Bush Considering Only Strong Nominees
It’s getting harder and harder to argue that the campaign to boot Harriet Miers was a bad thing. Just look at a Washington Post story today titled Appellate Judges Cited as Focus of New Search:
The administration has backed away from any insistence that the nominee be a woman or a minority. Rather, it is focused on potential nominees who have previously won Senate confirmation, whose intellectual qualifications would be unquestioned and who have paper trails that make clear their conservative credentials, said one source who is close to the nomination process.
Those candidates, according to the sources, include several federal appellate judges, among them: Samuel A. Alito Jr., J. Michael Luttig, Michael W. McConnell, Emilio M. Garza, Priscilla R. Owen and Edith H. Jones.
Every last one of them would be a good pick, and I’d term almost all of them “fantastic.” How different this short list sounds from the last time! This time, it’s all people who should be considered. And why is that, pray tell? Because of the current environment:
By focusing on such candidates, the Bush administration is shifting to what one source described as President Ronald Reagan’s doctrine of picking justices. “The nominee can’t be a stealth candidate for a number of reasons,” the source said. “There are very, very few people who have the kind of credentials that the administration can put up in this environment that would not have a record.”
See? We opponents of Miers have created an “environment” where the Administration feels that it can consider only candidates with strong credentials.
I don’t know about you, but I’m bustin’ my buttons. It’s too bad that that “environment” is apparently seen as temporary — but no matter. It’s the environment now, and that’s all that matters.
By the way, the story only adds to the Alito buzz:
“The reason his name is popping up is he’s probably the closest thing out there to John Roberts,” said former Bush White House associate counsel Bradford A. Berenson. “And he’s got even more of a full record that people on both sides of the aisle can evaluate.”
Adding to the speculation were reports by those close to the process that Alito arrived in Washington Thursday night. Asked why the judge came to town and whether he was in chambers yesterday, Alito’s clerk laughed and said he would have to take a message.
In this Administration, saying that Alito is the closest thing out there to John Roberts is a clear signal that they are picking him. Nothing’s guaranteed, but it’s looking more and more like Alito.
So these are good days. Even some former skeptics, who warned of doom should Miers be defeated or have her nomination withdrawn, are starting to see the bright side. People such as our good friend Dafydd ab Hugh:
Christmas came early for the Bush family. And now W. has the chance to start off fresh with a reasonably clear scandal slate — and a unified base, assuming he takes advantage and names a “consensus” candidate… where the consensus is between the various wings of the Republican Party, and to hell with what Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer want!
Whoever is named, it’s likely to be a tough fight. But the candidate will have one thing going for him or her that Robert Bork never had: us. We in the blogosphere can hold the media’s feet to the fire. And we must.
The Roberts nomination was only a warm-up. He didn’t need us. Chances are, this candidate will.
To the barricades!
F the barricades. Let’s storm the enemy trenches and root out those maggots into the sunshine.
Paul Deignan (b2e499) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:56 amWas the campaign against Miers productive? Yes. Could it have been done much better and without being as divisive? Yes. Overall worth it, anyway? Conditionally yes, depending on how the rest of this plays out. Nice lookin’ list, anyway.
Alito has Specter’s support, plus there are over a dozen Dem senators who voted to confirm him back in 1990, IIRC, and would now be that much harder-pressed to define him as “extraordinary circumstances,” both to the public and to their RINO colleagues in the Senate. These are big advantages.
If Bush is looking to avoid being forced into a Squish – and Stealth is out now, I would hope – then he needs the most guaranteed-confirmable base-pleaser he can find. Right now, that looks like Alito.
ras (f9de13) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:59 amI don’t want to be a wet blanket, but I think you may be reading a little too much into/out of this part:
Weren’t those candidates “among” the list of candidates considered last time around, which list of course “included” several federal appellate judges?
I’m not saying it’s premature to buy the Dom Perignon. In fact, I’m headed to Costco in about an hour, so I might just do that. I am saying it’s premature to pop the cork, though, particularly when dealing with a President whose track record for surprising us with his Supreme Court nominations is 2 for 2.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:29 pmOK, To the barricades!
I’m up for it. But before this fight gets started, I want to know if we can gloat for few days after seriously kicking some Dem butt.
How about 3 days of joyful triumph following confirmation of a solid conservative nominee, assuming of course we get one?
Now, I’m not talking vulgar here, nothing too rude or uncivilized, but not quite the Golden Rule either. Huh?
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:32 pmWe opponents of Miers have created an “environment” where the Administration feels that it can consider only candidates with strong credentials.
…who happens to be ultra-conservative, strict-constructionist, and otherwise well outside the mainstream of Americans in political ideology.
(Just wanted to finish that thought for ya.)
Tom (eb6b88) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:33 pmLet’s keep the 2×4 handy. The mule is willful and stupid and needs frequent forceful direction.
TCO (7f1fd5) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:20 pmBut before this fight gets started, I want to know if we can gloat for few days after seriously kicking some Dem butt.
Yeah, that’s it. Harriet Miers was Harry Reid’s idea – a trojan horse.
Miers was upended by revelations of fleeting moderation in her utterances.
And by the fact she was undistinguished, overall.
Ed (24fb2c) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:33 pmEd,
Harriet Miers is yesterday’s news. Leave the woman in peace, will ya? She withdrew, there’s no need for more Lefty mud slinging. It’s unseemly, move on.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:42 pmThen what’s all the past-tense celebrating?
Ed (b6009a) — 10/29/2005 @ 2:10 pmEd,
We’re talking about the next nominee. Gloating was not allowed after Miers withdrew. I’m looking ahead.
I asked if some polite short-term gloating is permissable following the confirmation of a new Associate Justice for the Supreme Court.
I’d like time to get ready, that’s all.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 2:18 pmGloating was not allowed after Miers withdrew. I’m looking ahead.
—-
But before this fight gets started, I want to know if we can gloat for few days after seriously kicking some Dem butt.
No inconsistency there. None.
Ed (0a8abf) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:00 pmI’m predicting Edith Clement. Conservatives would feel compelled to support her because of what happened with Miers, although I still don’t think she’d be a good choice. Those on your list above would probably be too good to be true.
Tom Dunson (68d828) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:10 pmSo it’s like the Alamo except this time the Texans win?
Count me in.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 10/29/2005 @ 2:29 pmEd, are you being deliberately obtuse?
Gloating wasn’t appropriate here when Miers withdrew, few attempted it, but those who did were called out. Miers was GWB’s nominee and deserved civility even if many Conservatives considered her underqualified for SCOTUS. Always be polite, that’s good policy.
Celebrating, or gloating, depending on your point of view, after the new nominee is confirmed is what I want to clarify now. Quite straight forward really. I’d like a chance to plan for the big party. You know, celebrate the victory. Go team. That sort of thing.
As for “inconsistency,” it’s neither here nor there. It’s an irrelevant concept.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:41 pmWell, I’m just glad you’re off of that dang ledge!
To the barricades, indeed! What can be next, real immigration reform?
Patricia (2cc180) — 10/29/2005 @ 4:50 pmRuling From the Bench:
Gloating over beating up on fellow Republicans is always out of order, unless those Republicans are RINOs.
Gloating over whupping liberals (including RINOs like Lincoln Chafee), Democrats, Socialists, Communists, hippies, freaks, leftists, and assorted weirdos is always in order.
Clear now?
One presumes the mirror of the same rule applies among lefties.
The first rule of partisanship is Thou shalt not form thy firing squad in a circle.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/29/2005 @ 5:02 pmOverruled.
Gloating as such is always unattractive. The satisfaction is in the results.
Celebration, as opposed to gloating, is encouraged.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 5:29 pmPatterico, how does one celebrate without gloating? A celebration always implies “Horay for our side!” doesn’t it?
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 5:49 pmTillman,
If you see a ship at sea about to sink in rough weather, you can celebrate the fact you’re safe on dry land and not stuck onboard waiting to go down. That’s an OK form of celebration.
However, if you’re glad those unfortunate miserable souls are headed for Davy Jones locker, that’s gloating, and not appropriate here.
Seen from a distance, onboard the doomed ship for instance, observers may not appreciate the difference.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 6:24 pmSo I’m still confused. Then it is never OK to celebrate since it could be misconscrewed (as Archie Bunker used to say)?
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 6:32 pmOn KFI this afternoon, they listed off a number of possible candidates, including all the ones listed above, and Alberto Gonzales. God help us.
[That won’t happen. Bush isn’t that stupid. — Patterico]
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:25 pmI note many polls on conservative sites show overwhelming support for Janice Rogers Brown. I’ve cast my vote for her in all polls i’ve run across. I think she’s fabulous…..and I personally would love to see them try and humiliate a black woman on national TV. I’d also love for Justice Ginsburg to meet her …….she said she would like another woman on the court. Or is Janice Brown “not the kind of woman” she meant……..It would be a hoot if “Justice Brown” said on meeting Ginsburg. “Is it because i’m a black woman?”
alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:29 pmI want to gloat, I’ll fucking gloat. Any manjack of you want to come down to Richmond and fuck with me? This is still a free motherfucking country. Bush and his Orwellian-sounding Homeland Security nonetheless. I don’t feel any need to fall in line with Republican solidarity? What has it gotten me? Federalized TSA? Prescription drug give-aways? I’d rather have been in the minority and scuttled that stuff.
TCO (28e474) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:34 pmI don’t feel any need to fall back into ranks. Once you fucking stand me up at the restaurant, I fucking pitch your shit in the dumpster and don’t go out with you anymore. The die is cast. No need for kiss and make up. Let’s move on. Bush is a lame duck anyhow. And a frigging moderate like his old man. The only reason you all think he is conservative is because you listen to Democrats with buttlock who think a moderate must be Ghengis Kahn.
TCO (28e474) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:37 pmWell, you’ve undergone quite a change, my friend. You now accept the word of the Washington Post even though the story is anonymously sourced and you’ve done nothing to confirm it. You celebrate a victory even though a nominee has not yet been named and could well be someone you don’t like. You seem to have completely forgotten that the Senate still holds the power to approve or reject any nominee, and “we” don’t exactly have the votes to overcome a filibuster.
And you seem to have picked up quite a gaggle of interesting commenters. To say I’m disappointed would be an understatement.
I hope your celebration is not premature, but I’m not nearly as sanguine as you about the chances of getting a nominee through the process, now that it’s OK to demand proof of their ideology before they ever darken the doors of the Senate.
You’ve gotten what you wanted, you think. I hope you’re right.
antimedia (f29109) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:21 pmI suspect another factor favoring Alito is, he has a friend in the Administration – Chertoff. Although Luttig apparently knows everyone.
Crank (c0f677) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:27 pmI think you’re right, but then again, the reason I think you’re right about Gonzales is also the reason I have not forgiven David Frum over Miers, namely, Bush didn’t nominate Gonzales because he already knew the base would not go along with it, while he mistakenly assumed the opposite to be true for Miers. A little “don’t even think of nominating Miers” chatter among pundits probably would have produced the same result – an angry finger-wagging by Bush, a reminder that Harriet is a good person, and an unspoken guarantee she’d never be nominated to the Supreme Court (except maybe in a less controversial manner, e.g. if he nominated her to an appellate court instead, and she became a darling of the base over the next couple years, and a third Supreme Court opened up later in Bush’s term, as I suspect it will).
You’ve made the point that many of Miers’s defendants, particularly Hugh Hewitt and Beldar, have also suggested they could support Alberto Gonzales. Am I the only blogger or pundit who refrained from joining the anti-Miers camp till the end, but who would not have thought twice about leading the charge to neobork Alberto Gonzales? It seems to be an unusual combination, but I’m not sure why. After all, one of the strongest the anti-anti-Miers camp used – and the only one that kept me in it, “trust me” not being enough – was we didn’t know know much about Miers yet, so why not we wait and see how she does in the hearings. Well, we know a hell of a lot about Gonzales, so whatever benefit of the doubt arguments applied to Miers clearly do not apply to him. If Miers had stayed on, she would have needed a home run in the Senate hearings, which was a long shot, but at least theoretically possible. What the hell could Gonzales have said in his hearings, short of admitting outright that his own past decisions on the Texas court were a bunch of crap?
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:27 pmantimedia, I would take up for us commenters, but that would be gloating and we mustn’t do that.
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:28 pmxrlq,
If HM withdrew herself over issues of confidential documents, where does that leave Gonzales?
ras (f9de13) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:36 pmWell, you’ve undergone quite a change, my friend. You now accept the word of the Washington Post even though the story is anonymously sourced and you’ve done nothing to confirm it. You celebrate a victory even though a nominee has not yet been named and could well be someone you don’t like. You seem to have completely forgotten that the Senate still holds the power to approve or reject any nominee, and “we” don’t exactly have the votes to overcome a filibuster.
I did say “[n]othing’s guaranteed,” but I am optimistic based on the reports. It sounds like the White House finally has its head in the right place.
I also said that “it’s likely to be a tough fight.” But (as I also said) the power of the blogs to fact-check falsehoods will make this a very different fight from the Bork debacle.
I could, of course, be totally off-base. Bush could screw us again. But I choose to be optimistic.
You’ve gotten what you wanted, you think. I hope you’re right.
I’ve gotten *part* of what I wanted, and I do indeed hope that I get the other part as well.
And if I do, will you concede that this has all been for the best?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:38 pmIf HM withdrew herself over issues of confidential documents, where does that leave Gonzales?
Exactly. Plus, I have been told semi-reliably that he doesn’t want it. Take that for what it’s worth . . . not much, I suppose.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:40 pmIt’s going to be Owens or Brown…………heard this from an excellent source, I’d like to tell you who it is but I can’t; I really can’t.
alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:46 pmTo the barricades — and bring you nukes!!
PrestoPundit (c8886f) — 10/29/2005 @ 9:47 pmLibby, Libby, Libby, Miers, and Anybody’s Guess
Col. Austin Bay’s Post-Indictment Pre-Mortems post is the best round-up of well thought out reactions to the Libby indictment I’ve seen anywhere. Read it, and don’t overlook Uncle Jimbo’s comment explaining why we can be certain that Lyin’ Joe Wil…
Small Town Veteran (af7df9) — 10/30/2005 @ 1:36 amI supported Bush on Miers but to be honest, I’d rather be where we are now than listening to the Harriet Miers confirmation hearings.
If she was a fire breathing conservative, I wouldn’t care if she was thrown out of kindergarden after mau-mauing the teachers.
An affirmative action pick, however…..
Lonetown (3c583b) — 10/30/2005 @ 4:50 amI was disgusted by much of the Miers opposition even though I was unhappy with the nomination, especially over at NRO. Even this blog was out of bounds several times during the Miers debate, but at least it wasn’t off the reservation altogether.
I will admit that the decades conservatives have suffered under the lash of a liberal Supreme Court was sufficient provocation, so I think those of us stung by some of the harsness of the earlier row should take a deep breath, count to ten and look at the opportunity before us.
I am sure Bush has learned from this debate and its aftermath. Politically, he needs to get some of the rancor on the right behind him and quickly. I look for a strongly conservative nominee, even one that might provoke a showdown in the Senate.
Right now, Bush needs a united base. He cannot afford to appeal to moderates with the mounting problems he is facing with a nomination like Clement. The one thing he must try to ensure sure is that his nominee can survive the constitutional option if the Demos force his hand.
Fortunately, the base cannot wait to unite and will strongly support a conservative nominee. A great deal of pressure will be broght to bear on the Gang of 14. Those with presidential aspirations (including McCain) cannot afford to fight the President this time. If McCain’s vote were to bring down the nominee on a cloture vote, the Bush presidency will collapse and the Republican party will almost certainly fracture. Fortunately, I think this is so obvious that even the RINOs can see it.
In a strange way, one can almost see the failure of Miers as a benefit to the next nominee. The base is dying to unite around Bush this time, and I am not sure that was the case Pre-Miers. Everybody had a favorite judge, and even small things were likely to be criticized if one of the favorites didn’t get the nod. I don’t think that is the case anymore.
Glenn (300ef3) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:17 am“It’s getting harder and harder to argue that the campaign to boot Harriet Miers was a bad thing.”
You won’t find many supporters of Miers — or just ordinary fair play — who would agree with that. And, judging by polls, those supporters included a majority of self-identified Republicans and conservatives.
Jim Miller (d88cae) — 10/30/2005 @ 9:23 amPatterico, if it all works out in the end? If you get everything you wanted? I’m not sure. It depends on how badly the cause has been hurt. If Republicans lose the majority in 2006, will it be worth it that a known conservative justice was seated?
I don’t know. I know this. Miers would have been one of the best justices ever seated. And yes, I know many, many bloggers disagree with me, including you. Furthermore, I think conservatives have seriously wounded their movement, because many voters, especially women, are offended by the way Miers was borked.
Yeah, I know that’s not a popular stance to take here, but I try to look at things realistically rather than idealistically, and I see lots of damage that’s been done.
As I said, I hope you’re right. 2006 will help determine how much damage was done. After that, I might be willing to concede that it all worked out for the good.
antimedia (f29109) — 10/30/2005 @ 1:17 pmBlack Jack said, beginning a conversation:
The answer is: yes, you can, if the Republicans seriously kick some Democratic butt. The odds are in our favor, but certainty is not there.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:32 pmAntimedia asked:
Like Antimedia, I supported the Miers nomination, for precisely the reasons he gave: she would have been a good, conservative justice, and we would have won confirmation in the Senate without a fight.
I don’t know if his comment, that many women were offended at the way Miss Miers was “Borked,” but if President Bush nominates another woman, one who gets strong conservative support, I think that possibility fades.
The Senate won’t go Democratic following the 2006 elections: the Democrats have to defend 19 seats, while the GOP has to defend only 15. The chances that the Democrats will have a net gain of six seats are pretty slim.
It’s sort of the Conventional Wisdom that President Bush has had a bad week, with the failure of the Miers nomination part of that. If his presidency goes downhill from here, the conservative opposition to teh Miers nomination will be given a lot of credit for that slide; if his presidency gets stronger in the coming weeks, the opposition to the Miers nomination will be forgotten.
But, that leads to a real problem: what if the President thinks that he has to move to the middle with the next nominee, to dampen Democratic opposition (even though no move he makes will do that)? He could easily go with Alberto Gonzalez as the next nominee, and I guarantee that the conservative blogosphere will scream about that one, but Mr Gonzalez really isn’t vulnerable to the attacks that he’s not qualified, the way Miss Miers was.
I really hope that the Angry Clam and Patterico and all of the rest were right in the choice to oppose Miss Miers, and that I was way wrong.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:44 pmDJ Drummond put up….
….a somewhat sardonic post about the reaction from conservative pundits to the news of
Media Lies (11ee8e) — 10/31/2005 @ 5:49 pm