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
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.