gang of 14.” Do they allow a fillibuster or trigger the nukes? It’s hard to say. They’re not going to risk their neck for the president, but the Washington punditry will love either guy…so siding with Dems will be a big risk.
Posted by: owenz | Oct 28 2005 15:30 utc | 32
Democrats rode this one out. Passive. Need to choose battles.
The problem is that the Demos have rode everything out. They have been passive for a loooong time. They don’t choose battles, they avoid them, they shy away from them.
Posted by: degustibus | Oct 28 2005 16:06 utc | 33
I hope the neocs get their wires crossed and nominate someone like Mitch McConnell. Really the best that can be expected.
Posted by: dryice | Oct 30 2005 20:48 utc | 34