10/9/2005

6 Responses to “A Revealing Headline”

1. I thought that was the punch line.

   Stephen Macklipn (103410) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:04 pm

   
   

2. Patterico,

   If Bush had wanted an easy time of it, with a “moderate” woman as the nominee, he couldda gone with someone like Clement, who had been floated previously and looked confirmable. But he didn’t; that means something.

   Bush is more likely gambling again. He thinks the D’s made a mistake in recommending her and he’s gonna take advantage of it to put in a more conservative/constructionist nominee than politics would otherwise allow.

   That does not necessarily mean that HM would be a good Justice, nor a bad one. We still don’t know.

   But in thinking over the Clement’ish alternatives that were out there, all eschewed, it looks more like Bush was trying to replace SDO with a more conservative/constructionist via this choice.

   Looked at in that light, the choice was consistent with his history. He is gambling, which he enjoys, based on a personal relationship.

   However it plays out, it looks more like he was trying to double up rather than fold.

   ras (f9de13) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:16 pm

   
   

3. President Bush Draws to a Dead Hand!

   Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:19 pm

   
   

4. The inner Bush is apparently pro-choice: Birds of a Feather

   Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:31 pm

   
   

5. Black Jack,

   President Bush Draws to a Dead Hand!

   Possibly, but I don’t think so. This hand is still quite alive, with the betting going back & forth.

   The R’s will prob choose to confirm, absent any disastrous performance by HM in her hearings.

   Of more interest to me at this pt, per my comments above, is that I expect – with the uncertainty that word implies, of course – that HM will look increasingly more like a strong constructionist/conservative as more is learned.

   That’s when the D’s will feel the pressure, and quite possibly fb. They won;t want to – they know the risk in that. But they may have no choice if their base sees HM as a c/c replacing SDO.

   If so, then either HM becomes the fb-breaker – woo hoo for that, regardless – or Bush gets a much stronger hand in that he can deal with the RINOs and arrange directly for HM’s replacement with the promise of the fb being broken in return.

   I really don’t think he nominated her as a stalking horse, but he may well have that in mind as plan B.

   Which means that all conservatives, whether pro- or anti- this nominee, should follow the same strategy: gather info, demand answers to tough q’s that will define HM’s judicial philosophy (preferably written ones ahead of time), and wait for the hearings.

   Timing matters. If a principled case against HM’s nomination can be made, it will be more effective for having been properly researched beforehand and presented at the hearings, where it can do the most good and her nomination can be defeated.

   But if it turns out she really is a c/c choice, the D’s may be forced by their base to bet the fb, even with a lousy hand of their own.

   It would be counterproductive, either way, to move too soon.

   ras (f9de13) — 10/9/2005 @ 2:56 pm

   
   

6. ras,

   Timing does matter. However no principled case for HM’s nomination has yet been made because no principled case can be made for her. Especially when there are so many highly qualified, experienced candidates out there. It’s crazy to push HM’s nomination on us no matter what game may be afoot.

   You can’t correct a mistake until you acknowledge you’ve made one, and apparently no one with access to President Bush is willing to tell him something he doesn’t want to hear, but which he desperately needs to hear. Somebody please wake up and smell the coffee.

   PS: I very much enjoy your posts. Thanks.

   Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/9/2005 @ 3:20 pm