Dafydd ab Hugh on the Political Consequences of a Miers Defeat
Dafydd ab Hugh has an interesting post titled Would a Miers Fight Hurt the GOP in 2006? His conclusion: yes. Dafydd says that, given that there is a Republican majority in the Senate, the defeat of Miers’s nomination would “put the mark of Cain on the GOP, the scarlet-L for LOSERS,” and make Bush “look like a right-wing sock puppet,” alienating the squishy swing voters who decide most elections.
What do you think?
P.S. I am skeptical of this claim. I’ll tell you this: if the nomination is not withdrawn, a lot of people are going to stop becoming as active in supporting the Republican cause. You can lecture them all you like, but realistically, it’s still going to happen. I don’t see that accounted for in Dafydd’s analysis. Nor am I that certain that a nomination withdrawn because thet party determines the candidate is not the best available hurts the party’s standing much in the public’s eyes.
I’m still feeling myself drawn towards open opposition. Not that I think it makes much difference. This party has too rarely shown the courage of its convictions in the past, and I doubt it will start now. In the end, I suspect she’ll be confirmed. And we’ll see what kind of damage that does.
He is right if and only if the nomination goes forward to hearings and receives wide support from GOP Senators. However, if the GOP Senators reject the nomination, only Bush loses and he cannot be reelected. McCain can come out a big winner by carefully inquiring into Miers’ judicial philosophy and qualifications and ultimately rejecting her as a crony with a less than adequate record.
On the other hand, a withdraw of the nomination can easily be leveraged as would be a victory for the GOP and for Bush.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/8/2005 @ 4:35 pmMiers is clearly not as qualified as other candidates or as qualified as John Roberts is, so people can talk all they want about an ideological litmus test as being the only bar to reach but as a swing voter I have had it. You have to put Mier’s nomination into context with other recent decisions by the Republicans, including spending our taxes dollars like a Democrat and having ethical improprieties erupt almost weekly. I’m about ready to vote Democrat just to rap the party on the knuckles. And remember, eventually the Democrats will once again be in power. If Republicans vote for Miers, they will be laughed at when a Democratic president nominates a crony just as under qualified. They will have completely lost the high ground.
Eddie Barrera (cf3471) — 10/8/2005 @ 5:25 pmHis argument only works if one considers Bush to by synonymous with the GOP.
If Miers fails, BUSH will look weak. Not the GOP. And as Bush isn’t running for anything anytime soon, that’s a small price to pay.
If Miers fails–and everybody in the GOP cries “victory!” EXCEPT for Bush–then the GOP doesn’t look like losers–only Bush does.
I (and the GOP) can live with that.
Additionally, Dayfdd’s presumption that the base will ALWAYS turn out is doing nothing more than taking them for granted. You can pass steel tariffs and bad immigration policy and still get the base to run out without much problem.
But what you can’t do is dick around with judges. That’s one of the issues that makes the base “the base.” You betray them on that, and their vote is nowhere near guaranteed.
Oh, they may still show up to vote–but it will be more fractured among third parties or less serious GOP primary challengers.
Christopher Cross (6ec417) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:14 pmSee my update. I agree that the analysis seems to assume that the behavior of the base won’t change. And I really doubt that’s accurate.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:20 pmAdditionally, the contention that the GOP must cave on Miers to retain these “sunshine voters” ignores how these less-than-regular voters actually end up voting Republican.
They end up voting GOP because of the base–because of their friends, neighbors, co-workers who are part of that energized core that will talk to them, devote the time and energy, and convince them that the GOP is right on the issues and is the party for them.
Ever tried to have someone sell you a product he doesn’t really believe in? If the GOP caves on Miers, that’s what happens to the base:
“Vote Republican, they don’t totally suck.”
Ain’t the most inspiring rallying cry, is it? At best the base may still vote–but they sure won’t be as uniform and sure won’t bring anybody to the polls with them.
Of course, I want to lose the war, hence my opposition to Miers…
Christopher Cross (6ec417) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:27 pmThe strange thing about politics today is that our elite is so far to the left that not only are the Democrats are too far to the left for the median voter, but often the Republicans are too. Immigration is an obvious example of this situation; racial preferences are another. The constellation of social issues which stoke populist feeling about the Supreme Court is still another, I think. It’s not a question of energizing the base who know who Luttig is. It’s a question of using the courts as a political wedge issue to attract middle class Christian black voters, lower middle class white churchgoers, middle class white women who often vote Democratic, but don’t like gay marriage or pornography and don’t mind prayers at football games or the pledge of allegiance. Short term I don’t know how the withdrawal of Miers plays, but long term conservatism and the GOP grow if leaders are serious about the importance of this issue.
Agricola (c302b4) — 10/8/2005 @ 6:48 pmI was hoping to say this only in a few years, but it seems the time has come to start putting some daylight between the White House and the GOP.
In the last two years of an eight-year administration, it is normal for the incumbent party to start looking ahead. That era must now begin at least a year ahead of schedule.
I agree that defeating Miers or forcing her to withdraw would be good for the GOP. It would distance the party from the Bush administration’s lengthening list of blunders, e.g., Social Security, immigration, Katrina, spending, and, I am sad to say, increasingly, Iraq. Dubya doesn’t even seem prepared to fight to make his tax cuts permanent – the centerpiece of his domestic agenda!
George Bush acomplished an enormous amount in the first two years of his presidency while starting from a weaker political position than any president had had in decades. Then he wins a majority of the vote for the first time in 16 years, pads his majority in both houses in the bargain – and everything goes south. What gives?
Personally, I think the guy is just plain whupped. I saw a replay the other night of Bush’s speech anouncing the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and couldn’t help but notice how much he has visibly aged in the two-and-a-half years since. He just doesn’t seem to have the fire in the belly anymore. All the more reason for the GOP to start steering a more independent course.
piper1 (ef0643) — 10/8/2005 @ 7:02 pmAny real damage to Republican ’06 prospects in any way connected to the Miers nomination has already been done, and, pure and simple, it’ll be as a consequence of the nomination itself rather than any “fight” which arose following the nomination. Isn’t it widely accepted that Republicans were as successful as they were in ’04 because of the huge effort on the streets by committed volunteers (most of them tending conservative, surely)? This nomination is going to do severe damage to attempts to mount any similar effort in ’06 — driving a stake through the hearts of your most enthusiastic supporters tends to reduce their commitment to the cause. Many will sit on their hands rather than help, and many will sit on their hands rather than vote. I don’t like that reality, but I’m convinced it is a reality.
Patterico, I’m a little unsure of what you intend in your “P.S.” paragraph. Is it possible you meant to say “…; if the nomination isn’t withdrawn….” rather than “…; if the nomination is withdrawn….”?
Levans (ce84bc) — 10/8/2005 @ 8:01 pmYes. I just added the word; thanks. It’s a small enough change not to require an update to the post itself. I appreciate your pointing it out.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/8/2005 @ 8:08 pm“Would a Miers Fight Hurt the GOP in 2006?”
“Would”?! There is no “Would a Miers Fight” now. Bush has picked a fight, and it is now “Given the Current Miers Fight.” Bush is running the ball towards the wrong end zone, and we must tackle him.
Oh, Bush, please, please withdraw. Please, please, please!
The Voices in Your Head (a4f9c3) — 10/8/2005 @ 9:08 pmI’ll tell you this: if the nomination is not withdrawn, a lot of people are going to stop becoming as active in supporting the Republican cause.
I disagree, it’s impossible to tell. I guarantee, that if if Bush knows here to be a reliable strict constructionist than the base will be plenty happy with Miers come ’06. If Bush is wrong, then he’s screwed. If If the nomination is defeated and replaced with someone else who ends up being a moderate then there will an implosion for the Republican party. BUT, if Miers is confirmed and is a semi-reliable vote (e.g. Rehnquist) this will be better than water under a bridge, people will long be praising the nomination.
Joel B. (568776) — 10/8/2005 @ 9:50 pmIf that’s the way conservatives truly feel about Supreme Court nominees Joel then everything they have said about the importance of intellectual and scholarly heft would have been a lie. I don’t have much faith in politicians or politics. I have disagreed with many conservative friends but have admired their belief in smaller government, individual rights and support of judges that find their answers from the text and logical reasoning not their ideology. If conservatives back a candidate who is clearly unfit for the job, except that she is “a semi-reliable vote” then all the ideals and principles were a sham, and they are no better than the other side.
Eddie Barrera (cf3471) — 10/9/2005 @ 12:03 amLet’s see, the Democrats rose up and stopped Roosevelt from packing the Supreme Court in 1938 and didn’t win again; they joined with Republicans to reject Abe Fortax and never won again; so I guess everyone is right, if the GOP rejects this mediocrity they will never win again.
Every once in a while a political party actually stands up for what they believe is right. I just think that Miers is the straw breaking the elephant’s back; Julie Myers is a total joke; Pitt at SEC was ditto; Brown not so hot (and that agency is not up to doing anything big); Department of Energy did nothing to get refineries built; and, and, and.
The GOP will lose because they’ve lost guys like me who think they’ve sold out big time.
Howard Veit (baba22) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:05 amEddie Barrera said:
Yeah, I’m sure that letting Hillary Clinton pick the next couple of justices would be a great way to teach President Bush a lesson.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/9/2005 @ 6:18 amDana-
Come on now, you’ve made that argument a number of times, and it holds no water.
The justices that would retire should the Democrats win in 2008 are Stevens and Ginsburg. They’re already way off in left field, and there’s no appreciable way that the Court could be moved further out. In fact, Stevens isn’t the clearest opinion writer (Chevron, anyone?), so her nominations will probably improve the quality of the Court.
Besides, with the Miers nomination, the Republicans have shown that they wish to do nothing to fundamentally alter the balance of the Court- in fact, it has probably moved leftward under Bush, given Roberts’ distancing himself from originalism as an interpretive theory and Miers’ own nearly identical to O’Connor nature.
So, if we’re going to have a Court that is always and forever 2-3 conservatives, 2 center-lefts, and 4 hard lefts, who cares if the Democrats win in 2008, particularly if it teaches a lesson to the Republicans that the conservative base is not the crazy aunt in the attic that you suck up to when you need some more of her vast wealth, and then lock away safely and refuse to speak about the rest of the year.
To hell with that.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/9/2005 @ 6:57 amMr. Clam:
One hopes that, should Senatrix Clinton win the presidency in 2008 (shudder!) that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg would be the only retirees, although I’m hoping that Justice Stevens retires next summer. However, by 2011 or the middle of Mrs Clinton’s second term (double shudder!) Justice Scalia might be of a mind to retire; he’d be in his seventies, and who knows how his health will be?
With your statement, “with the Miers nomination, the Republicans have shown that they wish to do nothing to fundamentally alter the balance of the Court,” you have assumed that Miss Miers (as well as Chief Justice Roberts) aren’t really conservatives, that you’ve been betrayed somehow, that they are (both) the reincarnations of the not yet dead Justice Souter.
I’m not sure where you find the evidence to support that, unless it is the lack of blood dripping from their pens. Mr Roberts was a long time conservative Republican insider, and if he was able to tell Senator Leahy that his Reagan Administration writings were those of a lawyer for his client, that doesn’t mean that he disagreed with those positions. You’ve certainly admired the red-meat judicial picks of President Bush when it came to Janice Brown and William Pryor and Priscilla Owen; Miss Miers was the team leader who guided those nominations.
Finally, there’s this:
So, if we’re going to have a Court that is always and forever 2-3 conservatives, 2 center-lefts, and 4 hard lefts, who cares if the Democrats win in 2008, particularly if it teaches a lesson to the Republicans that the conservative base is not the crazy aunt in the attic that you suck up to when you need some more of her vast wealth, and then lock away safely and refuse to speak about the rest of the year.
I’d sure care, and I’d bet most of the other readers of this website would care as well. Even if we don’t get all that we’d like in judicial picks, the president and Congress do a hell of a lot of other things as well; do you want your tax rates set by the Democrats? If the Republicans in Congress and a veto pen-less President Bush have spent too much money, do you actually believe that the Democrats would spend less?
Dafydd ab Hugh pointed out (over on his blog) that holy wars tend to produce more martyrs than victories. In saying, “who cares if the Democrats win in 2008, particularly if it teaches a lesson to the Republicans,” it seems to me that you are making the argument for martyrdom, not victory.
Dana R. Pico (ba0b64) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:31 amYou’re giving Miers far too much credit- she did final review of the selections before they hit the President’s desk.
Incidentally, that’s while she was his secretary, not his attorney.
The heavy lifting on circuit nominees has been, and continues to be, done by the Office of Legal Counsel and the Federalist Society, both of which Miers had nothing to do with.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:36 amIf the Republicans in Congress and a veto pen-less President Bush have spent too much money, do you actually believe that the Democrats would spend less?
Clinton did.
If someone came from outer space, ignored rhetoric, and simply reviewed the numbers for the last 20-25 years, they would conclude that Democrats are the party of fiscal restraint.
I’m totally with your principles, Dana. But I don’t think President Bush entirely is. Unless you like illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, and runaway federal spending.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:37 amOur esteemed host said:
I’m totally with your principles, Dana. But I don’t think President Bush entirely is. Unless you like illegal immigration, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, and runaway federal spending.
Well, President Clinton spent a bit less, but it was because the S&L crisis that bloated the elder President Bush’s budgets was over, and the 104th Congress (the last one with testosterone) forced lower spending.
However, you might be less than happy with some of my positions: I think that we have illegal immigration because we want illegal immigration (why else would we, the public, not the government, be encouraging illegals to come here by buying the goods and services they produce?), and I’m a strong death penalty opponent.
But, then again, who would want to be conservative if conservatism meant lock-step approval of everything presumed to be conservative?
Dana R. Pico (ba0b64) — 10/9/2005 @ 9:54 amHarriet Miers on the Supreme Court equals Hillary Clinton in the White House. Deal with it.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 12:05 pmThe Jackster said:
Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court equals Hillary Clinton in the White House. Deal with it.
It does? Why does it equal that? Are you suggesting that conservatives would be so pissed off that they’d just forget their principles and not fight for a more conservative candidate in 2008? Are you suggesting that we are so freaking stupid that we’d cut off our noses to spite our faces?
The odds are that the Democratic nominee will become president, of course: Americans have a habit of changing political party control of the White House after a two term presidency. But unless the GOP nominates Jeb Bush (who has already said he wouldn’t run), why would conservatives like Black Jack or the Angry Clam sit out 2008, just because they were, um, displeased by the Miers nomination?
Jack, you’re too aggressive a conservative for me to ever believe that you, personally, wouldn’t fight for the Republican nominee (unless it was Lincoln Chafee!) in 2008, no matter how PO’d you are right now.
Dana R. Pico (ba0b64) — 10/9/2005 @ 12:55 pmPico,
Miers on the Court does, in my opinion, equal Hillary in the White House because conservatives will either sit out the next election cycle or the more angry of us will actually vote for Democrat candidates. Obviously you don’t believe it, but stop and think it over for a few moments. Consider the possibility that I might do what I say, and if there are enough voters like me, then the proposition might just be valid.
It’s a very real possibility, and we wouldn’t be abandoning our principles, we would be putting principle above Party affiliation. GWB’s supporters and GOP candidates in the next election might want to consider the risks they run.
Consider well what’s at stake here, weigh what you might gain with Miers on the Court, and balance that against what it might cost you. This is a dangerous game and I’m all in.
The GOP has the option to call, fold, or deal us a new hand. I’m still willing to kiss and make up, but I’m not going to acquiesce on Miers.
PS: You are correct, I am an aggressive conservative, but I’m also a man of my word.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 3:01 pmMore thoughts on the Harriet Miers kerfuffle
After several updates my previous post on this subject is getting a little long. Guess it’s time to start a new one closer to the top of the page. Juliette Ochieng has a well thought out post on the Miers
Small Town Veteran (af7df9) — 10/9/2005 @ 3:16 pm