Nine Tips for Bush on the Supreme Court Vacancy
By The Horserace Blogger Posted in Democrats — Comments (108) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I imagine that most of the unsolicited advice Bush will be receiving from conservatives on filling the new Supreme Court vacancy will be ideological. Many will be sounding off on what kind of opinions his nomination should have. This is not my intent here. I seek to outline how President Bush can turn this challenge into political capital for himself.
And I believe that he is in desperate need of political capital. His approval numbers are too low for him to be effective right now. Worse, his disapproval numbers are at an all-time high. Democrats seem to have no fear in defying him, and many on the Republican side are taking their problems with him to the press, which is quite happy to assist in diminishing his ability to shape public policy.
In a word, his power has been greatly diminished in the last six months. His power to persuade the Congress and the public to do what they would not otherwise do is at its lowest point in his tenure. And this power is the most important thing a President has. At the end of the day, in the words of Richard Neustadt, it is really the only thing that separates the Chief Executive from a clerk.
He needs to restore this power; otherwise, his second term will be bereft of major accomplishments. I believe that this vacancy is an opportunity to begin this process -- indeed, few events in Washington are more promising for presidental power than the vacation of a Supreme Court seat. What follows is an outline of how I think he can use this vacancy to his advantage.
1. He should appreciate his power status: Power in politics is the ability to convince others to do what they do not want to do or what they would not otherwise do. The power of the President is largely informal. The Constitution grants him very few explicit powers. Congress controls the purse-strings. The bureaucracy controls the day-to-day execution of the law. Presidential power is therefore more psychological than anything else. Influencing others from the Oval Office requires the President to convince them that he should not be defied lightly, that he can impose negative consequences upon those who would defy him
The President’s power status always and everywhere constrains the choices he is able to make. Unfortunately, Bush's power status is at an all-time low. If this vacancy had occurred in December, 2001 or November, 2003, he would be in a better position. At those times, the public was more likely to follow him, and the Congress was more likely to fear him. At those times, his power was greater. He could more easily get that which he wanted because those in Congress feared the electoral consequences of defying him. That is not the case today. As you are no doubt aware, his poll numbers have sagged. The public is not as eager to listen to him, and seem to have coalesced around opinions he has spent time and energy arguing against.
This means that his opposition in Congress, on both sides of the aisle (for potential presidential candidates are, for him, potential political opponents), is less afraid of him. Democrats seem to know that they can defy him with relatively few political consequences, as they know that he does not have the ability to effectively mobilize public opinion against them. Even Republican members of Congress are now starting to defy him.
This situation requires him to take a very different strategy than a President at the height of his power might take.
2. He should be skeptical of those around him: At the end of the day, the only one who suffers from the diminished power of the President is the President himself. Thus, the only one who will really be looking out for preserving, protecting and extending Bush's power is George W. Bush. He must, above all, be mindful of how his actions in this process will affect this capacity. Will it enable him to influence people in the future, to “coerce” others to do what they do not want to do? Many in the White House would be better off if his power diminishes, as those in Congress and the media would begin to look to them, and not to him, for key decisions (as happened with Ronald Reagan and Don Regan). Many others likely want him to expend all of his power to reshape the Court. They would be willing to sacrifice his presidency for this ideological end. This is not to say that they are malevolent, but rather to argue that Bush, and only Bush, has his interests at heart. When it comes to decisions that affect a President’s power, the President stands alone.
3. He should operationalize his objective: If Bush wishes to use this as an opportunity to extend his power, he must ask how this can be best accomplished. The answer, I believe, is a clean victory in this nomination process. A clean victory, one where the Senate quickly approves his first choice without a bloodbath, would improve his public standing as well as his standing within the Congress. If everybody sees that Bush is able to get what he wants without much fuss, it will extend his power and enable him to achieve his goals down the road. As I said, a President’s power is largely informal, and therefore largely psychological. This means that political victories tend to breed political victories. On the other hand, a protracted fight will only encourage his opponents and create further skepticism within the public about his ability to get his way. This would diminish his power -- political defeats tend to breed political defeats.
Thus, I think that what he should look for here is an unequivocal political victory that occurs as quickly as possible. There is a way to achieve this, but it is contrary to his usual modus operandi.
4. He should neutralize, not mobilize: In 2004 Bush and Rove accurately gauged that there were enough conservatives in America for a conservative Republican to win the White House by way of a conservative campaign. As I noted time and again at my blog, his strategy was to mobilize these conservatives, to bring them to the polls in numbers not seen ever before. I imagine that many around Bush believe that the mobilization strategy could work just as well for this Court vacancy. I could not disagree more. Such arguments fail to take into account the structural nature of the United States Senate.
If it comes down to a fight between right- and left-leaning interest groups, and the GOP and the Democratic base, the left will win. Pure and simple. The reason for this is that the fight is not in the Electoral College, but in the United States Senate. There is no institution in the world, in the history of the world, that is designed so explicitly to protect the minority and the status quo. Right now, the Democrats are in the minority and an eight-member Court is the status quo. If Senate Democrats strongly desire that this remain the case, it will remain the case. They have too many resources at their disposal to obstruct if they wish to obstruct. For instance, if those left-leaning interest groups convince forty senators to stop a nominee, regardless of the political costs they might face, they will filibuster and Bush will lose. Worse, if those left-leaning interests groups appear to divide the Senate, enough moderate Republicans might abandon Bush's cause for the sake of bringing “unity” to the Senate and of gaining political capital for themselves. Senator McCain has excelled at this tactic.
What Bush must do, then, is neutralize the left. Give the Senate a nominee who places groups like Moveon and People for the American Way in a difficult position. They will oppose Bush regardless of whom he appoints because they want Bush to lose. However, the correct nominee will minimize their ability to influence potential opponents in the Senate. If these groups cannot present to Senate Democrats a politically compelling case to oppose the nominee, Bush will see fewer opponents in the Senate and therefore get a nominee past the minoritarian roadblocks he faces.
This might mean that the American right will be disappointed. They might want a nominee who boldly and unequivocally states his affinity for the Rehnquist/Thomas/Scalia wing of the Court. If Bush's goal is to extend his power, he cannot appoint such a person because the right cannot help him -- not in the Senate.
5. He should find a dark horse: It is indubitable that the left has been preparing position papers and arguments against a whole host of prospective nominees. If Bush nominates somebody they are not expecting, they will have to scramble. Before they can lean on Senate Democrats, they will have to find reasons to justify the pressure. Bush should force them to spend several weeks on research. This will put them off-balance, and therefore give Bush the ability to define his nominee in the public’s mind, as well as the mind of wavering Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate. If Bush nominates somebody whom the left is expecting, on the other hand, Bush will be forced to engage in a dialogue rather than a monologue right off the bat.
6. He should find somebody with a short paper trail: This will also put Bush's political opponents off-balance. Again, they will oppose Bush regardless of whom he appoints. But, if he appoints somebody who has not published very much, they will have a more difficult time constructing arguments reasonable to the mind of moderate Senate Democrats, who are Bush's real audience here.
7. He should not assume a minority nominee will be enough: If Bush nominates a sociological minority who is not a dark horse and who has a long paper trail, the left will attack him with all the vitriol that they would attack anybody else, and their attacks will be just as successful. Since the Thomas fiasco, it has become clear that minority conservatives enjoy no cover with either the left or the Democrats.
8. He should not fear the “stealth” liberal; rather, he should prevent it: Many on the right will argue that Bush must nominate a bold and certified conservative to prevent the leftist bloc on the Court from gaining another vote. Most would point to the elevation of David Souter as an example of such an inevitability. Those with more historical perspective might point to Eisenhower appointees like Brennan and Warren. The inference they draw is that a stealth liberal is a necessary consequence of an unknown quantity.
This is a faulty conclusion. Many nominees have been appointed over the years who were relatively unknown quantities and who ended up being justices of whom their nominating presidents would approve. Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia come instantly to mind. So do Black and Douglas.
The bottom line is that stealth liberals do not emerge from unknown quantities. They emerge from Presidents who do not take the time to appoint the correct person. They emerge from Presidents who, at the time of the nomination, are not concerned with extending their power. Presidents like Eisenhower appointed stealth-liberals because he was “asleep at the wheel” at the time of the nomination, i.e. not sufficiently concerned about the consequences of his actions, not sufficiently concerned about his own power. If he was, he could have avoided those mishaps.
Simply because a nominee is an unknown quantity at the time does not mean that the Chief Executive in question could not have discovered what sort of justice the nominee would make. If Bush focuses the vast resources of his branch upon the objective of determining the ideological character of a potential nominee, he can learn everything he wants to know. He can know that a nominee will conform to his expectations, even if The Washington Post cannot.
This, too, is an issue of power, and therefore an issue of how interested Bush is in extending his power. The correct Supreme Court nominee is one of the few ways hisinfluence can be felt beyond his tenure. Presidents who focus on extending their power can and do find nominees who are seemingly “unknown quantities” but who perform exactly as that President wishes. This is no coincidence. Getting a good nominee always boils down to a President’s concern with his own power.
9. He should ”satisfice”: It seems to me that Bush has two goals with this vacancy, both of which concern power. On the one hand, he wants to maximize the power of his office tomorrow by getting a clean victory today. On the other hand, he wnats to maximize the power of his legacy by getting a nominee who reflects his views. Ideally, these two will not conflict. But, the ideal here is unlikely. He might have to trade a marginal gain in one area for a marginal loss in another.
What he must do, then, is “satisfice,” find a way to maximize these two goals as much as possible. I have little to say about how Bush might go about doing that; satisficing is usually more art than science, and usually can only be evaluated from the first-person perspective.
I would only say that I believe Bush's most important goal is a quick and clean nomination process. The reason for this returns to the beginning of this column. Bush has no political capital (which is an inside-the-Beltway term for power) to spare at the moment. He must build some to accomplish anything significant in this term. Thus, insofar as his legislative agenda means more him than a single Supreme Court seat, he should look for a quick, clean victory. He should look for his first choice to sail through the nomination process with little-to-no damage.
Jay Cost, a graduate student of political science at The University of Chicago, is creator of The Horse Race Blog. He can be reached at jay_cost@hotmail.com
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | On Bloody Shirts — Comments (6) »
Nine Tips for Bush on the Supreme Court Vacancy 108 Comments (0 topical, 108 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Greetings from another (but different) U of C grad student. It is my impression, although I could certainly be wrong, that the Republicans were winning the filibuster debate earlier this year. I think the "obstructionist" label stuck a little harder to the Democrats than you seem to; and I think it will play into Bush's hands.
What power George W. Bush has left is because of his base. Nominating a stealth candidate (even if time eventually proved them to be conservative) would only undermine that power and produce a Democratic rout in 2006.
I have to agree that the Dem's will kick and scream about any nominee............Garza will quell the rants some but not all..........but in the end he would be passed by the Senate because Dem's do not want to offend a large part of their base.
However the one thing I find so amusing is that the left has already begun talking about bi-partisanship, which to them means a lefty. Did President Clinton seek to be bi-partisan with Ginsburg and Breyer?
Bush needs to stick to his core values.
Democrats agreed to the nuclear deal because the Supreme Court is where it really matters. They will fight an ideological judge to the death. Frankly, with Bush's approval rating in the low 40's, obstructing Bush would appear to have no downside for the Democrats.
In Orrin Hatch's autobiography, he talked about how Clinton asked Hatch about potential nominees and Hatch suggested Ginsburg and Breyer. It's the top blog entry at DailyKos right now.
Can you imagine what would happen to the liberals if Bush nominated Ann Coulter or if he gave Bork a recess appointment. They would go off the deep end. It would also be a good way to end the ridiculous fillibuster deal of a month ago.
This statement stand out like a beacon, because it absolutely true in the climate we have right now:
If it comes down to a fight between right- and left-leaning interest groups, and the GOP and the Democratic base, the left will win. Pure and simple.
I know it is true. I can feel it.
Democrats have plenty to lose if they obstruct.
If the Republicans' reaction is to "flip the Byrd," then they lose all power to even moderate the President's appointees, and then conservatives get their dream nominees passed at will.
The mavericks in the deal also have something else to lose: their seats. It's not Reid and Boxer who are at risk if the deal is broken, and those Democrats in the deal know it. Some saw their states go for Bush, and they also saw what happened to Senator Daschle.
It's a gamble if they filibuster, and it's not entirely Reid's gamble to make. It's certainly not NARAL's decision whether Senators Nelson or Landrieu, say, want to stick their necks out and be the next Daschle.
And Clinton had a 57-43 majority in the Senate when he nominated Ginsburg, too.
Yeah. Go ahead and nominate Coulter. I think the Democrats would just laugh at that one.
Because it isn't meant to sound bizarre, I can see how it might. But the fact that Republicans have to come to grips with is that when it comes to the Supreme Court battle, despite what the New York Times is reporting today, the Left has been girding their loins for this battle for more than a year. They know precisely what points to hit, and where, and why, and they're going to unleash everything they have at whatever nominees Bush presents. Jay is correct when he talks about reestablishing the President's power, winning this battle quickly, and moving on to the next one.
The goal isn't confirmation - we have to live with this guy/gal for 20 plus years.
The appellate judges have to follow SCOTUS precedent, so it's the precedent that matters. What point is there to having a filibuster if you can't ever use it? Note that there is a reason it is called the nuclear option - it means the GOP wouldn't be able to do a damn thing in the Senate without first voting down fifty versions of a minimum wage increase and the Democrats' abortion reduction act. With Bush's approval rating at 50% in Texas, Democrats gain nothing from giving in to Bush.
These are incredibly similar to the arguments I heard over a decade ago that gave us Justice Souter.
You are right that Bush will get capital by winning.
He'll win by sticking to his campaign promise and delivering a SCOTUS nominee along the lines of a Scalia or Thomas- a strict constructionist.
Anything less, and he will end up exactly where his father ended up after breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. He'll have a base that abandoned him, an enemy that is emboldened, he'll have made nobody happy and have convinced the public that his word means nothing.
His fundraising base will collapse, and he'll-- for the first time-- lose seats in both the House and Senate. He'll be reduced to trying to manage the war for the rest of his term, because he won't have any sway over anything else. Your formula for maximizing his power amounts to multiplying by zero.
If Reid or Leahy would like to recommend a few solid anti-Roe justices, we would be in a similar situation. Right now, the 4 people named have no judicial experience and no record on Roe. Hatch recommended liberals who wanted to uphold Roe and Clinton accepted. If the mirror image happens, I'd be fine with that.
That's just it: the Democrats don't right now have a filibuster; that's what the point of the deal was. The agreement was that they can't just filibuster when they feel like it. To get the filibuster back, they have to break the deal.
Saying that they have it, so they should use it, can be equally applied to the rule change option. But the dealmakers didn't want to go down that road before, and we know yet whether the resignation of O'Connor changes that.
The Democrats have everything to lose if they gamble and filibuster. However, President Bush has everything to lose if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promise to the letter, and nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. If he breaks his promise, "Scalia and Thomas" will become his "Read my lips," disaffected Republicans will stay home in 2006, and he could very well find a hostile Congress making him the lamest of ducks for the rest of his term.
He'll have a base that abandoned him.
To do that, then the base deserves what it gets. You are not talking about a popular President right now -- he's an increasingly unpopular President. It's time "The Base" got a brain and started realizing that, because "The Base" has been responsible for a lot of the diminishment. I'm thinking of telling "The Base" where to shove it.
I meannt to say in the second paragraph "we don't know yet whether the resignation of O'Connor changes that."
That's just it: the Democrats don't right now have a filibuster; that's what the point of the deal was.
They have a filibuster; they just have to only use it under "extraordinary" circumstances. To not use it on the Supreme Court when they want to block a nominee would render moot that they still have the right to filibuster.
The Democrats have everything to lose if they gamble and filibuster.
Actually, they have nothing to lose if the alternative is getting an ideologue replacing O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
However, President Bush has everything to lose if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promise to the letter, and nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Agreed. That is why I expect a protracted fight.
"The base" took us over the deep in on Schiavo. This is much more important. The President promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. That is one of the reasons I voted for him. As long as a nominee is well-respected and experienced, he should be approved in a friendly 55-45 Senate. If not, Democrats will have justified their new filibuster strategy. And a minority party will forever have the ability to dictate to a majority party and President who they can appoint.
If a nominee is too extreme, they should win over 6 Rs to crossover (I can guarantee they will get 2-3). But otherwise, they are pushing the bounds of Senatorial civility. No one has been nominated to the SC and partisanly filibustered by a minority. No one.
If you want to use RedState as a place for floating your "Trial Balloons" why don't you go float them on your own, or doesn't that suffice because you're not popular enough? Don't you think it's a little slimy to use RedState as a testing ground for ideas for your own blog? Are you worried that most of what you think while "looking out your office window" will turn out to be just so much hot air?
I'm reminded of another post on your blogsite: "What an evil, despicable man."
So Bush is at his nadir right now. How are the Dems doing? I don't think obstructionism is going to win them any more votes. People don't like the President, Republicans or Democrats. But they still like the President more than the other 2.
Two points on that.
- Compared to past Presidents, Bush's low in the approval ratings (which he is currently at) is historic in how high a low it is.
- The reason that his low is so high is because his base is with him. He has not abandoned them, and they will not abandon him.
He has to win back some he has lost, but he has lost them with the problems in Iraq, not over his judicial choices. He campaigned on a promise in 2000 and won. He campaigned for Senators in 2002 on the same promise and won. He campaigned on the same promise both for himself and other Senators in 2004 and won.
He would not have won if that promise was a major turn off to moderates.
But let's stipulate, for a moment, that his base would be stupid to abandon him if he abandons them on one of their most important issues. Doesn't it follow that his supporters who have abandoned him so far are being stupid? Wouldn't it make sense to try to bring them back to his camp by doing what he promised, rather than trying to win them back by doing the opposite?
Bush has, to date, not governed by the polls and he has been wise not to. His poll numbers will go up as things in Iraq improve, or will go down if they do not. They will go up as news of the strength of the economy permeates the national consciousness, or it will go down if the Dems convince people the economy is bad. They will go up if the fight for the SCOTUS nomination is over an overaggressive judiciary imposing gay marriage while taking away the 10 commandments and threatening private property and Bush nominates someone who would help make that better. They will go down if he does not, or if the fight is over protecting abortion. Only one of these criteria depend on his nominee, and only in a manner that hurts him if he nominates someone contrary to his campaign promises.
Here's a prediction-- if Bush nominates someone who pleases the base, his job approval number will jump by at least 5 points, right off the bat. If he gets the nominee confirmed, it will rise from there. If his nominee gets defeated, then the chances of us holding Santorum's seat, and picking up a pair of Nelsons' plus a Minnesota one, go up markedly.
There is a high-risk. high-return path through all of this that Bush The Poker Player just might take.
He screwed up big time, and he knows it, by allowing the media to pound him relentlessly on Iraq for seven months while doing far too little to counter it. So now here he is, as you say, low in the polls and giving off the distinct aroma of a lame duck.
As I read it, your strategy amounts to recognizing this and trying to "slip one by 'em" by nominating a stealth conservative who will provide a quick victory by sailing through the Senate, followed by blossoming into another Scalia to the surprise of all.
Well, OK, that's a plan.
But none of that saves his agenda, and I doubt there is much hay to be made in the polls by following that strategy. Outside the beltway, a non-confrontational Senate process would be a big yawn. In fact if it looks like Business As Usual with the Democrats hurling spears and screaming like banshees, that may be a yawn as well.
The guts-ball play is to nominate someone the religious right will recognize instantly as someone they want on the Court.
Yes, this will be confrontational as all get-out, but I submit that the political calculus is not as simple as it was when we were dealing with lower court nominees.
This is the ball game for these people. It's why they came. It's why many of them are even Republicans; on everything else they are — and once were — Democrats. Deny them the reason they came, and they will take their marbles and go home.
Not one of these would-be Republican Senatorial presidential wannabes would have a prayer of getting elected if social-conservative/economic-liberal religious types go home and close their doors. They are numerous enough to be the margin of victory in many states.
Then there is the issue of the Republican Senators who are themselves up for re-election in 2006 and 2008. They too could have a hard time without the votes of the single-issue abortion lobby.
And so there is more incentive, and to more individual Senators, to risk disturbing the comity of the Senate by ramming this nominee down the Democrats' throats than there was when the issue was an Appeals Court nominee. This could be the ball game for them, too.
Were the Republicans to close ranks — and pull it off — they will have tasted power... something they have not done since becoming the majority party in the Senate. That could be a major boost to Mr. Bush's agenda, and is the biggest win he could conceivably pull out of this. Bush would also gain in stature himself by having taken on the Democrats in a real struggle, and won. This is not something he will get by following the strategy outlined above.
That strategy assumes that President Bush will consent to the fate of being a lame duck for the next three years, going along to get along until his lights go out in January 2009.
That is not how I read Mr. Bush. I read him as a guy who, faced with a declining pile of chips, will decide that a couple of Kings is a winning hand, bet the ranch, and hope to walk out with the pot. If he doesn't, well, he was hosed anyway.
I would love to borrow the psychedelic glasses you are wearing so that I can see whatever trial balloon I floated in my comment above.
Perhaps you can point it out to me and everyone else. We'll be waiting.
...but it also means that Democrats have nothing to lose. Opinions on strategy vary, of course, but I don't think Democrats would benefit from looking spineless and telling their base to take a hike on the most important battle of all. Certainly voters will never put Democrats in power if they never take a stand.
I'll defer to your judgment on this, but if "the base" does anything more to harm the long term chances of getting things done this term, I'll tell you right now that you're looking at one less Republican in Chicago and everywhere else. I'm really getting sick of their pontifications, and you don't have many more people to lose.
If you think so, then you must be as stupid as you pretend "The Base" to be. If you tell "The Base" to stick it, they will do so...by staying home in 2006, and 2008 (remember 1992?). Do you really want that to happen?
Jay's prescription is a recipe for electoral disaster. W made judges a campaign issue -- in THREE separate campaigns (2 of his own, plus his stumping in 2002). Sure, it was lower on the priority list this latest time around than the WOT -- but the judicial filibusters and W's opinion on judges was the largest applause line of every stump speech W gave last year (according to the post-election Time magazine story). It was a major part of the reason many people voted for him: "I'll appoint Justices like Scalia and Thomas".
If he turns around, and intent on "maximizing his power", appoints another Souter he will instead destroy his power -- far from winning over those who are drifting away from his position on the WOT, SS reform, etc, he will instead DRIVE away his most loyal supporters to date -- the idealistic ones who were out there pounding the pavement and knocking on doors because the BELIEVED in him. Betrayal will not be taken lightly, no more than it was when his father pulled a similar trick. (And Bush41 was no doubt told that striking a deal with Sen. Mitchell would be the politically prudent, "power maximizing" thing to do -- avoid the loss of political capital attendent upon losing a budgetary fight with Congress -- as if a pre-emptive surrender was somehow "better"; we know how that turned out.)
Jay claims that a Cipher is not necessarily a Souter. I beg to differ: how can an experienced judge be so free of a paper-trail indicating his judicial philosophy after a (20 year?) career? Only by taking great pains to ensure that his philosophy is hidden -- by issuing deliberately contradictory rulings, or avoiding opportunity to personally write decisions (e.g. forcing his appellate benchmates to write them instead). Then, to go that same 20 years avoiding giving off other signals that investigators might use to infer philosophy: never uttering any opinion on current events or politics even to friends. (Aside: even if it were true that W could find out info concerning specific judges that WaPo/NYT/CBS/ABC/CNN/LAT couldn't; if the White House knew that Cipher A was actually a true-blue conservative, it would take about 37.3 seconds before some enterprising DeepThroat2 leaked it. A Cipher, to be an effective nominee, must be a cipher to EVERYONE; a secret shared is tommorrow's headline). It takes EFFORT to achieve such camoflague. Why would our Cipher do such a thing, over his entire career?
Forget whether our Cipher would turn out as a Ginsberg or a Thomas: what kind of scurrilous, ambition-driven, deceitful little schmuck are we talking about here? And THAT is the type of judge Jay suggests would be the smart choice?
No, I don't think so.
...to hear what makes me "evil". Because I disagreed with a post you agreed with?
First, his original is debatable but a valid opinion. Appointing a Gonzales will not win over liberals and probably not many moderates or apolitical types care, but it will lose his support on the right which is most of that 43%.
Second, we are quite happy to have Dales post his balloons or anything else here. Personally, his site is one of the most comprehensive and statistically adept Republican sites I've seen. And by linking to us on his personal site, traffic goes both ways.
Third, whatever you think of his opinions, caling him evil and despicable is way over the line. I rated you 2 for it. And that is my first 2 for someone I generally respect and like. Take a few minutes to back off and re-read your posts.
I agree with that. It is the obstruction that goes too far. The Republicans won in 1994 after voting for 2 Dem pro-Roe appointees. They still took a stand on the issue, but defered to the President on doing his job.
I understand (and respect although disagree with) the strategy on SS and some other issues, but the judicial obstruction is really going to hurt Nelson, Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad, Pryor, Lincoln, Johnson, and a few others. This is the President's job and the Senate can vote. If they vote no that is one thing. But an unprecedented filibuster by the minority party deserves to be called obstruction. And it is hurting the Democratic Party.
Just my 2 cents.
While Gonzalez is far from my personal favorite choice, he would not cause me to bolt. Heck, Souter ticked me off, but in the grand scheme of things, Bush 41 was not a disaster on judges, he just wasted a SCOTUS opportunity by listening to Rudman. He got Thomas very right, after all.
Pointing out what I believe would happen based on the observations I have seen (and the poll data I have seen) does not equate to me giving my approval to what would happen.
But even if it was a statement of what I personally would do (meaning, 'take my ball and go home') I doubt that some guy on a website calling me evil and trying to somehow insult my blog would make me want to stay in the tent. As a matter of fact, attacking would be/could be/should be allies is generally a really bad idea for building an effective and large political faction.
...of course is that Bush is not running for reelection again.
At this point, for Bush, the base matters very little. It is important that they be mobilized for certain campaigns in 2006, but that mobilization will be spearheaded by individual campaigns. The POTUS is largely a secondary player in those activities.
I would add to this a question: what are the consequences for Bush if he continues to be largely ineffectual, which he will be if he does not begin to reform his power position? They will likely begin to turn on him for being ineffectual.
Also, I think you are exaggerating the consequences of a SCOTUS pick by arguing for what I was arguing against, that a dark horse necessarily yields a stealth lib. One example does not demonstrate that point. One counter-example falsifies it, and I provided five. I would also argue, again, that good presidents, presidents who are actively concerned about extending their power, can move beyond this. Souter was a mistake that an FDR or a Johnson or a Reagan would not have made. The Souter pick is just part and parcel of the story that we can tell about the one-term H-Dubya: he was a lousy president.
Finally, I think you are inappropriately collapsing the time-line here. If Bush happens to nominate a stealth lib by accident, when will that become noticeable? Assuming the nominee does not bust out into full-lib mode, but grows into his "libness," signs would not begin to emerge until the end of his second term on the Court, which would be in the spring of 2007, several months after the mid-terms. At the very least, much of the fundraising heavy lifting of the POTUS will basically be done within a year -- so even if the new guy does instantly blossom into a lib, Bush will already have completed his major task for the 2006 campaign.
I may have just reached trusted user status, but I don't see a reason for a troll rating on kowalski's post.
<n/t> - feel free to delete if you wish.
Re: However, President Bush has everything to lose if he doesn't fulfill his campaign promise to the letter, and nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. If he breaks his promise, "Scalia and Thomas" will become his "Read my lips," disaffected Republicans will stay home in 2006, and he could very well find a hostile Congress making him the lamest of ducks for the rest of his term.
Since Bush can't run again a "Read my lips" episode will not be able to hurt him directly. Might the GOP lose control of Congress though? Possible, but not likely. Abesnt some royal screw-up (the sort the whole country cares about) the elctoral math favors the GOP to maybe even pick up a seat or two in the Senate, and the House is so gerrymandered it would take the the good Lord Himself to seriously alter its membership. Nor is the current Congress, though GOP-dominated, particularly friendly to the President's wishes.
Secondly, the President is the President of the whole country. I think one of the reasons we are seeing such fierce political divisiveness these days is because of the doctrine that President need only please a minority of the country (the "base") and the rest of us are nothing but servile subjects, not citizens whose interests and ideals ought also be respected (at least insofar as they do not radically conflict with the President's own-- no one expects a GOP President to make the Kos gang happy!) As I have said on other threads, the GOP has mastered the art of winning elections, but it has lost the art of governance, something that it had down pat as recently as Reagan's day. Reagan after all managed to get most of his agenda through a part-Democrat Congress while Bush now has trouble even with a GOP Congress. I am not saying that Bush should nominate this that or some other sort of judge, but I am saying that everyone needs to rethink the strategy of a president only appealing to a minority of the people and shutting the rest of us out. In the long run that will be doing lasting and major damage to the country.
Last time we were in this situation was back in 1992. I wonder if we'll see some populist third candidate show up out of no where (like Perot in 92) come 2008.
"At this point, for Bush, the base matters very little. It is important that they be mobilized for certain campaigns in 2006, but that mobilization will be spearheaded by individual campaigns."
I think this is untrue. The base, right now,
- provides the floor for his slide,
- provides his opportunity for overcoming the obstruction that could prevent him from having major accomplishments in his second term.
If the base continues to turn out for him and his candidates as they have in 2002 and 2004, then he is going to come really close to the magic 60 in the Senate-- and then all sorts of accomplishments come into reach.
And they have turned out for him and his candidates. Rarely has a President thrown himself into Senate races as he did in 2002. He put his credibility on the line, gambled with his political capital, and won-- because the base was with him.
If the base crumbles, he's not only going to have to win back all the independent support he has lost in order to gain any standing to leverage an agenda through Congress, he's going to be unable to help the 2006 candidates. We lose ground, and it may be that the only sorts of accomplishments he can get in the second term would be repeats of his education bill that he teamed up with Kennedy to produce.
It was a mistake for his father to break a promise that his base felt was of importance. It would be even more of one for this President to repeat his father's mistake, because he should have learned from it.
Re: They will go up as news of the strength of the economy permeates the national consciousness, or it will go down if the Dems convince people the economy is bad.
People don't care about the economy in the abstract. Tell someone who's bankrupt and out of work that the economny is doing well and his reply would not be printable in this forum. It is quite possible for the "economy" to be doing well, while a majority of the people fail to see any improvement in their own lives. This of course breeds cynicism and even outright anger ("The government is lying about things!") So I wouldn't blame the Dems or the MSM for people's sour mood on the economy. Given the rise in gas prices, the still anemic jobs situation, healthcare stretched to the breaking point, too many people forced to work too much overtime to make ends meet, and large swaths of the country (e.g., the Great Lakes region) still deep in recession, people are not being misled by anyone.
...that Bush's approval numbers are not as low as low numbers for other people have been. However, that is not to say that they will dip more. It is also not to say that they usually dip so quickly after reelection. It is also not to say that they are dipping for a unique reason: Iraq -- and that this unique reason is also going to be a relatively constant reason.
Also, I think it is very dangerous to aggregate "the base" into a singular entity. The base is composed of many different people who are his base for many different reasons. There is an inherent tension to the Bush base: cultural conservatism and economic conservatism. They are not analytic twins. With one does not necessarily come the other. To this, Bush has added a third, which is the war in Iraq.
Similarly, I think it is difficult to say that the "base" is equally gung-ho about judicial nominations across the board.
None of this is to say that there are not large blocs of the base that are with him ideologically on foreign policy, domestic policy and cultural policy, but it is to say that the portion of the base that is lock-stock with him is
Also, the base must be considered in the context of 2006. The national base matters very little. What matters is the size of the base in individual districts &c. The base in Maryland, for instance is relatively small. Ditto the base in Minnesota and even the base in Pennsylvania. Playing straight-up to the base is not really going to gain you any Senate seats next year. In fact, of the eight seats I would say are potentially contestable (PA, RI, MO, MT, WA, MN, MD, FL), only three states are such that the base was large enough in 2004. And I would add that two of the red states seats are already held by GOPers (and therefore necessary conditions of extending the Senate majority). I would also add that if an unpopular Bush gets tied to the FL GOP Senate nominee, the base will not be large enough there). For the other states, it does not really matter how juiced the base is because they will be non-battles.
Finally, in your prediction about polling numbers rising if the base is "pleased" with the nomination, I think you are incorrectly granting to the average member of the base way too much political information. How are they going to distinguish between a good nominee and a bad nominee on their own? They do not know anything about these potential nominees, by and large. What will matter is how the nominee is framed, and the White House is not the only game in town when it comes to framing, but they are the best. They start sending their people out to the airwaves spinning the guy as a good conservative, the base will believe that he is a good conservative.
Oh...one more thing, I guess. I think you are wrong to say, "Bush has, to date, not governed by the polls and he has been wise not to." I think Bush has governed by the polls quite a bit more than many believe (indeed, one of his strengths as a POTUS is to govern by the polls and appear to not be governing by the polls). If one means by this phrase changing his position based upon what the polls say, Bush has generally not done this. If it means picking his battles so that he can maximize his chances for winning, Bush does do this (e.g. gay marriage, medicare prescription drugs -- also what he avoids...immigration for instance), but not as much as he should. The cornerstone of a good President is this very thing (I imagine FDR wished he had a good pollster before he proposed his court-packing plan) because Presidents need to win today so they can win tomorrow. As I said in my post, and (in all honesty) many smarter men than I have said before me, the president's power is almost all informal. In today's day and age, the polls matter a great deal.
I think one of Bush's big problems this year has been his reluctance to govern by the polls. If he had been paying more attention to them, he would not have wasted so much time running up this blind alley of Social Security accounts. That was a non-starter from the get-go. I think the WH thought they could move public opinion, but (again), if they had been paying attention to the polls, he would have seen support for him is still very soft, and predicated upon Iraq.
"Tell someone who's bankrupt and out of work that the economny is doing well and his reply would not be printable in this forum"
Are you suggesting that if this is widespread, that the economy could still somehow be strong?
If bankruptcy and unemployment are rampant, then the economy would not be doing well, and it would not just be a disconnect between reality and perception.
...that Bush's approval numbers are not as low as low numbers for other people have been. However, that is not to say that they will not dip more. It is also not to say that they usually dip so quickly after reelection. It is also not to say that they are dipping for a unique reason: Iraq -- and that this unique reason is also going to be a relatively constant reason. In other words, I think generalizing from Bush's low numbers to, say, Eisenhower's low numbers is a stretch. There is something unique going on here.
Also, I think it is very dangerous to aggregate "the base" into a singular entity. The base is composed of many different people who are his base for many different reasons. There is an inherent tension to the Bush base: cultural conservatism and economic conservatism. They are not analytic twins. With one does not necessarily come the other. To this, Bush has added a third, which is the war in Iraq.
Similarly, I think it is difficult to say that the "base" is equally gung-ho about judicial nominations across the board.
None of this is to say that there are not large blocs of the base that are with him ideologically on foreign policy, domestic policy and cultural policy, but it is to say that the portion of the base that is lock-stock with him is enough to get him over the finish line, especially in the minoritiarn, status-quo Senate which was my key point. Satisfying the base = a loss in the Senate. And to this I would add = angering the base.
Also, the base must be considered in the context of 2006. The national base matters very little. What matters is the size of the base in individual districts &c. The base in Maryland, for instance is relatively small. Ditto the base in Minnesota and even the base in Pennsylvania. Playing straight-up to the base is not really going to gain you any Senate seats next year. In fact, of the eight seats I would say are potentially contestable (PA, RI, MO, MT, WA, MN, MD, FL), only three states are such that the base was large enough in 2004. And I would add that two of the red states seats are already held by GOPers (and therefore necessary conditions of extending the Senate majority). I would also add that if an unpopular Bush gets tied to the FL GOP Senate nominee, the base will not be large enough there). For the other states, it does not really matter how juiced the base is because they will be non-battles.
Finally, in your prediction about polling numbers rising if the base is "pleased" with the nomination, I think you are incorrectly granting to the average member of the base way too much political information. How are they going to distinguish between a good nominee and a bad nominee on their own? They do not know anything about these potential nominees, by and large. What will matter is how the nominee is framed, and the White House is not the only game in town when it comes to framing, but they are the best. They start sending their people out to the airwaves spinning the guy as a good conservative, the base will believe that he is a good conservative.
Oh...one more thing, I guess. I think you are wrong to say, "Bush has, to date, not governed by the polls and he has been wise not to." I think Bush has governed by the polls quite a bit more than many believe (indeed, one of his strengths as a POTUS is to govern by the polls and appear to not be governing by the polls). If one means by this phrase changing his position based upon what the polls say, Bush has generally not done this. If it means picking his battles so that he can maximize his chances for winning, Bush does do this (e.g. gay marriage, medicare prescription drugs -- also what he avoids...immigration for instance), but not as much as he should. The cornerstone of a good President is this very thing (I imagine FDR wished he had a good pollster before he proposed his court-packing plan) because Presidents need to win today so they can win tomorrow. As I said in my post, and (in all honesty) many smarter men than I have said before me, the president's power is almost all informal. In today's day and age, the polls matter a great deal.
I think one of Bush's big problems this year has been his reluctance to govern by the polls. If he had been paying more attention to them, he would not have wasted so much time running up this blind alley of Social Security accounts. That was a non-starter from the get-go. I think the WH thought they could move public opinion, but (again), if they had been paying attention to the polls, he would have seen support for him is still very soft, and predicated upon Iraq.
Re: If you tell "The Base" to stick it, they will do so...by staying home in 2006, and 2008 (remember 1992?).
What happened in 1992 is that a significant fraction of the Reagan coalition ended up voting for Perot and some even voted for Clinton (the Reagan Democrats reverting back to being Democrats). No one (hardly) stayed home. The economy was a mess and, despite a masterful foreign policy, Bush I failed to hold Reagan's people. Yes, he lost the taxcutters (most of them ended up with Perot) but he still pandered to the social conservatives (remember the 92 GOP convention and its declarations of culture war?). They and the foreign policy neocons stuck with Bush in 92. Problem is, they weren't enough to win the election, and they still are not. bush did not win last year because of the Dobsonites. He won because he convinced a lot of people that he was right (at least more right than Kerry) on terrorism and the Middle East. The Social Conservative wing of the GOP is much the same as the Civil Rights wing of the Democrat party: both an asset and a curse. The broad goals of both movements are generally agreed to by most people (if only because they feel they should agree with such high-minded notions). But the specific policy proposals, and often enough the behevior and tactics of both groups anger an awful lot of people including many people whose votes are available for either party. Reagan, and later Clinton, both mastered the art of pleasing these problematic wings of their respected parties with the art of providing well-sliced half-loaves. Neither of the presidents Bush seems to know how to do this.
A clean victory, one where the Senate quickly approves his first choice without a bloodbath, would improve his public standing as well as his standing within the Congress. If everybody sees that Bush is able to get what he wants without much fuss, it will extend his power and enable him to achieve his goals down the road.
I disagree with this. If he is perceived as picking a candidate more or less suggested by the Democrats, or picking a less ideological candidate than he would really like simply because he fears he cannot get them confirmed, then a quick, painless victory would not give him more power, but less. It would show he shares the assessment that he has insufficient power to accomplish something really important to his base of support. Showing weakness by compromising before the fight even begins will not enhance his power.
Also, one needs a base willing to stand with you through good and bad times in order to have political power. If he doesn't follow through with his repeated campaign commitments about appointing Thomases and Scalias, he will not have a base left, period. That will leave him less powerful, not more.
Moreover, President Bush has never demonstrated a willingness to compromise his core beliefs simply because of public opinion. He's not going to kowtow to the Democrats for the sake of avoiding a fight. He may nominate Gonzales to replace O'Connor, out of personal loyalty, but Rehnquist and other replacements will be solid, staunch conservative judges.
You say, "He'll win by sticking to his campaign promise and delivering a SCOTUS nominee along the lines of a Scalia or Thomas- a strict constructionist."
But he will not "win" -- if winning is defined in any way by getting that nominee through the Senate. The Dems will fight tooth-and-nail to stop such a nominee (they have a base to please, too).
We won election after election, got ever greater majorities in the Senate. And we can't accomplish things of major significance (SS reform, conservative judges). And now you want to compromise? Why? What have the Democrats done to show that they will give us ANY slack? When has compromise on important issues given us ANY payback? Judges were a HUGE component of my own vote for both President and senator. I care far more about them than I do about SS reform, quite frankly, because their decisions have a much bigger impact on our society.
I'm not at risk of becoming a Democrat if he compromises too much, but contributions? Volunteering for long, long hours? Not if the party caves in on one of my own biggest issues.
...I think you are failing to account for my timeline argument. None of this is going to be played out until probably after this nominee's second term.
I also do not think you are accounting for my argument that if Bush is smart he can have his cake and eat it, too. So to speak. An easy confirmation does not a stealth lib make. You have mentioned Souter, but as I responded, that is insufficient evidence. To argue your point, you would have to demonstrate how all easy confirmations ended up not doing what the nomination POTUS would have wanted -- and here you run into a whole host of nominees...especially on this current Court. I would count five of nine.
Finally, I guess response #45 anticipates much of this argument by urging you to contextualize the base, at least in the context of 2006. It also urges you to appreciate how the base is susceptible to "framing," of which this WH is especially adept. These are not meant as criticisms of you, for I posted them after you posted #41.
NB: Ignore post #44. That was a mis-fire on my part.
BTW: It is good to chat with you Gerry. Haven't talked to you in a while!
We like Dales. And his trial balloons. Play nice with editors.
Just because the Dems will fight tooth and nail does not mean they will win. We came very close to having the votes to break the filibuster. The GOP 7 of the Gang of 14 said they would support nuking the filibuster if the Democrats obstructed a non-extraordinary candidate. Scalia and Rehnquist - level ideology cannot be considered extreme. Senator Graham was particularly emphatic about being ready to tank the filibuster if Dems reverted to their stalling tactics.
The President has 3 years left. There is plenty of pork to pass around, lots of administrative rulings that various Congressmen will need help with. And the political impact of yet another compromise on the base must be considered.
"...that Bush's approval numbers are not as low as low numbers for other people have been. However, that is not to say that they will dip more."
I assume you meant to say that it is not to say the will not dip more. Yes, the Wall Street canard holds true for polling-- past performance does not guarentee future results.
You have to look at what is holding the numbers up to see what it would take for them to fall further. Right now, what is holding Bush's numbers up is his support from the conservative wing of the Republican party.
"It is also not to say that they usually dip so quickly after reelection."
Bush's job approval numbers, depending on the survey, were between 49 and 53% around election day. Depending on the survey now, they are from 42-49. There has been some downward movement, but hardly a lot and only truly worrysome because they are a nadir for him.
Clinton's job approval was the same in July 97 as it was in November 96. Now for Reagan, I only have Gallup surveys to go on, but the last October poll and first November poll had it at 58-61% in 1984. From April through June of 1985, he was at 52-58. Same basic drop as Bush's, but less emotionally gripping since it was above the psychologically important 50% mark.
Nixon's was at around 57-60% in 1972, By April he was in the low 50s, and by now he was below 40. But there were, as you know, extenuating circumstances.
And that's about as far back as you can get with modern polling techniques. So you have, prior to Bush, one two-term President who's job approval ratings had stayed flat at this point, one who's had declined by about as much as Bush's have now, and one who's were tanking much more (deservedly so). Not many data points, but also none to suggest that what Bush is going through right now is any cause for panic.
"It is also not to say that they are dipping for a unique reason: Iraq -- and that this unique reason is also going to be a relatively constant reason. "
Well, I think I gave more than one reason, but I will say that I think there is evidence that it is a primary reason. I'll throw out a few links with background material as to why I hold this view. Link, link,link, and link.
"Also, I think it is very dangerous to aggregate "the base" into a singular entity. The base is composed of many different people who are his base for many different reasons. There is an inherent tension to the Bush base: cultural conservatism and economic conservatism."
No doubt. When I speak to "the base", I speak to the group that consistently gives him the highest ratings-- self identified conservatives who are also self identified Republicans. It is a nice group to look at, because it does not rely on what I consider to be a cultural conservative or an economic conservative. They are who they say they are. And they support their President in high numbers. They are, in aggregate, both economically and socially conservative. And judges matter to them, a lot-- judges cross both paths, as Kelo demonstrated. (snipping some comments)
"Also, the base must be considered in the context of 2006. The national base matters very little."
I both agree and disagree. Literally, you are correct. But in practicality, to a large extent the national base is fairly representative of the base that will be involved in 2006. Further, since California will not be involved in 2006, and for all intents and purposes, neither will New York, and neither will Illinois, the fact is that the 2006 voter base is going to be, in aggregate, to the right of the nation in aggregate.
We can use the nation as a baseline, as long as we think a few points rightward from there.
"What matters is the size of the base in individual districts &c. The base in Maryland, for instance is relatively small. Ditto the base in Minnesota and even the base in Pennsylvania."
Despite the problems in the past few Presidential elections, and the governorship, have you really looked at Pennsylvania? Do you realize we are pretty close to a filibuster proof majority in the state legislature? We have both Senate seats (admittedly, one is at risk). We held the Governorship until very recently, and could have held it had the last one decided to run. The T in Pennsylvania has been described as Alabama in Pennsylvania. A mediocre campaigner like Mike Fisher came within 5 points of upsetting Rendell. Pennsylvania's base is not small. Ask Specter, who needed Santorum and Bush to bail him out in the primary in 2004.
I cannot speak in the same detail to Minnesota, however. And Maryland-- the base is small, the number of independent leaners is small, it is a miracle that Ehrlich and Steele won. But notice, they are pretty solidly conservative, especially Steele, who looks to run strong for the Senate seat. We need to stop being afraid of being conservatives. There is nothing wrong with being conservative-- unless we get arrogant with power and start being intrusive with people's lives.
"Playing straight-up to the base is not really going to gain you any Senate seats next year. In fact, of the eight seats I would say are potentially contestable (PA, RI, MO, MT, WA, MN, MD, FL), only three states are such that the base was large enough in 2004."
Of course, we will not win in RI playing to the 'base', which Chafee will not do anyway. In Pennsylvania, we can't win without doing so. Missouri we can win going with either approach, a perspective I hold for Florida and Minnesota as well. Montana, we will hold regardless. Washington, I don't think we win no matter what we do, although I am interested in seeing what the King County effect will be.
"And I would add that two of the red states seats are already held by GOPers (and therefore necessary conditions of extending the Senate majority). I would also add that if an unpopular Bush gets tied to the FL GOP Senate nominee, the base will not be large enough there)."
Bush is not overly unpopular in Florida. His job approval there is about where it was on election day.
"For the other states, it does not really matter how juiced the base is because they will be non-battles."
I think the Senate battlefield is bigger than the states you listed by at least 3 states. But we'll know for sure as the candidates who win nominations becomes clear.
"Finally, in your prediction about polling numbers rising if the base is "pleased" with the nomination, I think you are incorrectly granting to the average member of the base way too much political information."
I think we will get to find out soon enough. Right now, Bush is losing about 15% of self identified conservatives being sampled. A lot of those will "come home", plus whenever there is news that pumps up a particular cohort, their representation in samples starts rising because they are more willing to agree to be polled. 5 points is my guess.
"How are they going to distinguish between a good nominee and a bad nominee on their own?"
I think that it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of our voters to educate themselves. (Snipping)
"Oh...one more thing, I guess. I think you are wrong to say, "Bush has, to date, not governed by the polls and he has been wise not to." I think Bush has governed by the polls quite a bit more than many believe (indeed, one of his strengths as a POTUS is to govern by the polls and appear to not be governing by the polls). If one means by this phrase changing his position based upon what the polls say, Bush has generally not done this."
That is what I meant, so therefore there is no disagreement. (snipping)
"I think one of Bush's big problems this year has been his reluctance to govern by the polls. If he had been paying more attention to them, he would not have wasted so much time running up this blind alley of Social Security accounts. That was a non-starter from the get-go."
Actually, the polls said differently. But what Bush was not counting on was the complete collapse of Democrat support for the same ideas that they had previously expressed favor towards. When Clinton proposed a third of SS taxes be put into private investments (granted he meant investments controlled by government, not by people)-- not a mere 3% or so but a full third-- Democrats supported it overwhelmingly. During the 2000 campaign, Democrats still in polls supported it. They supported it right until Bush proposed it.
"I think the WH thought they could move public opinion, but (again), if they had been paying attention to the polls, he would have seen support for him is still very soft, and predicated upon Iraq"
Yes, it is predicated on Iraq to very large degree. But I think that was one of my points earlier, and I thought you contested it?
... that I do have to make this argument:
"To argue your point, you would have to demonstrate how all easy confirmations ended up not doing what the nomination POTUS would have wanted"
I think I can argue that it is not easy confirmations (which are opposition dependent) that are the issue, but short paper trails (which can also be called a lack of a destinguishable track record). Further, I can argue that what is not required is proof, but probability.
The probability of a Souter goes up as the paper trail goes down. These opportunities come along too infrequently, and the consequences of getting it wrong too important and long lasting, to go that route.
All in my opinon.
And it is great to see you too Jay-- this is the stuff I love doing, debating this stuff. And you always make great points, which makes it even more fun!
"But he will not "win" -- if winning is defined in any way by getting that nominee through the Senate."
But does it have to be defined that way? If he loses, then he will lose in part thanks to Ben Nelson (David Kramer would benefit, or Don Stenberg). He will lose in part thanks to Kent Conrad (Mike Johanns still might run, especially if Bush says it is important. He's serving in Washington now at Bush's request). He will lose in part thanks to Bill Nelson. And so on.
And if he loses now, but they lose a few more seats in 2006 because of it, then he may win in the long run.
He loses only if he nominates a stinker/clinker, or if he nominates a good judge who is defeated and he cannot build on the majority in the Senate.
You do not get your power back by conceding the field to the enemy. It demoralizes your troops (base) and sends a signal that you can be pushed around.
Bush needs talk to the 50 senators who were willing to vote for the "nuclear" option and find a candidate they are all willing to support and use the nuclear option on if the Democrats filibuster.
I always confuse Johanns and Hoeven. Yes, what I said about Johanns is true, but he's the wrong state. But Hoeven, if he runs, can beat Conrad.
Especially after a big SCOTUS fight.
that was nicely done. But I see no reason why the Dem's wouldn't just push him to the wall, because as you said he needs to build the capital that he cannot afford to spend right now. On the other hand, he spends capital now no matter what he does as you have also noted. Say he nominates Gonzales, maybe not as hard to get through as most, or even someone not known, but is this really going to stop the Dem's from going after the kill? I see those holding their breath turning blue.
He nominates someone weak in the knees about about abortion and he get's people "Leaving the Farm" from the right, as I have seen said. Someone tough, and the left goes after that nomination with pick axes and torches. Yes, he spends it all the same and suffers the consequnces anyways. As you have also noted, as time goes by his power is deminishing, therefore his influence, and a later fight for Rehnquists' position only to be maintain might be impossible. Should the Dem's realize they have been duped with some unknown, which they would, the Rehnquist replacement nomination will go down in flaming "Borked" glory and again, there will be nothing that has been gained.
Should he abandone his initial objectives, the parana will only come in to feast that much sooner as the bleeding will be that much more obvious. Like it or not he must stay with a hard liner, stay on course, and it will be Luttig. He must fight tooth and nail for every single scrap he can, because if he does not, he will surely be politically executed and the goal you seek for him ends there. He must hope for a few things to swing in his favor to ease the difficulty of the circumstance.
- Something dramatic and fundementally significant concerning the war effort must occure. i.e. capturing Osama.
- He must consider taking advantage of what the "Mod14" could hand him should there be trouble. A real and serious talk with McCain could help him more than maybe he knows, but this is where he'll have to trade some future capital for some barrowed capital now. And, instead of having Jeb, or Giuliani it will be McCain, at least make McCain believe this.
- Luck may have it that Rehnquist will also retire very, very soon. Putting into motion a fiasco of possibilities that I can't even imagine how to start evaluating right now. But 2 seats at one time opens up many things.
- And finally, he must win D-Day now. Anything but strong powerful leadership or at least the appearance of that and a solid victory with the type of person he really wants (Luttig) will sink him and perhaps both furture nominations. He is of the type that knows the situation, accepts it, and eagerly awaits the battle with anticipation of victory.
A feable and unknown nominee is as surely to suffer the wrath and venom of the left as anyone else and more likely unprepaired to handle such an onslaught from the public, media and Congress. I say put on the armor and get the shields out. You don't want to protect what you want now? Then it ends here, at least for the next few years.
except Schiavo. And that helped confirm many people's worst fear about Republicans: they want to come into your room and make medical decisions for you. It may or may not be fair, but that's what happened. If we lose SS reform and tax reform because of it, I think the moderates have a fine case for being upset by the Bush administration in general and the bumbling of that issue in particular.
"And his trial balloons"
Thanks, but I didn't fly any! I pointed to those your sources were letting fly!!!
:-)
Amen to that. Ideologically speaking, it is highly improbably that I would ever vote largely Democrat, but my enthusiasm for contributing and volunteering and being involved will drop to zilch when I see the GOP failing to get the results I voted for them to get.
I want an unabashed strict constructionist, conservative or not. I want SS reform (err...I want SS to go bye-bye for 95% of the population). I want tax reform (read "national sales tax" or "flat tax").
President Bush has an excellent opportunity to achieve #1. The events regarding the filibuster up until now have created an almost ideal scenario for Frist and the senate GOP if they can just get their act together. If the Democrats try to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee, Frist and Co. will be easily able to justify going forward with the constitutional option and will do so. End game for the Democrats, because once the filibuster is defeated, it a completely impotent weapon and the GOP will be free to confirm virtually whomever the President will nominate. If they don't filibuster, then President Bush still gets who he wants, albeit be after a drawn-out process. Really, all the President has to do is confidently nominate a strict constructionist and ride the Senate GOP to push him through.
Well, actually you forgot NE and ND. I was just wondering why they aren't on your short list?
"In fact, of the eight seats I would say are potentially contestable (PA, RI, MO, MT, WA, MN, MD, FL), only three states are such that the base was large enough in 2004."
I would also add WV and NJ depending on the situation.
It would be a mistake to assume that TN is not in the "in play" category, as well.
You assume the President is in a pincer. Nominate a conservative, he gets filibustered and loses moderate swing voters. Nominate a liberal, he gets them in but the base makes Republicans pay in 2006. You advocate the latter as a less damaging option. In a conventionally framed fight, you're right, we'll lose. However, there is one way I see to turn the tables on this one.
The main cause of this dilemma is the deal, which means we need 60 votes to confirm. Any one of the President's likely nominees would get 50 votes easily. Democrats stated (not in the deal but publicly) they wouldn't filibuster Bolton, but what did they end up doing?
McCain also wants to minimize the deal, he basically has implied that those persons not specifically mentioned in the deal aren't going covered under the non-extremist banner. He won't stick up for anyone he doesn't have to.
This leaves us with one option ... name one of the judges specifically mentioned in the deal as not being extreme (Owen, Brown). You make the issue of extremism and the filibuster as politically hard to use for the Democrats as you possibly can.
Make it so that McCain can't say the deal wasn't broken if they filibuster, and make the case clear to the constiutuents of the red state Democrats who signed the deal that filibustering means their Senator broke his/her promise.
Trust me, the Democrats will filibuster anyone not on completely and publicly on board with their political agenda. The only way Republicans can win is to make that filibuster as politically painful to those who made the deal and then support a filibuster as possible.
- Mr. Cost, you were my favorite pollster during 2008 Presidential election. Calm, thoughtful, methodical, analytical, and right! If I recall, I sent you a "thank you" e-mail, and if I didn't, here is my heartfelt thank you!.
- You are a better pollster, than a political strategist. <smile>
- The Supreme Court is the supreme prize! End of story. Period. Done.
(a) The Sup. Ct., the "least powerful" branch, today is the most powerful branch. It strikes down referendums passed by majority voters or laws passed by the Congress. Have you noticed, its never the other way around?
(b) The Sup. Ct. has unchallenged and imperatorial power to determine the social/cultural issues. If we do not win this battle, in 2 generations, we will become like (former) Western Europe!
For example, if it continues the pro-abortion policies, claiming its a "Constitutional right" (Roe is a totally wrong law in terms of the Constitution), it will erode (i) the concept of life; (ii) the family structure, (iii) the notion of absolute morality.
For example, if it continues to push God out of the public square, the schools, and public discourse, we will reach a non-reversible point of secularization.
For example, if it legalizes homosexual marriage, it will destroy the family life. This is a MUST READ - "End of Marriage In Scandinavia" in Weekly Standard 02/02/2004.
(c) The Sup. Ct. has unchallenged and imperatorial power to determine the economic issues.
For example, they can reverse the racial preferences (PC term is affirmative action)in education and employment.
For Example, they can reverse the unlawful usurpation of the private property (recent Kelo decision - my satirical look "Wal-Mart To Demolish The Supreme Court For a Super Supreme Center" June 23, 2005 article http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog)
For example, they can settle once and for all, that 2nd Amendment applies to individuals to bear arms.
For example, the Sup. Ct. can reverse a lot of burdensome regulations in Commerce, or internet regulation or taxation or employment (the Americans with Disabilities Act).
Someone scream "enough!" Ok, I am done. You can add your list.
The bottom line - The Supreme Court is Everything.
4. You make certain untested assumptions.
(a) You assume that the recent poll numbers are correct. You are the best person to decipher the polls, its methodology, the way the questions are framed. Please do that.
(b) If he does not abandon his base (i) social conservatives, (ii) free enterprise libertarians; (iii) national security/big government conservatives, his poll numbers will not go down any more.
Q: Can he afford to lose his base? No.
(c) If he abandons his base (i) social conservatives, (ii) free enterprise libertarians; (iii) national security/big government conservatives, he can't get anything through.
Q: Why should we support him if he appoints anyone but a Strict Constructionist Justice?
I don't see any reason, and I might stop voting for Republicans, and vote for either Libertarian or the Constitution Party.
(d) If he abandons his base, do you think the liberals or the independents will make up his base? haha....never. Sen. Reid and Nancy Pelosi will "eat" him alive if he loses his base.
5. Again, you make certain untested assumptions:
(a) He might be concerned about his Brother - Jebb Bush's Presidential future.
(i) If W. delivers a Strict Constructivist, Jebb will be the nominee, whether in 2008 or 2012.
(ii) If W. fails us, Jebb will have roadblocks (Jebb still can overcome, but why take the chances?)
6. You correctly point out that he is worried about his legacy. Well, one of George H. W. Bush's legacies was "Souter." Haha...
Q: Do you want George W. Bush's legacy to be a "Spanish Souter" i.e. Alberto Gonzales? Another MUST READ - "Gonzi Is Bush's Ponzi [Scheme] For The The Supreme Court " July 1, 2005 article at http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
Q: Or do you want W's legacy to be another Scalia or Thomas? The three-part base will "worship" him.
7. You are incorrect that the Senators with Presidential ambitions will undermine Bush.
(a) If McCain bolts, it will be the end of his nomination! Its that simply. Did you notice how McCain is pushing Bolton's nomination?
(b) If Chafee or the 2 girls from Main, bolt, they will have hell to pay. Otherwise, its ok to have Chafee as a Repub. Senator (not the best choice, but its not a perfect world).
8. "Dark Horse" - its a two-edge sword.
(a) If we don't know him/her, we can't be certain about their judicial philosphy;
(b) unless they have a consistent judicial philosphy on the federal bench, they most likely will slight to the "The Constitution is a Living Document" bologny.
Sounds like my 2 cents became 2 dollars. So be it.
Kudos on a great post (dare I call it an article? ;), Jay.
Moving away from the Senatorial and national politics of a nomination, though, there arises the question of who exactly to nominate to replace O'Connor. Bush is obviously looking to appoint a solidly conservative judge, while minimizing the rancor in the Senate and on the national stage. Interestingly, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, given the proper candidate.
I think the best man for the job is Emilio Garza. Simply put, he fits your political analysis, nearly to the letter. He is:
a) Conservative, experienced, and fully qualified. Mostly, though, in the context of politics, conservative. In 20 years on the federal bench, he's certainly amassed a large enough record to rule out the possibility of being a stealth lib.
b) Though his name has been bandied about as being on the list, he's certainly not near the top, particularly as many were bracing for a Rehnquist replacement.
c) Hispanic and, as Gerry has duly noted, a former Marine. Although, as you noted, being a minority is not a surefire path to success, it does make a difference, particularly when many were expecting the first Hispanic judge to be Gonzales. Also, the military experience might be played up by some - who knows, maybe the rabid left will attack him for it, thus securing support for him among the mainstream. Not likely, though.
d) While he does have a long "paper trail," his jurisprudence (from what I've read) seems fairly consistent, and I doubt he would have any trouble defending it.
Garza wouldn't be the polarizing choice many were expecting, and the left would be caught off-balance, having expected Gonzales or maybe Luttig.
My best guess is that Bush will go with Garza this time around, and he will be approved fairly swiftly. Rehnquist will resign soon, before the end of next term, and Bush will appoint a Luttig/Roberts/McConnell directly to CJ, avoiding a third fight and squeezing in a solidly conservative and decidedly brilliant (not to mention still relatively young) conservative as Chief Justice, securing his legacy in molding the Court.
With Garza's nomination likely being confirmed without much controversy, Democrats will be hard-pressed to contest Bush's second nomination.
Any controversy they do try to incite will fall solely on their shoulders.
Over-simplification? Perhaps, but it's certainly not impossible to pull off. It's the perfect plan!
Hello White House?
I hope Karl and George are reading! If they are reading, they can find some excellent analysis, and its all free.
And if they are not reading, well, so be it. Its their loss.
There have been some truly excellent analyses in the original post and in the comments, so I won't touch on most of the thoughts about the base, about the process, etc.
I do have a couple of questions, however, as your strategy has me scratching my head on a couple of areas.
First, you write:
What Bush must do, then, is neutralize the left. Give the Senate a nominee who places groups like Moveon and People for the American Way in a difficult position. They will oppose Bush regardless of whom he appoints because they want Bush to lose. However, the correct nominee will minimize their ability to influence potential opponents in the Senate. If these groups cannot present to Senate Democrats a politically compelling case to oppose the nominee, Bush will see fewer opponents in the Senate and therefore get a nominee past the minoritarian roadblocks he faces.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you're suggesting that Bush attempt some sort of a perfect secret agent strategy. Your ideal candidate then has the following qualities:
- a Latino woman
- with a life-long physical disability
- from an underprivileged, preferably urban ghetto, background
- who has no judicial record, no published opinions, no law review articles, and no recorded or transcribed speeches
- who has not been involved in any political or social cause or charity that might hint at his/her thinking
- whose jurisprudence is opaque to everyone but his/her most intimate associates (one of whom is Karl Rove's brother-in-law's college roommate, because...)
- whose jurisprudence is actually strict constructionist in line with Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist, known to the President because of the Rove's brother-in-law's college roommate connection
- and is still someone that the American Bar Association would recognize as being a superb lawyer
Now, let's assume that such a candidate exists and has been kept in a secret judicial bunker by Rove for the past five years.
Thing is, the Democrats recognize that getting his first-choice nominee through the confirmation process smoothly would be a huge win for Bush. I can't think of anything higher on their agenda than making sure that Bush does not get that win. Now consider that a senior leader in the party compares American soldiers to Nazis, and nary a peep from Democrats issues forth. Consider that the base of the Democrats, motivated by little else than hatred of GW Bush, borders on yearning for the innocent days of yore when Uncle Saddam ruled over a peaceful Iraq filled with kite-flying children. Consider the vitriol coming from the CHAIRMAN of the DNC, again with nary a peep from the so-called moderates.
Why should we -- and why do you -- expect that in a SCOTUS nomination fight that the moderates among the Dems would suddenly find their courage and side with the President?
Indeed, given their comfort with, ahem, alternate realities, and their allies in the media, why wouldn't the Democrats simply make up unverifiable lies about Super Secret Agent Nominee, rather than hand Bush a victory on a Supreme Court justice? After all, if her judicial record is so devoid of meaningful content, that can cut both ways.
In such a case, I see a disastrous lineup of incentives from the two sides. The Democrats and Liberals will want to see the nomination go down in flames, simply to embarrass Bush. The Republicans and Conservatives, however, have no real incentive to support the Super Secret Agent Nominee because her views are not known. If I'm a Republican Senator -- even a straight up RINO like Lincoln Chafee -- why would I take a risk for a candidate who may turn out to be a disaster for me?
If I'm a Conservative Senator and Super Secret Agent turns out to be the second coming of Souter, then I'm screwed -- my base just abandoned me. If I'm a McCain or Chafee, and Super Secret Agent turns out to be a female Clarence Thomas, then I'm screwed -- the crossover voters I depend on just abandoned me. This analysis also applies to the "moderate" Democrats you are counting on, by the way: "Sorry! I didn't take down the hated Bush regime when I could have because I thought Super Secret Agent was Souter; sorry she turned out to be Scalia!" isn't going to fly with the Democrats who conflate Bush with Hitler, is it?
Second, I fail to see how this stealth-Scalia strategy really extends Bush's power, even if none of the things I worry about come to be. As you observed:
Presidential power is therefore more psychological than anything else. Influencing others from the Oval Office requires the President to convince them that he should not be defied lightly, that he can impose negative consequences upon those who would defy him
How does a stealth-Scalia strategy actually help the President strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, and whip the recalcitrant GOP politicians into line? After all, he snuck the guy/gal by them. What defiance could anyone offer up to be punished and made an example of? Democrats vote yes because they're simply confused about Stealth Scalia, and Republicans vote yes because they don't know her.
Seems to me that to extend his power, the President should actually nominate someone whom the base supports 100%, the opposition despises 100%, get some defiance up and running, and then find a way to punish that defiance. Otherwise, what fear? What negative consequences?
To be sure, we're talking about the so-called "moderates" in both parties here. Presumably, the moonbats on the Left would vote against Gandhi if the President nominated him to the Supreme Court. Also presumably, the loyal Republicans would vote for Donald Trump if the President nominated him. So we're talking about the guys and gals in the middle.
As to the Republicans who are squishy, do they not fear Bush because he just elected not to discipline them when they were failing to support his Social Security plan, or his nominees for Appellate Courts, or any of the other major issues where they abandoned him? So for a SCOTUS nomination, Bush will really step it up and really mean it? Just doesn't sound logical to me.
As to the Democrats who are squishy, the President could maybe bribe them, but punish them? How? Not campaign for them? He doesn't do it now. Alienate their base from them? Their base hates him. What negative consequences could Bush impose on moderate Democrats to make them fear him, especially over a judicial nomination issue that the moderate Dems can't claim was "for the defense of the homeland" or "war against terror" or whatever as they do in foreign affairs issues?
Third, supposing for the moment that Bush nominates someone who is a Souter, and known to be, and the MoveOn guys indeed move on, and Harry Reid wisely nods his head and Uncle Kennedy gives his blessing, and the nomination sails through without a hitch. Bush gets his "quick, clean victory" and gains this political capital and extends his power... by surrendering before the fight, but still, a victory of sorts.
Seems to me that your suggestion is that Bush can now use this political power to accomplish his other major goals. Okay.
What significant accomplishments are worth the sacrifice of a Supreme Court justice?
Victory in the war on terror, yes.
Social Security reform with private accounts - maybe. (After all, the Supreme Court could rule that unconstitutional.)
Um... institute a flat tax? Perhaps, though that too could be ruled unconstitutional.
Uh... immigration reform? Tort reform? Energy bill? Balancing the budget?
My point is that putting justices on the Supreme Court is among the most enduring and most significant of accomplishments of a modern President. What other accomplishments are worth risking that?
I think you raised excellent points; and I really appreciated the thoughtful analysis. I hope you could clarify the above points.
-TS
...though I must agree that I disagree with it almost entirely!
1. I think you are underestimating the importance of that 50% threshold. It is difficult to expand upon this point b/c, as you say, there are few data points to deal with. At the least, I think you might be willing to admit that there is something more than "emotionally griping."
2. I have taken many good looks at PA. I come from PA as a matter-of-fact, and would be willing to argue the following points:
- Specter did not win b/c of the base as much as he did b/c of Philly loyalty and cross-over Democrats (i.e. those who temporarily switched party ID and crossed back). The fact that Specter held on is, in my judgment, a sign that the PA base is weak.
- I love the middle T. My uncle lives in Forest County. Unfortunately, the middle T is very, very tiny in terms of population. I would be wary to tout its power. My general reference of Pennsylvania being a state where the base and the base alone will not save Santorum was due in large part to the increased number of Philly residents and how Philly suburbanites, though they elect GOP congressmen, seem averse to the Bush/Santorum brand of conservatism. Both the Pittsburgh suburbs (where I am from...Go Raiders!) and the Philly suburbs seem to be Republican based upon fiscal, rather than cultural issues.
- I would strongly dispute the characterization that Schweiker could have retained the seat against Rendell. He passed a series of large tax increases in his last months as governor. He might not have done this had he been running for reelection, but then he would have faced the budget problems Ridge had left behind.
- I think you are also mischaracterizing the Rendell v. Fisher. That race was never really ever close, which is probably why it closed in the last few days. It is like comparing the Dole v. Clinton race of 1996. Clinton won by seven points, but the race had never been a real one.
- And, anyway, as you well know, Gerry, the content of a state legislature frequently has little bearing on the state's participation in more national affairs. All signs largely point toward PA moving into the "moderate blue" category. Santorum's two elections have been an exception to its national political behavior since 1992.
3. I do not think you demonstrated your point about the base being more important in 2006. In the Senate, a majority of the states in contestation will be blue states (btw. I think, with all due respect...and you are due a lot..., that you are stretching to argue that MN is not blue in terms of national politics.) My point was that the seats in play tend to skew almost 2-1 toward blue. If Bush had to beat Kerry in those states only to win the White House, a lanky lib from MA would be the one perking his ears at "Hail to the Chief." The GOP would still hold the House, but the Dems would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
4. I tend to eschew the reliance predicated upon "self-identifiers." Academics generally do, too. They have been smoked by that in the past. The Michigan School emerged with their American Voter in 1960 which basically said the public is not ideological. In 1979, Nie, Verba and Petrocik responded with The Changing American Voter where they found that Americans are more ideological than the MI School had thought. The trouble was that they used self-identification as their reason for that judgment. On larger surveys, usually only used by academics, it has since been discovered that self-proclaimed ideologues largely tend to be all over the map, possessing conservative, moderate and liberal positions.
The most reliable estimate I've read on the real number of ideologues has been from Sniderman, Tetlock and Brody's Reasoning and Choice. These guys are political psychologists with much more sophisticated tools than the original MI school. They put the number of functional ideologues at about 25%. A good chunk of this group is not intellectually conservative or liberal. About 15% of them do not develop their ideology by way of reading Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill or Karl Marx. They use emotional cues, in their term heuristics, to connect ideological dots. I am willing to cede that Bush's base is about 35-40%, but I would eschew labeling them conservative. Among political scientists who study the subject, the issue of whether voters are well-informed is a dead letter. They've known since 1944 that they are not. The recent issue has been how they deal with these low levels of information.
4. This point relates to the previous. I would argue that the data indicates not that I am assuming too little of the average voter, but that you are assuming too much. For over forty years, study after study has indicated that the public is susceptible to framing effects -- in large part b/c their information levels are very, very low. Shanto Iyengar's Who's Responsible? is a great example. The problem, until recently, was that these arguments were based not on polling, but on experimentation. Recently though, people like Larry Bartels have found evidence within field data that indicates that framing is a very really phenomenon. His Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice is a must-read on the subject, I think. The bar-none best book on the subject, though, is John Zaller's Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
5. My reference to Bush and SS was more due to a lack of confidence people have expressed in the economy. A forward-thinking, sophisticated Bush administration could have, should have anticpated the Democratic opposition (holding any pol, GOP or Dem, to his prior statements is always bad strategy) and the nature of the debate to ensue. Again, I would assert that support in, say October, of private accounts was not a good measure for giving the program the "go" because public opinion would change as the Dems chime in (this gets back to Zaller and the "cues"people receive from elites).
6. My comment on Iraq was meant to indicate that there is something more substantive to Bush's poll #'s than the summer doldrums which many POTUSes face in year 5.
Thank you for your kind words about my 2004 blog. I think you will be pleased with 2006's (coming soon! Bigger, better, more explosions!).
I have several responses.
1. I strongly disagree with your (4), and strongly advise you (and anybody) to read Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope. He systematically deconstructs the otherwise untested assumption that the Court is dangerous. He finds himself in agreement with Hamilton.
2. I think the polls regarding Bush's sagging are legit. They all show movement outside the margin-of-error.
3. As I mentioned to Gerry Dales above (post #44 or thereabouts), I do not think this is a matter of "abandoning the base." The base can be spun (or, in academic language, the issue can be framed for them that helps Bush).
4. Though I did not mention it, I think Gonzalez is disqualified under my suggestions, specifically the one lacking a paper trail. The left will be up in arms about him. Plus, Gonzalez is not a dark horse. He is a known quantity -- and I want Bush to appoint what is, for the rest of the public, an unknown quantity.
NB: I find it interesting nobody is taking seriously my argument that Bush can, if he puts his mind to it, determine the quality of a nominee. The disappointments over the years are due to poor vetting processes, which in turn are due to POTUS's not sufficiently concerned about their power.
5. No way Jeb runs in '08. No way.
6. McCain is, if he is running, pursuing a unique political strategy. I doubt its wisdom, but giving Bush a headache on this nomination would be part and parcel of it. Also, I fail to see what kind of hell Snowe and Collins would pay. Ditto for a whole host of GOPers.
7. I appreciate your correct spelling of bologny (seriously!), but I must disagree on this Constitution being a non-living document. Rather, I think that is one of the most awful dichotomies ever created. The Constitution is a product of pre-industrial America. It is the fundamental law of the land in post-industrial America. I think most people would agree that the only way this has happened is by its evolution over time (e.g. it is very difficult to justify the bureaucracy under the Constitution). The real issue is whether we want the Courts or the Congress being the primary interpreters of the Constitution. My preference is the former. I am guessing yours is, too.
...especially to a thought-provoking post. Your #2 identified what was, for me, the key weakness I identified retrospectively in my article. I hope to ameliorate that problem by expanding upon that. However, I must deal with (1) first.
A. I think you are being a tad hyperbolic here. I am not suggesting that the nominee possess any demographic characteristics, nor am I suggesting that he have no paper trail, no opportunity to draw reasonable inferences. I am suggesting that there is no opportunity to draw inferences that will sway the moderates within Congress. No major cases on abortion, etc, that would raise the ire of Dems. This is not to say that the WH could not draw inferences independent of the paper trail. Long interviews and face-to-face conversations are a good option (Bush is a good judge of character, after all). Also, one could find conservatives to vouch for the nominee. H-Dubya's failure with Souter was relying simply on Sonunu, his Chief of Staff. Obviously, more work would be needed than this. The WH could sample broadly from intellectuals and interest groups to gauge opinios on nominees. The Federalist Society is of particular use here, I think.
B. The "stealth" strategy would enhance Bush's power because people would not know they are being stealthed, first and foremost. But above all, it would defy conventional wisdom. The CW right now is that this will be a bruising battle, outcome currently indeterminable. Even Fox News was playing that angle tonight. If Bush gets a clean win, then people will begin to respect his political skills, his ability to win so easily with his first choice. This will induce pols to be more skeptical of the WH's acumen in the future. It is a sign that they are sophisticated and subtle enough to nail a defector in the future, should the need arise.
As for punishing wayward Dems, there are a whole host of ways to do it. The Bush-friendly Senate Appropriations Cmte Chairman might get a little stingy when it comes to that member's pork. The Senate leadership might decide next term that the Dems only get 8 rather than 9 seats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and <too bad!> the junior member from Florida gets bumped. Things like that, just to name a few.
(C) I am not referencing the loss of the Supreme Court. What we are discussing in your (3) is the loss of a swing voter who is not that reliable anyway. And, as for what's worse the Supreme Court, a lot of things. But I happen to have a minority opinion that there is much more heat than light when it comes to discussing the effect of the Court. I cannot suggest to enough people Gerald Rosenberg's The Hollow Hope: The Supreme Court and Social Policy. The title says it all, the book literally proves it. I wonder if Rosenberg, on faculty at my department, gets a lot of extra purchases because of my constant touting of it, will he fast-track my dissertation? That'd be nice!
...winning can be defined any other way.
Bush gets a few extra GOPers in the Senate in '06. Maybe. Big maybe -- requires the presumption that this will carry over as an issue in every state (a doubtful proposition, in my judgment). My guess is that Bush will nominate a meely-mouthed guy that these moderate Dems will be happy to support, neutralizing the issue and giving them a win-win.
Meanwhile, Bush gets nothing done through the rest of the 109th as he embarasses himself (and further diminishes his power). This will surely work in favor of any disobedient Dems up for reelection.
Then the 110th comes along. Bush has maybe six months of relevancy left before he really becomes a lame duck (though it will be up to him to redevelop his power after this big SCOTUS loss, something which I am doubtful he can do). Once the 2008 crowd starts announcing, he moves to A-20.
...meely-mouthed as a second choice. I maintain that his first choice need not be meely-mouthed.
...that this is not, in my judgment, an either/or proposition. It is not either a fight or a Souter. I would maintain that Bush, if he is smart, can get a Scalia-like justice absent a fight.
It just requires some good politicking! Come on, people! All I'm saying is that Bush needs to take a page out of FDR's book! :-)
I'm not saying he should punt here. All I'm saying is he should be crafty, given his difficult position. I am surprised that this is so controversial to many.
"The probability of a Souter goes up as the paper trail goes down."
You forgot to add my critical addendum, which is "assuming Dubya does not do a little extra digging on his own." A good POTUS can and would do exactly that.
I think it would be equally tough to argue that short paper trails yield surprise justices, or that long ones do. Rehqnuist, after all, had a short paper trail. Ditto for Thomas. Blackmun had a longer one...and look what he did!
"I think you are underestimating the importance of that 50% threshold. It is difficult to expand upon this point b/c, as you say, there are few data points to deal with. At the least, I think you might be willing to admit that there is something more than "emotionally griping.""
Nope. I put no importance on it. Every President since Kennedy has spent time well below 50%. Every President since Kennedy has spent time below 40%, except this one. There is no evidence to me that 50% has any significance, other than psychological.
Re: Pa, yeah, I think I overstated it with saying Specter won because of the base. However, I will say I disagree with you on Schweiker, I agree the Fisher race was never all that close which is why it got no help from the RNC-- which turned out to be a mistake when he lost by only 5 points; it was a winnable race. Re Pitt and Philly burbs and fiscal v. cultural issues, I am defining the base on cultural issues or on fiscal issues. You are. I am defining the base as self identified Republican conservatives. In aggregate, they are both fiscally and socially conservative, and they make up the bulk of the party and are our most reliable voters. Re state legislatures, I disagree. They are a sign of the strength of a state party's base, or at least its voting reliability. The correlation between that and voting for President may be weak, but there is a reason that Arkansas has two Democrat Senators and so does North Dakota, just as there is a reason Pennsylvania has two Republicans.
Re: base being more important in 2006. Again, that is not what I said. What I said was that the universe of all adults who will be eligible to vote in the meaningful 2006 elections will be to the political right, in aggregate, of the universe of all adults who live in the United States.
Re:Minnesota not being blue-- I don't think I made that claim. I think I said that I cannot speak in as much detail about it. But, even though I was not planning on making that argument, I think it is a defensible one. The delegation to the House consists of four Republicans and four Democrats. The two Senate seats are split. Since 1978, the Democrats have squeezed two terms out of the two Senate seats. Republicans hold all statewide elected executive positions except for Attorney General. Since 1979, the DFL has won the Governorship for only two terms (both by Rudy Perpich). This is the profile of a state with a healthy base, and the past Senate successes and past Gubernatorial successes suggest to me that it has for a while. The only thing that suggests it does not is that it hasn't gone Republican in Presidential elections in, and I may be slightly exaggerating this, 10 million years.
Re: The Michigan school study-- I am not familiar with it, but I think that holding fast to what was true in 1960 as if it is true today is shaky. What I do know is that ideologic self identification has been remarkably steady since at least the mid '70s.
Second, ideologues play no part in this discussion, since they are a statistically irrelevant percentage. Self identified Republican conservatives are not-- they are well more than half (and in many states, significantly more) of the typical Republican vote.
Re: framing-- you are preaching to the choir about how important it is and can be. However, there is a reason that Republicans have difficulty framing issues to Democratic voters, while Democrats have difficulty framing issues to Republican voters. Information gets out, and it gets out through paths that are predictable and are amenable to a particular party's arguments-- a point you are making, it seems, in your reference to Zaller. If the nominee is a good one, and there are positive vibes eminating from Senators, Represenatives, Governors, trusted pundits, leaders of interest groups like the NRA or Focus in the Family or Club for Growth, the word gets out. So I am not really sure why we are disagreeing; it seems we should be. Perhaps it is because you think that this positivity will flow regardless of who the nominee is; if so I find that to be unproven and probably difficult to defend.
Re: your last point, I never dismissed Bush's numbers as being just summer doldrums in year five (a phenomenon I did not claim existed). What I did say is that his numbers are not in uncharted waters nor in waters that foresaged doom for those with them previously-- points I do not think you have countered.
"I am defining the base on cultural issues or on fiscal issues"
That should have said, I am not defining the base...
...a President does extra digging on his own, the chances of a Souter goes up as the length of the paper trail goes down (obviously an unprovable assertion, but I think it is a solid one).
Further, I doubt Bush himself would be doing the digging. His people would, at his beck and call. There is no evidence to suggest this was not done for Souter. There is evidence, however, that George Herbert Walker Bush trusted the wrong guy to do that digging-- Warren Rudman.
President Bush promised in BOTH of his campaigns to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
If he breaks that promise and makes a judge deal wtih the Democrats, his attempts to explain it away will be no more successful than his father's attempts to explain away his tax deal with the Democrats.
on paper while a majority of the people still do not experience it as such, Yes, that is what I am saying. You need look no further than the nearest gas pump, or the state of most people's health care coverage (if they have any at all) to see what may be bothering a lot of people. The fact that the stock market may be doing well is rather remote for most of us. Most people are actually living off their pay checks, not their dividends. Even people who have stock investments in a 401K or IRA will not notice what's happening there so much as they do what's happening with their day-to-day expenses and income. And there are some problems in that area.
Also, another factor in the discontent: the almost total disappearance of job security. Even if someone is making 100K he is painfully aware that that can vanish tomorrow, through no fault of his own, and with little for him to fall back on. Most surveys show that income volatility, even for the well off, has increased drastically over the last generation (no, this is not something I am blaming on Bush!) and this intrudes a certain amount of fear into people's lives so that even very good news is darkened by the awareness that bad news they are powerless to prevent may be just around the corner.
Re: I am willing to cede that Bush's base is about 35-40%, but I would eschew labeling them conservative.
If you mean by this the cohort of people who will vote GOP reliably absent something unusual (a major scandal or an attractive third party candidate like Perot in 92) then you are probably right. However this base breaks down into several different bases. The social conservatives probably come in at around 20% the fiscal conservatives at maybe 15% and the national security folks at about 5% and the rest are just people who are Republican by label and tradition (they were raised that way) not because they have some overarching ideology that paints them into that corner.
by Schiavo, but I don't blame Bush for that. I blame Congressional republicans for that, Tom DeLay in particular.
In the end, I hope Schiavo taught Congressional republicans something, but I fear that it didn't teach the ones that needed to be taught. DeLay seems (key word) unapologetic about the whole Schiavo incedent. I am a social conservative in many ways in my personal beliefs. However, I do not think the Federal government should get involved in legislating all of these beliefs. Many are best left to the states, or to be just a personal decision about your own behavior. Medical decisions are inherently a private matter and I do not think ANY level of government should really be involved in them, except to make sure the drugs are safe for their intended use.
Re: The Souter pick is just part and parcel of the story that we can tell about the one-term H-Dubya: he was a lousy president.
I think this is overstating the case. Bush One was a lousy politician, but not a bad president. He managed the end game of the Cold War in an expert manner and given the stakes involved there had he done nothing else right we should still be forever grateful to him for that. But he also rallied to world to drive Saddam out of Kuwait (albeit he failed to bring Saddam down) and his administration handled the S&L collapse fairly well so it did less economic damage than it might have.
One of the major advantages the Democrats have in the SCOTUS battle is the solid support from the so-called mainstream media. Let's face facts - to most of the mainstream media a non-extreme justice is one that's a rubber stamp for the ACLU.
Don't expect to see many objective articles or unbiased polls. If properly asked, I am sure most Americans would prefer a strict constructionalist rather than a judge who will legislate from the bench.
If you have not already done so, now is a good time to cancel your subscription to Time, Newsweek or the local rag that always slants the news to the left.
- I do not think the Federal government should get involved in legislating all of these beliefs
What belief do you think the Congress legislated there, and why do you suppose that belief wasn't carried out?
Re: The Sup. Ct. has unchallenged and imperatorial power to determine the social/cultural issues. If we do not win this battle, in 2 generations, we will become like (former) Western Europe!
For the US to become like Western Europe would require the US to adopt a high-tax welfare state model of society and to abandon any effort at national power. I cannot see how the Supreme Court can bring about either transformation, both of which are profoundly unlikely given the inherent conservatism of US culture in these matters. Moreover I believe you overestimate the power of the Court, or of any organ of governance, to effect changes in the culture. Culture is largely independent of politics. People who vote a straight GOP ticket will still watch Desperate Housewives, enjoy the company of their gay best friend and not raise a fuss over their daughter moving in with her boyfriend without benefit of clergy. The culture will go where it will, and have rather little effect of the politics of the nation except where culture warriors choose to pick a fight with it--and those fights will not benefit the GOP in the long run. They will hurt it, because of something else that is deeply ingrained in the American character, a certain libertarianism that dismisses scolds and prudes with "Ain't none of your durn business what I do!". Recent history is littered with the efforts of despots and tyrants to alter culture and human nature, and despite racking up body counts reaching to the sky they all failed. Sound money, healthy trade, safe streets and secure borders are the main things the government should be busying itself with. Who sleeps with whom is not.
with this sentiment, but also with the original idea.
If Bush sticks to his guns and picks a conservative like Thomas or Scalia, and this fact is well known, and he gets them through without a bloodbath then his power will increase. The odds of this happening are slim to none however I believe.
If Bush picks a conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas but somehow this fact does not seem to be picked up on (how I do not know), then Bush does gain power in Congress and reinfoces the support of many republicans.
If Bush picks someone who doesn't fit the mold because he thinks the Senate will confirm him/her then Bush will be pulling a "Read My Lips" moment, and will not really gain any power in the Senate, but will instead have ceeded power to the Democrats.
I personally, am of the belief that there will be a fight unless he nominates a "good solid mainstream conservative like O'Connor" to use a phrase from Ted Kennedy's remarks yesterday. (might not be exact, but that's the gist of them) Kennedy also threw the gauntlet down by insisting the president take seriously the "advise" part of the "advise and consent" clause. If Bush takes someone who doesn't fit the mold of scalia or thomas he could rightly or wrongly be seen as kowtowing to Ted Kennedy, and nothing in the world would alienate the Republican base faster than that.
1. I read different poll results and their respective spins that Bush's Social Security reform plan is popular with (a) the public at large, albeit not a big majority, (b) the majority of young voters, etc. For a moment, let's put aside (i) the methodology of these polls (and hopefully you will conduct or analyze these polls when you choose to do so) or (ii) the results.
If you think
- long term
, talking and doing something about the Social Security is a winner:
(A) For George Bush: especially if you want to (a) attract young voters, who don't vote a straight party line, (b) frame the issue and deny the liberals that privilege and advantage;
(B) For the conservative movement;
(C) for the Republican Party;
(D) for 2008 Presidential race.
P.S. I wish for a reputable and competent poll about this. (Jay,guess who I have in mind? <smile>)
2. My good friend Will Franklin at http://www.willisms.com is doing a fantastic job about the Social Security Reform. George Bush and Karl Rove should hire this fellow! ("Hello, White House operator, is Our President available? Ah, he is a bit busy. I understand.")
Cheers!
- Adam, did Poland join our Union? And without a fight? Haha...<wink>
- They bring a large pro life vote, so the Dems will filibuster that union too. (Darn, I should write a satire about that)
Cheers!
weak-kneed Republicans and Arlen Specter. Did someone hear a shoe drop somewhere?
This is a quick response. I hope to address this issue in detail, here or in a diary. I am already addressing it my satire.
- (Former) Western Europe has no God. Presently, the Constitution is a "living document" dangerous theory advanced and implemented by the left/socialist/liberal/secular movement has expelled God from the public square. SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES OR PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN ABSOLUTE MORALITY (AS CONTRASTED WTIH THE RELATIVE MORALITY) HAVE ALREADY TAKEN NOTE.
- Similarly, the recent Sup. Ct. decision in Kelo demostrates that the private property is also under assault. FREE MARKET PROPONENTS TAKE A NOTE.
- I lived and studied in (Former) Western Europe. the "Titanic" is not even close. Give them 2 more generations and Europe is dead!
Toynbee said that "civilizations are not murdered, they commit suicide." (I won't even go into Schiavo matter).
4. Just look at Spain and see how the recent ruling about homosexuals having a right to get married will cause. Havoc. Destruction of the family. Breakdown of the society's foundation.
Darn, the 9th Circuit was almost inventing a new right in the Constitution - a
"Constitutional right" to get married.
5. For the seculars or atheists who don't give a damn about God and/or absolute morality, but want a higher standard of living, a higher income, bigger homes, better cars, etc. - don't vote for the Democrat party (hijacked by the lunatic left).
Just look at the (Former) Western Europe.
If Bush nominated Coulter (who certainly does know her stuff, by the way), one thing would be certain: I would be tuning into C-SPAN regularly. The confirmation hearings would turn into Must See TV.
Actually, on a bit of further research, Garza has pretty well-publicized views on abortion, and has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe.
That could be some heavy baggage to carry into a Senate confirmation hearing.
I still think he's a good pick though. ;)
They figure "the base" is 35-40% (70-80% of Republicans), it also seems that the Senate Republicans are only about 70-80% in "the base". Some of them just occasionally jump out of line (Hagel), some of them are headaches (Collins, Voinovich), and some of them seem to be in a political party of their own (McCain, Snowe, Chafee). As a result, a simple majority in the Senate isn't enough. What the GOP needs to focus on are these possibly vulnerable Senate seats in 2006 (MD, MN, ND, NE, FL, WV, LA, and possibly MI come to mind) to try to get into the 60-62 seat range... it may not swat all filibusters with how the stragglers act, but it would make a filibuster far more difficult for Senate Dems...
Two things must be true, for your assertion to hold.
(1) It is possible for the WH to find out "the truth" about a nominee, while it is impossible for the Dems/MSM to learn the same thing. That Bush's administration is completely free of leaks. We have already seen that this is not true.
(2) That absent any information, including "Why are the R's supporting THIS nominee?", the Dems will assume that the no-paper-trail nominee is "one of theirs" and not filibuster. You assume the Dems need a documented reason to filibuster; they've shown they only need a few conspiracy theories on dKos and a drumbeat they can dance to.
On the contrary, both sides in the Senate and pressure/funding groups will take the rational view in a low-information environment: a mystery candidate is "one of the opposition". How could W convince the Senators and others nominally aligned with him that Candidate X is not Souter2? By sharing his information? That's the quickest route to the front page short of a press release I can imagine. By asking all those Senators and 527s to "trust me" absent any proof?
I don't think, on this issue, the Prez has any credibility to ask THAT of them, or us. Not while he's still openly flirting with Mr. Gonzales.
you're so eager to advocate pre-emptive surrender on judges. Not only do you abhor the idea that the Dem's filibuster of a conservative nominee might provoke the nuke option for real (loss of "collegiality" in the Senate and all that hokum), but since the SupCt just isn't that important, we all should just give up, shut up, and go home. Move along, nothing to see here.
Sorry. Not going to fly. Even IF your assertion about the relative power of the SupCt were true, the Republicans have invested 20 years of electoral strategery in the opposite position. That much effort, successful in its goal to elect more R's to Congress/Senate/Presidency, is not going to be abandoned overnight because you, or your thesis advisor, say so.
I'll believe in the Court's powerlessness as soon as W pulls a Jackson and refuses to enforce one of their pronouncements. They have whatever power "we" (e.g. the political zeitgeist) assume that they have: and the Left and the MSM have spent 50 years asserting the Court's absolute primacy over all aspects of human endeavour in this country. Sadly, I have to admit that their propaganda has succeeded -- even those of us who WISH the court weren't so powerful, are forced into these bruising battles because like it or not, they ARE that powerful because "we" have ceded them that power over the past decades. The Court-uber-alles propaganda has been so successful, that I'm sure a majority of Americans agree with the sentiment, if not the actual wording, of Nancy Pelosi's statement Thursday concerning the Kelo decision: "It's almost as if God has spoken."
Sic transit liberty.
is not that far off. It doesn't seem he place circumstance out of perspective, but rather got it pretty close.
What he wants to ultimately do, I have a disagreement with. But, his assertions seem accurate.
One thing I tend to think is, when your powerful is when you make concessions because you can absorb the inevitable without too much damage. Try it when your weak, and those hunting you know your weak, your going to have a hard time of it now. Only staying strong, or least appearing that way, is what nature respects. It will eat all other's that portray weakness.
To me, the Pres has no choice but to stay on target, or he loses everything. He may lose everything anyways, but at least I think he'll have a chance of success this way. Consessions when weak is only a political death trap.
Re: Darn, the 9th Circuit was almost inventing a new right in the Constitution - a
"Constitutional right" to get married.
I don't know what the 9th Circuit has to do with the matter, but the "right to get married" was invented or affirmed or whatever by the Supreme Court itself back in Loving vs Virgina (which struck down miscegenation laws). Is that precedent you wish to see reversed?
At any rate, the gay marriage horse has been flogged regularly on this site and most others will know where I stand: certianly it should not be something imposed judicially, but it is otherwise a commendable idea since it affirms that (absolute, if you like) moral principle that sex belongs within the confines of marriage.
As for Europe having no God, neither does "America" or any other continent or political state. Reliogious faith is a property of individual men and women. Only they may have faith and enjoy salvation. And true faith can neither be created nor destroyed by any governmental action. If you sat James Dobson and eight clones of him on the Supreme Court the people of the United States would be no more godly or virtuous than if instead you sat nine clones of Madelyn Murray O'Hare there.
My guess is that the President would have a bit more "political capital" if he were to nominate a female (that is, have a lesser "resistance to conservative credentials" ratio) than if he were to nominate a male.
I know that a couple of his female federal nominees ran into trouble, but my guess is that more of the nation will be paying attention to the Supreme Court nomination/confirmation process.
Dear Jay,
What did you do again? My goodness, you need a good spanking. I just checked, and there are 99 comments.
Oh heavens!
Keep up the good work. <wink>
Your friend, David.
We are, after all, talking about the President that nominated Bolton for U.N. Ambassador. In Texas Hold'em, that's not exactly playing "tight."
This President strikes me as someone who understands the importance of keeping his campaign promise to nominate conservative judges, and then fight to get them confirmed. Even if he loses that fight, what has he really lost? The amity of the liberal left?
Bush has seen all too well what happens with wasted SCOTUS opportunities. His father got Souter and Thomas through; Reagan got Scalia, Kennedy, and O'Connor. Both of those Presidents faced Democrat majorities.
How would the legal landscape look different today if either one of those Presidents had gotten one more true conservative through? Just one would have made a huge difference in the last 15 - 25 years.
George W. Bush doesn't want to use this nomination to "maximize his power" for some future goal. THIS is what his power is for - to affect policy for decades to come. THIS is his legacy at stake. Bush needs to take a page from Lombardi - at the end of this fight, he should lie exhausted on the field of battle, victorious. If he holds back even the slightest bit, by waffling his nomination or by failing to expend all resources to secure the confirmation, he has betrayed himself and those who put him in the office he now holds.
I agree. Bush does not like to play what he calls "small ball." Supreme Court Justices are not small ball; they are why someone goes to all the trouble of becoming President of the United States... which is a big hassle.
Once there, you might as well try to reform Social Security, overhaul the tax code, remake the Middle East, and re-cast the Supreme Court for the next 25 years. The other stuff you could do by hiring a lobbyist.
You are surely right that I was being way hyperbolic =D Mea culpa. Nonetheless, I think you may have missed the main quesiton of point #1.
I don't disagree that there are ways for Bush to nominate someone without a long paper trail who is nonetheless a solid Originalist judge.
But again, the issue is, why do you believe that moderate Democrats, who have shown no backbone whatsoever in standing up to the moonbat MooreOn wing of their party, will somehow find courage in a Supreme Court nomination fight?
I'm of the opinion that this is the one area where neither side can afford to take a risk. Republicans certainly can't afford to alienate the base -- and putting Originalist judges on the Supreme Court may be one of the areas where the SoCons and the EconCons/Libertarians find solid ideological agreement. If Roe v. Wade is the SoCon outrage for the ages, Kelo is the Economic/Libertarian Conservative outrage. I don't know that I could support a party that controls the Presidency, the Senate, and the House and still can't get Originalist justices on the Supreme Court.
Democrats, on the other hand, can't afford to risk strengthening Bush and giving him a stealth Scalia justice. Their base would crucify them far more, over far less. I think they're gearing up for the mother of all battles, in large part because after the Mod14 Compromise gave Bush some Appellate Court judges, they absolutely cannot be seen to have been rolled. In that heightened atmosphere, I find your faith in the good faith of moderate Democrats to be misplaced; and your assumption that moderate Democrats could somehow be bamboozled unwarranted.
As to point B -- I don't go as far as cwilson in thinking that you're advocating a pre-emptive surrender. I think you're honestly advocating a stealth Scalia strategy. But that still has to deal with two issues:
First, if defying conventional wisdom were all it required to get power, then pre-emptive surrender is in fact a way to get that power. I think you need to clarify why this isn't the case; that why power is extended only if Bush defies CW in a particular way, getting what he wants, without a protracted fight.
Second, the kinds of punishing-the-Dems methods you're outlining seems really far more appropriate to the House. The Senate went to war over a minor organizational rule about how many votes it takes to invoke cloture. I honestly don't see how GOP committee chairs can strongarm Democrats and get away with it. Again, with the Democrat allies in the Media, such backroom maneuvers are not likely to go unnoticed; if anything, they will be magnified as some sort of an evil plan to disenfranchise Democrats or some such thing.
If this would not happen, I'd like to hear why it wouldn't.
As for point (C), we'll just agree to disagree on the relative importance of the Supreme Court. :)
Looking forward to next set of clarifications.
-TS
I almost never disagreed with anything I read in Jay's Horserace Blog, but I find myself strongly disagreeing with his analysis of this issue. Bush is unlikely to gain political capital by trying to finesse the Supreme Court nomination. He has a much better chance of increasing his power if he takes an extremely bold step such as nominating Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown.
His goal should be to put the opposition on the defensive and then apply all the pressure he can muster to push his choice through the Senate. Since Owen and Brown have just been approved as part of the moderate deal, nominating either one would place the moderate Democrats in a terrible bind. They'd have no credible way of claiming that Owen or Brown represented extraordinary circumstances. Conversely, the moderate Republicans who signed onto the deal (and have taken much political heat as a result) can instantly proclaim that a filibuster of Owen or Brown is out of the question and would be an obvious violation of the agreement.
Either through a cave-in by the moderate Democrats or approval of the nuclear option by two or three "betrayed" moderate Republicans, the result is likely to be Senate approval of Owen or Brown. And that victory is what will bolster Bush's power.
Remember the 2001 tax cut? It was declared dead-on-arrival by nearly everyone. But Bush pushed and pushed. Eventually he ended up with most of what he wanted, and far more than anyone expected. That gave him a reputation for confounding the conventional wisdom, to the consternation of the liberal media and his political opponents. It fed the image that he was constantly being "misunderestimated", as he achieved goals that were considered out of reach.
The same thing will happen if Bush nominates a radical Supreme Court Justice who is subsequently confirmed. If the Democrats and liberal interest groups can't stop that, how can they hope to stop anything else? It will be deeply demoralizing for Democrats, and highly energizing for Republicans.
...60-62 seats would be great, but the time to act is now, when at least three SC seats will come up for grabs. As I've said many times on this site, we have the chance NOW to alter the leftist make up of the court. We may not get it again with the Dems continually signing up felons, illegal aliens, and an entire army of welfare recipients as constituents.
Remember, Jean Francois Kerry got 69 million votes last year.
In short, when the takers outnumber the makers in this country, our fate will be sealed.
One caveat is the sick feeling that the millionaires club really doeasn't want an imbalanced court. They just want to maintain the status quo and all the attendant political posturing which assures them re-election. And therefore, of course, the seats of power and privilege to which the have become so comfortably accustomed...
Re: If Roe v. Wade is the SoCon outrage for the ages, Kelo is the Economic/Libertarian Conservative outrage.
Very few liberals support Kelo either. It is a rare case of a decision that has offended all across the ideological spectrum.
are completely WRONG. The SCOTUS is the domestic equivalent to the war on terror. Some weak kneed moderate don't like the RIGHT nominee then thats tough. Let's do it right. These people serve for life. Bush isn't running again in 2008 anyways. The SCOTUS appointee will remain. Fight the battle to win. Remember the lessons of Vietman fight, "There is no such thing as a limited war". If it is filibustered then NUKE'em!
GOPers, quit looking at 2006 senate races or Bush approval numbers as justification to cut and run. Let's Get 'er Done!
What is equally interesting is that Hatch did not suggest or insinuate that Clinton would only get a moderate pick through the Senate.
Hatch was willing to allow Clinton to put two liberals on the court (and I know that Breyer is moderate on law enforcement and in rare instances, like the recent court decision on the 10 commandments on "free expression" issues) as long as Clinton did not try to put Bruce Babbitt on the court. Bruce Babbit would have done for Clinton what Abe Fortas did for Johnson. Namely, he would've reported back to the president like a mole and used his position on the court to try to bully senators who disapproved of Clinton's policies. Plus Babbitt had some major ethical problems.
I don't think that Hatch picked Ginsburg and Breyer because he considered them to be moderates. He picked them because they were liberals who he felt could at least be trusted to maintain a consistent and pricipled position on issues. The most dangerous Supreme Court justice is the one who applies rules like "habeus corpus" and "executive privilege" differently based on the party affiliation of the person asserting the right. And, as much as I personally believe that Ginsburg and Breyer have flip-flopped on issues like "state's rights" depending on whether a conservative or a liberal is asserting the right, I think that they are more or less consistent on most issues. I can't say that Babbitt could be trusted with that much power.
I'm sure that if Reid or Leahy were to recommend 2 or 3 TRUE CONSERVATIVES to President Bush (similar to the way Hatch recommended two TRUE LIBERALS to Clinton) Bush would take those names under serious consideration. I hope that Reid is serious about not allowing a filibuster on the four names that he has already floated (Mel Martinez, Lindsay Graham, Mike Dewine, and Mike Crapo). But I also hope that he doesn't interpret Hatch's recommendation as some type of binding precedent that Bush is required to follow. None of the 42 presidents before Bush, not even Clinton, was REQUIRED to nominate someone that was recommended by the minority leader.
Clinton was also in his first term as president. He may have chosen Ginsburg and Breyer in order to promote the perception that he was willing to work across party lines. Bush is now in his second term and would not benefit similarly by nominating one of Reid's "pre-approved" picks.
What Bush needs to do to get his numbers up is to nominate Garza. The media will be very excited about the first ever Hispanic, and the right will be happy it is a pro-life person.
Democrats will be afraid to attack Garza; and he'll get through easily.
Once he gets through, any nominee for Rehnquist's spot will get through.
The real fight should be the third nominee.
Garza is not my personal first choice, but he's the best to nominate if Bush wants to get his numbers up.