The Bobcat Nation

The Holy War Begins
Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent. Inside his Supreme Machine.
Most Popular
•By Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek
July 11 issue - As soon as president George W. Bush officially got the news—Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring—he huddled with his innermost circle. He wanted to give them the word and review the game plan now that he would be choosing a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. As staffers filed into the Oval Office for the regular 9 a.m. meeting last Friday, Bush ushered Vice President Dick Cheney and counselors Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett into the adjacent dining area. A smoothly run vetting process mattered, the president said, but not as much as the identity and history of the person he ultimately selects. "A lot of people are going to be focused on the process," he said, "but when I make the candidate selection, the focus will be on the candidate."



Bush was half right: the focus, in fact, is squarely on him, too. Presidencies are defined by key moments. So far, his are the Bullhorn of 9/11 and the decision to go to war in Iraq. Now comes the next Big Call. Having risen to power as a committed conservative, and having largely governed as one, he must choose: big tent or revival tent? On Capitol Hill, and around Washington, the assumption is that, on a personal level, Bush favors Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He is a longtime Texas compadre who would, if confirmed, be the court's first Latino at a time when wooing Hispanics is a Republican Party priority. But Gonzales is considered suspect by pro-life forces and has a thin, hard-to-pin-down track record as a Texas judge. In fact, he is the only A-list contender whom religious conservatives pledge, upfront, to fight. "We'd oppose him," said Tom Minnery of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

Bush's political dilemma is tougher than the one his aides until quite recently had been planning for. For months, if not years, the theory was that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, now 80 years old and infirm, would be the first justice to leave the Bush-era court. But O'Connor's departure raises the already astronomical stakes even higher. Conservatives see a chance to turn the court farther right; liberals and Democrats insist the president is duty-bound to pick another comparative centrist, and predict constitutional doom if he doesn't. "This is probably the most significant Supreme Court resignation and nomination we'll see in our lifetimes," said Jay Sekulow, counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. His counterpart at the liberal Alliance for Justice agreed. "The stakes are now enormous," said Nan Aron.

But all-out war probably was inevitable in any case. In our law-obsessed country, we're always arguing about the meaning (or existence) of constitutional rights; the courts are a form of precinct politics with footnotes attached. But battles over court nominations have become more heated as emotional issues such as abortion move to center stage. In 1987, the Reagan White House was blindsided by the ferocity of the cultural attacks on Judge Robert Bork; four years later Clarence Thomas was able to survive by denouncing the "high-tech lynching" he claimed he was facing.

And that was child's play, political pat-a-cake in the innocent days before the advent of war rooms, the Internet, a brace of cable news channels, talk radio and deep-pocketed advocacy groups. The armies of Red and Blue have been wheeling their catapults into place for a long time. Progress for America, an ally of the Bush White House, launched an ad campaign in June on cable TV, demanding that there be an up or down vote on Bush's choice. The group plans to spend at least $18 million on the battle. On the left, the MoveOn PAC is on the move, already advertising in key states, earnestly asking the question: "Will George Bush pick an extremist who will threaten our rights?" Within the putatively collegial Senate, no one wasted much time pledging bipartisan good will. In the olden days, the notion of blocking a court choice by talking it to death was largely beyond the pale. No more. Democrats who threatened to do just that to Bush appellate-court choices did not rule out doing so now once they see whom Bush picks.

So who will it be? Two weeks ago, as rumors began to spread that O'Connor might depart, Bush aides and allies stepped up inquiries about female candidates, in case he decided he needed to select a woman to replace a woman. The list now is said to include four female appellate-court judges. If Bush is looking for a Hispanic other than Gonzales, he could turn to Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit. If gender balance or ethnicity isn't a concern, there's a long list of "heavy" (or, as one Republican Senate staffer called them, "kick-ass") white male conservative judges.

To those on the religious right, anyone on the list would be preferable to Gonzales, whom they regard as a chilling reincarnation of David Souter, Bush One's moderate pick in 1990. Choosing the attorney general might well doom GOP Senate incumbents, they say, by infuriating the party's fervent, evangelical grass roots. "If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006," said Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of conservative groups called Third Branch Conference. A former legal counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Miranda went on to threaten retribution against First Brother, should he decide to run for president. "We're not Republican patsies," he said. "Jeb Bush can go sell insurance."

Knowing the history—it was, after all, his hero Reagan who chose Bork and Bush the First who chose Thomas—the president has insisted that his team be battle-ready at all times for a Supreme Court fight. Some advisers suggested that he put off naming his choice until late August, so that critics would have less time to chew over—and chew up—his nominee. But the president and his aides believe that they have learned the lessons of the past, and that the outside network they have established will withstand whatever assault the Blue Team can mount. The White House planned to announce his pick as soon as the end of this week.

Indeed, Bush may still be preparing for more than one fight—in the still-live possibility that Rehnquist steps down later this summer. In that scenario, the president could nominate Gonzales and a "heavy" conservative. As he prepared to fly off to the G8 summit in Scotland, Bush took along briefing books about the shortlist candidates, none of whom he has formally interviewed. He planned to read them on Air Force One. If this were Texas Hold 'Em, the face-up cards wouldn't look that promising: a politically fractious country, a poisonous Senate, even a restive right. But only Bush knew what cards were in his own hand, and he wasn't about to show them just yet.

With Richard Wolffe, Tamara Lipper and Holly Bailey

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

briannell wrote:The Holy War Begins
Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent. Inside his Supreme Machine.
Most Popular
•By Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek
July 11 issue - As soon as president George W. Bush officially got the news—Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring—he huddled with his innermost circle. He wanted to give them the word and review the game plan now that he would be choosing a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. As staffers filed into the Oval Office for the regular 9 a.m. meeting last Friday, Bush ushered Vice President Dick Cheney and counselors Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett into the adjacent dining area. A smoothly run vetting process mattered, the president said, but not as much as the identity and history of the person he ultimately selects. "A lot of people are going to be focused on the process," he said, "but when I make the candidate selection, the focus will be on the candidate."



Bush was half right: the focus, in fact, is squarely on him, too. Presidencies are defined by key moments. So far, his are the Bullhorn of 9/11 and the decision to go to war in Iraq. Now comes the next Big Call. Having risen to power as a committed conservative, and having largely governed as one, he must choose: big tent or revival tent? On Capitol Hill, and around Washington, the assumption is that, on a personal level, Bush favors Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He is a longtime Texas compadre who would, if confirmed, be the court's first Latino at a time when wooing Hispanics is a Republican Party priority. But Gonzales is considered suspect by pro-life forces and has a thin, hard-to-pin-down track record as a Texas judge. In fact, he is the only A-list contender whom religious conservatives pledge, upfront, to fight. "We'd oppose him," said Tom Minnery of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family.

Bush's political dilemma is tougher than the one his aides until quite recently had been planning for. For months, if not years, the theory was that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, now 80 years old and infirm, would be the first justice to leave the Bush-era court. But O'Connor's departure raises the already astronomical stakes even higher. Conservatives see a chance to turn the court farther right; liberals and Democrats insist the president is duty-bound to pick another comparative centrist, and predict constitutional doom if he doesn't. "This is probably the most significant Supreme Court resignation and nomination we'll see in our lifetimes," said Jay Sekulow, counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice. His counterpart at the liberal Alliance for Justice agreed. "The stakes are now enormous," said Nan Aron.

But all-out war probably was inevitable in any case. In our law-obsessed country, we're always arguing about the meaning (or existence) of constitutional rights; the courts are a form of precinct politics with footnotes attached. But battles over court nominations have become more heated as emotional issues such as abortion move to center stage. In 1987, the Reagan White House was blindsided by the ferocity of the cultural attacks on Judge Robert Bork; four years later Clarence Thomas was able to survive by denouncing the "high-tech lynching" he claimed he was facing.

And that was child's play, political pat-a-cake in the innocent days before the advent of war rooms, the Internet, a brace of cable news channels, talk radio and deep-pocketed advocacy groups. The armies of Red and Blue have been wheeling their catapults into place for a long time. Progress for America, an ally of the Bush White House, launched an ad campaign in June on cable TV, demanding that there be an up or down vote on Bush's choice. The group plans to spend at least $18 million on the battle. On the left, the MoveOn PAC is on the move, already advertising in key states, earnestly asking the question: "Will George Bush pick an extremist who will threaten our rights?" Within the putatively collegial Senate, no one wasted much time pledging bipartisan good will. In the olden days, the notion of blocking a court choice by talking it to death was largely beyond the pale. No more. Democrats who threatened to do just that to Bush appellate-court choices did not rule out doing so now once they see whom Bush picks.

So who will it be? Two weeks ago, as rumors began to spread that O'Connor might depart, Bush aides and allies stepped up inquiries about female candidates, in case he decided he needed to select a woman to replace a woman. The list now is said to include four female appellate-court judges. If Bush is looking for a Hispanic other than Gonzales, he could turn to Emilio Garza of the Fifth Circuit. If gender balance or ethnicity isn't a concern, there's a long list of "heavy" (or, as one Republican Senate staffer called them, "kick-ass") white male conservative judges.

To those on the religious right, anyone on the list would be preferable to Gonzales, whom they regard as a chilling reincarnation of David Souter, Bush One's moderate pick in 1990. Choosing the attorney general might well doom GOP Senate incumbents, they say, by infuriating the party's fervent, evangelical grass roots. "If the president is foolish enough to nominate Al Gonzales, what he will find is a divided base that will take it out on candidates in 2006," said Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of conservative groups called Third Branch Conference. A former legal counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Miranda went on to threaten retribution against First Brother, should he decide to run for president. "We're not Republican patsies," he said. "Jeb Bush can go sell insurance."

Knowing the history—it was, after all, his hero Reagan who chose Bork and Bush the First who chose Thomas—the president has insisted that his team be battle-ready at all times for a Supreme Court fight. Some advisers suggested that he put off naming his choice until late August, so that critics would have less time to chew over—and chew up—his nominee. But the president and his aides believe that they have learned the lessons of the past, and that the outside network they have established will withstand whatever assault the Blue Team can mount. The White House planned to announce his pick as soon as the end of this week.

Indeed, Bush may still be preparing for more than one fight—in the still-live possibility that Rehnquist steps down later this summer. In that scenario, the president could nominate Gonzales and a "heavy" conservative. As he prepared to fly off to the G8 summit in Scotland, Bush took along briefing books about the shortlist candidates, none of whom he has formally interviewed. He planned to read them on Air Force One. If this were Texas Hold 'Em, the face-up cards wouldn't look that promising: a politically fractious country, a poisonous Senate, even a restive right. But only Bush knew what cards were in his own hand, and he wasn't about to show them just yet.

With Richard Wolffe, Tamara Lipper and Holly Bailey

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

two words: Ann Coulter

Hell's Bells wrote:
two words: Ann Coulter

briannell wrote:The Holy War Begins
Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent. Inside his Supreme Machine.
Most Popular
•By Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek...
...Having risen to power as a committed conservative, and having largely governed as one, he must choose: big tent or revival tent?...

Are they KIDDING?

Bush a committed conservative? It's amazing to me that the media labels anyone who cuts taxes as a conservative. Take away those tax cuts and I'd have a hard time even labelling Bush as a moderate.

Back in the late 90's, when W's name first starting popping up as a potential GOP candidate for President, I didn't know much about him. I was immediately turned off/tuned out to him, however, when I heard that one of his closest allies/confidantes was our own former governor, Marc Racicot.

Racicot led Montana with a Republican House & Senate for most (possibly ALL?) of his tenure. Take away the (R) after his name, however, and you'd NEVER have guessed he wasn't a Democrat based on how he governed (tax & spend; bigger, more-expensive government). Montana's budget skyrocketed, the business climate steadily declined, and there was NO sign of anything remotely conservative coming out of Helena. The conservative Heritage Foundation annually ranks governors on various issues, including fiscal policies. Racicot routinely finished DEAD LAST in this category, behind EVERY Democrat governor.

I see Bush governing the same way; I don't want to deal with his handling of the war here, but he has spent money domestically in a way that probably makes Bill Clinton jealous! One small example: A TRUE conservative would have abolished the Federal Department of Education; instead, Bush introduces No Child Left Behind and the DoE's budget goes through the roof! As I stated earlier, take away the tax cuts (most of which will expire within the next 6 years, btw), and you'd never guess W was a fiscal conservative.

My only hope is that he will find & nominate a staunch, Constitutionally-minded judge for the seat vacated by O'Connor. I couldn't care less about that person's view on abortion or religion or Affirmitive Action, etc.; the person simply needs to be able to interpret the Constitution correctly and rule accordingly. For example, I hope it will be someone who WON'T rule that the government can confiscate your property & sell it to Wal-Mart or CostCo or Town Pump or whomever they decide will create more $$ for government. The 5 idiots, er justices, who ruled that way last week have just made it clear that increasing the tax base now improves the "public good" and therefore anything that increases revenues for the government now falls under Eminent Domain.

Scary...

El_Gato wrote:My only hope is that he will find & nominate a staunch, Constitutionally-minded judge for the seat vacated by O'Connor. I couldn't care less about that person's view on abortion or religion or Affirmitive Action, etc.; the person simply needs to be able to interpret the Constitution correctly and rule accordingly. For example, I hope it will be someone who WON'T rule that the government can confiscate your property & sell it to Wal-Mart or CostCo or Town Pump or whomever they decide will create more $$ for government. The 5 idiots, er justices, who ruled that way last week have just made it clear that increasing the tax base now improves the "public good" and therefore anything that increases revenues for the government now falls under Eminent Domain.

<Begin Sarcasm Mode>
What? You mean the Supreme Court justices may have their own agendas, rather than basing their decisions on the Constitution? You mean they're...activists?
<End Sarcasm Mode>

When I was a younger conservative in the 80s, I had high hopes for O'Connor--since she was nominated by arguably the greatest president of the 20th Century--but she's turned out to be no better than Ginsburg in most situations.

You can bet, though, that regardless of Bush's choice, the "other side of the aisle" will label him/her as "extreme."

Unless, of course, that person is an apologist of Che Guevara.

Interestingly enough, it is the conservatives who are already making noise about the potential nominees. Groups are being very vocal about Gonzales, saying that he isn't conservative enough. Essentially, the conservative base wants to see someone on the bench that will vote "their way" as opposed to just ruling on the basis of the constitution, so this will definitely be an interesting process.

Contrary to what HC thinks, I think the Dems would be thrilled with somebody like El Gato suggests -- just somebody who is strong as a judge and not married to any political causes. They are only worried about Bush nominating somebody who wants to try to rewrite the judiciary in the form of a theocracy. It will be the conservatives who are going to be putting pressure on for Bush to nominate a fringe nominee.

I'm hoping that Bush does the right thing and just nominates a good judge and doesn't base it on their open opinions on any topics. Otherwise, we will (rightly) have a big fight during the confirmation process. I don't think Bush has the political capital right now to force through anybody too far in one direction, so I'm hoping that our court will be of a reasonable makeup after these next two judges are added (assuming that the other guy retires shortly as well).

This is an opportunity for Bush to do something to lift himself up in my eyes and the eyes of the majority of Americans who aren't thrilled with his job performance so far. I hope he comes through with a reasonable decision. After all, he doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who nominates a loony Supreme Court justice, so he has personal legacy motivation to make a good decision as well.

El_Gato wrote:

briannell wrote:The Holy War Begins
Bush must choose between the big tent or the revival tent. Inside his Supreme Machine.
Most Popular
•By Howard Fineman and Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek...
...Having risen to power as a committed conservative, and having largely governed as one, he must choose: big tent or revival tent?...

Are they KIDDING?

Bush a committed conservative? It's amazing to me that the media labels anyone who cuts taxes as a conservative. Take away those tax cuts and I'd have a hard time even labelling Bush as a moderate.

Back in the late 90's, when W's name first starting popping up as a potential GOP candidate for President, I didn't know much about him. I was immediately turned off/tuned out to him, however, when I heard that one of his closest allies/confidantes was our own former governor, Marc Racicot.

Racicot led Montana with a Republican House & Senate for most (possibly ALL?) of his tenure. Take away the (R) after his name, however, and you'd NEVER have guessed he wasn't a Democrat based on how he governed (tax & spend; bigger, more-expensive government). Montana's budget skyrocketed, the business climate steadily declined, and there was NO sign of anything remotely conservative coming out of Helena. The conservative Heritage Foundation annually ranks governors on various issues, including fiscal policies. Racicot routinely finished DEAD LAST in this category, behind EVERY Democrat governor.

I see Bush governing the same way; I don't want to deal with his handling of the war here, but he has spent money domestically in a way that probably makes Bill Clinton jealous! One small example: A TRUE conservative would have abolished the Federal Department of Education; instead, Bush introduces No Child Left Behind and the DoE's budget goes through the roof! As I stated earlier, take away the tax cuts (most of which will expire within the next 6 years, btw), and you'd never guess W was a fiscal conservative.

My only hope is that he will find & nominate a staunch, Constitutionally-minded judge for the seat vacated by O'Connor. I couldn't care less about that person's view on abortion or religion or Affirmitive Action, etc.; the person simply needs to be able to interpret the Constitution correctly and rule accordingly. For example, I hope it will be someone who WON'T rule that the government can confiscate your property & sell it to Wal-Mart or CostCo or Town Pump or whomever they decide will create more $$ for government. The 5 idiots, er justices, who ruled that way last week have just made it clear that increasing the tax base now improves the "public good" and therefore anything that increases revenues for the government now falls under Eminent Domain.

Scary...

I think when people say that Bush is conservative, they are focusing solely on his social conservative record (anti-gays, anti-abortion, blurring church/state lines, etc., etc.). I don't think many people really consider him a fiscal conservative. Anybody can enact tax cuts, but the conservative part, as you noted, means that you have to cut spending as well. As it is, he is just a borrow and spend liberal, which is similar to a liberal Democrat, but without the level of fiscal responsibility.

Totally agree with you on the Eminent Domain thing. Interestingly, that decision was almost universally disdained by everyone across the political spectrum. Conservatives are upset based on private property grounds, and even the most hard-core liberal is going to be against taking private property to benefit businesses. That decision wasn't liberal or conservative (unlike how many others can be cast), it was hated by almost everyone (except leaders of municipalities who are trying to do economic development in blighted neighborhoods and the corporations that want to do the developing).

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Unless, of course, that person is an apologist of Che Guevara.

It is hard to really justify any sympathy for Che. He was a political ideolouge who endorsed violent overthrows of corrupt and oppresive regimes (as most of them were and are) in less developed parts of the world so that his own preferred form of government could take control.

It is such a strange idea that one could think that some foreigner like Che could go into a country and then use violence to try to change that country to fit his personal views of what that country should be like. If the people of that country really wanted that kind of change, they could have done it themselves.

In the context of what you are trying to say about the non-conservatives of this country, though, I think you just might be overestimating the impact Che has on the philosophies of people. Outside of his face gracing the t shirts of a couple kids at punk shows, he's pretty much just an interesting footnote in political history.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

'93HonoluluCat wrote:Unless, of course, that person is an apologist of Che Guevara.

In the context of what you are trying to say about the non-conservatives of this country, though, I think you just might be overestimating the impact Che has on the philosophies of people. Outside of his face gracing the t shirts of a couple kids at punk shows, he's pretty much just an interesting footnote in political history.

I wasn't trying to label all Democrats or social liberals as Che apologists, though that's the way it came out.

My apologies to all the more moderate voices on this board--no offense intended.

Bay Area Cat wrote:Totally agree with you on the Eminent Domain thing. Interestingly, that decision was almost universally disdained by everyone across the political spectrum. Conservatives are upset based on private property grounds, and even the most hard-core liberal is going to be against taking private property to benefit businesses. That decision wasn't liberal or conservative (unlike how many others can be cast), it was hated by almost everyone (except leaders of municipalities who are trying to do economic development in blighted neighborhoods and the corporations that want to do the developing).

What disappointed me maybe the most of the recent property decision was the apparent dichotomy with our Nation's heritage of Manifest Destiny--because Manifest Destiny was rooted in private property owners expanding territory.

'93HonoluluCat wrote:What disappointed me maybe the most of the recent property decision was the apparent dichotomy with our Nation's heritage of Manifest Destiny--because Manifest Destiny was rooted in private property owners expanding territory.

I never thought about it in that context. Keeping with that theme, how ironic would it be if this ruling was used to take private property from whites in order to build a big-ass Indian casino? Then Manifest Destiny would come full circle -- we took their land with the violent backing of the U.S. government, and then they take it right back with the legal authority of the U.S. government.

The same level of irony would attach to the use of this precedent for a Mexican-American owned project in much of the Western and Southwestern U.S.

I never thought about it in that context. Keeping with that theme, how ironic would it be if this ruling was used to take private property from whites in order to build a big-ass Indian casino

BAC - they are doing this here in WA state, just surprised me that someone would bring this up, it was ironic to me. It is up in Snohomish County, they're the Tulalip tribe. Getting back resort homes from white families, claiming the whites are damaging the environment.

-rebecca[/quote]

At the risk of wandering off-topic...

briannell wrote:

BAC wrote:I never thought about it in that context. Keeping with that theme, how ironic would it be if this ruling was used to take private property from whites in order to build a big-ass Indian casino

BAC - they are doing this here in WA state, just surprised me that someone would bring this up, it was ironic to me. It is up in Snohomish County, they're the Tulalip tribe. Getting back resort homes from white families, claiming the whites are damaging the environment.

-rebecca

Sure--why not? They've got to get some useable land now that they've built the casinos and large amounts of blacktop over formerly pristine areas. They're no less parasitic about their land than we are with ours.