Monday, July 04, 2005
Whom will Bush nominate?
If you believe that Bush and Rove are following a strategy of polarizing in order to keep Republicans in the fold, then it stands to reason that they will select someone for the Supreme Court who is sufficiently conservative to spark Democratic outrage, but not someone conservative enough to cost them votes on the GOP side of the aisle. They benefit from agitating and provoking Democrats, and have no interest in the sort of bipartisan consensus that would take power from the right, but they need above all to win this fight, because once the perception is that they lack the power to get the job done, they will start to lose moderate Republicans seeking to leverage their position at the fulcrum.
Whom this means they'll pick, I don't know. I'm afraid this analysis doesn't help Hon. Michael McConnell, whom I wish they'd pick.
Whom this means they'll pick, I don't know. I'm afraid this analysis doesn't help Hon. Michael McConnell, whom I wish they'd pick.
Comments:
<< Home
They (the GOP) should go nuclear and pick the most conservative judge they can find (a la Clinton's pick of the ACLU Ginsburg).
Then - and only then - will the public be able to see what a total sham the "filibuster compromise" from the Dems really amounts to.
Then - and only then - will the public be able to see what a total sham the "filibuster compromise" from the Dems really amounts to.
# posted by 
: 1:31 AM
: 1:31 AM
Re Ginsburg, read your history: Clinton was thinking about nominating Bruce Babbitt, and called Orrin Hatch, the ranking minority senator on the Judiciary Committee, to ask him how Babbitt would go over. Hatch said, not so much, and suggested, among others, Ginsburg.
And Bush would like nothing better than to blow up the compromise. He just can't lose moderate Republicans.
And Bush would like nothing better than to blow up the compromise. He just can't lose moderate Republicans.
"Then - and only then - will the public be able to see what a total sham the "filibuster compromise" from the Dems really amounts to."
They don't need to do that. If they pick someone who isn't left of center, we're going to see that it's a sham, anyway.
TS, from whence came this foolish idea that an R President, with an R Senate and an R House, needs to pick a liberal Court - or even a centrist Court? Or that Rove, by quoting MoveOn accurately, was being rude, after the D's have spent three years calling him and Bush babyeffing a-holes?
I fear for your stability, man.
B
They don't need to do that. If they pick someone who isn't left of center, we're going to see that it's a sham, anyway.
TS, from whence came this foolish idea that an R President, with an R Senate and an R House, needs to pick a liberal Court - or even a centrist Court? Or that Rove, by quoting MoveOn accurately, was being rude, after the D's have spent three years calling him and Bush babyeffing a-holes?
I fear for your stability, man.
B
# posted by : 2:41 PM
: 2:41 PM
I didn't say that Bush "needs" to do anything. My point is that he wants to piss Dems off and polarize, not just as the by-product of what he wants to do anyway but as an end in itself to help keep the GOP all on the same page.
And Rove didn't quote MoveOn accurately. He attributed to MoveOn something done by an individual who didn't have anything to do with MoveOn at the time.
And Rove didn't quote MoveOn accurately. He attributed to MoveOn something done by an individual who didn't have anything to do with MoveOn at the time.
Scary thoughts. I guess the main problem with war is the guns, but even without the guns it's pretty ugly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]