Posted on 11/02/2005 3:11:30 PM PST by xsysmgr
I have been thinking about why I am so confident that Samuel Alito will be confirmed comfortably by the Senate, with no filibuster attempt by the Democrats, indeed with a good slice of the Democrats voting for him, and probably after hearings that (alas) break no new ground in candor or "ideological" inquiry. And it occurs to me that the reason is summed up in two words: Harriet Miers.
I mean no disrespect to Ms. Miers, and more importantly, I do not mean to impute a cynically Machiavellian strategy to the president. But if George W. Bush, with or without the willing collusion of Harriet Miers, had planned for things to work out the way they have, they could not have done so more beautifully.
Rewind our recent history just a bit. When John Roberts was first nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on July 19, there were two immediate grounds for objection to him cited by the Left: that he was a man chosen to replace a woman, and that he would presumably move the Court rightward, based on what was known of his record. Roberts's obvious excellence by every measure that matters for service on the Supreme Court quickly made the "man replaces woman" issue go away, as it just seemed silly and petty to nearly everyone but the professional feminists. Within a day or two, all that mattered was the "balance of the Court" issue, and all attention turned to Roberts's judicial "philosophy," and to more specific questions of what he could or should be asked, how much he should be expected to respond, and what point on the continuum between pure speculation and solid certainty about his views would be reached by the end of his hearings. Through August one might have said the temperature of the debate moderated somewhat as the public responded very favorably to Roberts, but it still looked like he could face a tough gantlet to run in the Judiciary Committee.
Then came the death of William Rehnquist on September 3, with Roberts's hearings set to begin two days later. When the president quickly moved his nomination of Roberts from the associate's seat to the center chair of the chief justice, the case for Roberts actually became stronger among those naturally disposed against him, as many concluded that a "swap" of Roberts for Rehnquist would probably have a smaller impact on the future course of the Court's decision-making than if Roberts replaced O'Connor. Suddenly the Roberts hearings, already put off for a week, became a much less high-stakes affair, despite the formally greater importance of confirming a chief justice. Probably Roberts would have been just as cool and competent in any event, but some Democratic senators, on and off the committee, no doubt dialed back their Outrage-o-Meters. The final 78-22 vote on September 29 was a sign of how "safe" many of them felt with Roberts replacing Rehnquist, and the Washington Post's editorial the week before, chastising minority leader Harry Reid for opposing Roberts, had to be a sign of the same feeling in the liberal press.
But in the meantime, the chance for a second go at replacing Justice O'Connor produced a redoubled effort on the left to press for both a female nominee and a more "moderate" one than Roberts. Strangely, liberals could almost have thanked Chief Justice Rehnquist for dying in timely fashion and helping them dodge a bullet. The pressure in particular for the president to name a woman was ratcheted up considerably.
Now imagine if Samuel Alito, not Harriet Miers, had been nominated on October 3. The mere fact of his maleness would have been enough to set off the whirling dervishes of the Left, and his conservative reputation would have completed the escalation of the debate. Alito's many sterling qualities, beginning with his superb intellectual and experiential qualifications, would have been far less a part of the conversation if he had been nominated immediately after the similarly gifted and qualified John Roberts. His evident threat to the "balance" on the Court would have produced serious stirrings of filibuster talk among Democrats, and some Republican senators who had joined the Gang of 14 to forestall filibusters last spring might have been talked into acquiescing in the "extraordinary" character of an Alito nomination in early October, especially as liberal activist groups ginned up the talk of "right-wing robed radicals."
Instead we got Harriet Miers, whose recommendations seemed to be that she was female, known to and close to the president, and otherwise an enigma at best as a future justice of the Court. When her qualifications were rapidly assessed as falling well short of the standard set by Roberts, we were in for 24 days in which intellectual achievement, and the right sort of legal or judicial experience, suddenly looked like the most important things.
In the intra-party debate among Republicans, conservatives all but swore a blood oath that if the president would relent and withdraw the Miers nomination, they would fight like never before for his next nominee (assuming he or she measured up decently by the Roberts yardstick). "Moderate" Republicans like Arlen Specter began to talk about qualifications, and knowledge of constitutional law, as the foremost considerations. Perhaps most importantly, some Democrats, including key figures like Patrick Leahy, sounded some of the same themes, as did some major press outlets.
It's not just the withdrawal of the Miers nomination that benefits Judge Alito, by making his nomination possible. It's the fact that there was a Miers nomination at all that benefits Judge Alito, by making his confirmation a virtual certainty. He benefits from the contrast. He doesn't follow Roberts, whom he resembles in key respects. He follows Miers, than whom he could not be more different. Suddenly his great credentials for this job, which would have been greeted with a shrug on October 3, become the focus of attention on October 31. Politicians of both parties who spent October talking about the importance of constitutional law knowledge, of experience in appellate advocacy and/or judging, and of intellectual achievement, are hardly now in a position to downplay the obvious possession of all those qualities by Samuel Alito.
If I thought that President Bush was deeply cynical, and Harriet Miers a loyal lamb willing to be led to the slaughter in his service, I would suspect that they had a conversation in late September that set this all up. That the president wanted to nominate Sam Alito all along. That he and Harriet Miers were agreed on her lack of fitness for the Supreme Court, and foresaw the events that followed her nomination. That they deliberately created the conditions in which conservatives, moderates, and even many liberals would react to her withdrawal with relief and to the nomination of Judge Alito with gratitude and admiration. That the failed Miers nomination would make "it's gotta be a woman" go away as an issue for nearly everyone, and bring neutral questions of expertise front and center once again. That it would then be almost impossible for the president's opponents to generate the political momentum needed to defeat this nomination to the Court.
I don't think for a moment that these effects were foreseen and planned in the secret councils of the Bush White House. I'm not kidding; I really don't. It is contrary to everything we know about George W. Bush's head and his heart to suppose that he would trifle with the future of the Court, with the feelings of his friend and close adviser, and with the sympathies of his own partisan supporters, in such cavalier fashion.
But this president has shown an uncanny knack for recovering from his own mistakes, and turning defeat into triumph. It looks like he has done it again, this time with a reversal of field that makes his prior error of judgment look like it was made by a different person altogether, but that also turns that mistake to good effect. October turns out not to have been wasted time at all, but a month well spent on a debate that helps the president's new nomination tremendously. Samuel Alito was probably bound for confirmation anyway, but his path has been made measurably smoother by the fracas over Harriet Miers.
— Matthew J. Franck is a professor and chairman of political science at Radford University.
Hmmmm....
Damn, they finally figured out his strategery...
This journalist obviously reads DU, LOL, because that is exactly what they think...Bush planned it all along.
Maybe. It won't work again.
"Bush planned it all along."
No way. The DUmmies really think Chimpy McHitlerburton pulled this off? Last I checked, they claimed he had the brain of an amoeba. How can this be? /sarcasm
"This journalist obviously reads DU, LOL, because that is exactly what they think...Bush planned it all along."
DU, the only place in the world where Bush can be a dumb Shrubby McChimp and an evil super-genius at the same time.
Bush also got to see who else in movement conservatism will be loyal to a fault, as well -- that turns out to be the "Truly-Committed-Christian" Conservative base.
And Bush was willing to spend political capital to learn exactly who his friends are too. The establishment conservative talking heads had their own agenda, and many showed their true colors when it came to trusting his judgment. Bush is assured of who it is that will truly stick with him through thick and thin.
In the end I suspect he is not surprised.
He rope-a-doped his hangers-on the same way he does the libs.
Strategery = Bush gets his way when everyone else least expects it.
"DU, the only place in the world where Bush can be a dumb Shrubby McChimp and an evil super-genius at the same time."
LOL!
Hehe, they are all like Dr. Strangelove, trying to supress the Nazi salute...the inner conflict boils close to the surface...their eyes dart from side to side...we begin to hear them singing "Daisy" a la "2001-A Space Odyssey"...they look like...HOWARD DEAN!
There's a lot of wild speculation in this article, but this point is absolutely correct.
"many showed their true colors when it came to trusting his judgment"
You posit that Miers willingly "took the arrows" meaning that you agree that her nomination was a ploy.
But, you then condemn pundits and others, who according to you "showed their true colors when it came to trusting his judgment."
Had everyone trusted his judgement, the Miers nomination, that you consider a ploy, would have gone through.
And you still consider this a good thing? Amazing.
The ROVEEEEEEEEEEE strikes again...damn he's gooooooood!!! :)
As the article itself implies, the strategy was to withdraw her all along in order to pave the way for Alito.
That "conservatives" couldn't trust Bush's judgment on this task, inspite of every other one of his other supurb judicial appointments for lower courts, says more about the fairweather friends he has among the ranks of those that call themselves conservatives.
He confirmed in his mind who his real allies are now, and those who are loyal and trust his judgment without having to necessarily understand it right away. As the strategy goes, he gets what he wants.
Like Reagan at Reykjavik in 1987, many conservatives didn't understand Reagan's strategy. At the time Richard Viguerie, Pat Buchanan, Howard Philips all wrote Reagan off literally using the terms "lame-duck," and "useful idiot." Reagan also demonstrated that there are those in the conservative camp who would underestimate him about as bad as the libs do.
In that way Bush is very Reaganesque, actually.
All those conservative talking heads will now line up to try to take credit for supposedly pursuading Bush to dump Miers, but like Reagan, Bush doesn't care who takes the credit for conservative successes, so long as the ball gets pushed down the field and a goal is scored.
Bush is 10 steps ahead of the glory hogs of the right and the left and his strategy is what it is: a master stroke of genius.
You don't know Bush very well. He would NEVER put a trusted friend of 13 years out front, in a very public way, just so he could pull the rug out from underneath her.
That's not the way Bush operates. He is neither cynical nor cruel.
Promoting Scalia to Chief, replacing O'Connor with Roberts, and selecting a solid proven conservative (Alito) to fill the open seat would have definitely moved the court more to the right. This was a major reason why I voted for Bush.
I agree. I believe that Miers was a part of formulating the strategy from the start. I don't think she felt put off by the task at all, loyally stepped to the plate to do her part when and where she was needed, and can now return to vetting future excellent court nominees like before. Nothing cruel about that at all.
One has to have a thick skin to survive in politics. She's got it for sure, as her own rise to power attests.
Don't confuse strategy with cynicism. Bush played the game, faked the pass, Miers took the tackle, and Alito the wide receiver will run it straight to the goal. That's strategic team work, not cynicism.
LOL!
Genius and Dumb. Trustworthy and Misleading.
He's everything to everyone, I guess.
Wasn't she the person who was directing the search for nominees? Maybe SHE suggested this strategy, figuring that in three years, when President Bush leaves office, Le Affaire Meirs will be but a footnote to his Presidency, and she can return to her high powered career in Texas.
Sorry. You've grown very cynical if you don't think that plan is cynical.
Bush would never put Miers through what she went through, to have her derided by loudmouths like Ann Coulter, called a "cleaning lady," and have her professional status trashed by cretins like David Frum, intentionally.
The "sacrificial lamb" ploy is too cute by half. George W. Bush would never go for something like this.
"He's everything to everyone, I guess."
I'm very glad he's president, but no human being is infallible; being a religious man himself, Bush must surely know this. Whether it was a mistake or a clever ploy, Miers was never meant to be on the Supreme Court. Alito was not my emotional favorite, Janice Rogers Brown was. But Alito is a good, solid choice, and he'll work out just fine. He is no ploy, nor is he a mistake.
So, she made herself look like a dummy as part of a plot?
Nope. Not buyin' it.
Would YOU do something like that? I sure as hell wouldn't.
LOL!
"Bush doesn't care who takes the credit for conservative successes"
Well, I'll just say that I was a vocal dissenter on Miers myself. There were problems there, you must admit, for whatever reason, whether it was strategy or error.
In my mind, there is a name for such overweeningly blind loyalty, that no one would ever dream of questioning decisions: sychophancy. I am glad George W. Bush is my president, but I don't think every single decision he's ever made has been perfect.
Consider it constructive criticism, and move forward. We have a great nominee now, no matter how we got here.
Good friends, fair weather or foul, are willing to tell someone they are doing the wrong thing when they are in fact doing the wrong thing.
Your highly suspect contention is that Bush purposely made a silly choice that he would have to reverse in order to head fake the senate into accepting his wiser choice.
If you are right then Bush's plan depended on true conservatives pointing out the silliness of his first choice thereby reaffirming that they are his true friends for telling him the truth despite the cost.
So from your analysis it would seem that Bush has found out that his true friends are folks like Frum, Coulter, Buchanan, etc. and that people like Dobson are easily manipulated fools with poor judgment.
Of course Frum was the idiot who came up with the silly "axis of evil" nonsense, so maybe your theory is as crackpot as it originally sounded.
Some conservatives think rather highly of themselves and of their own presumed importance to Bush's private thought processes.
Still other conservatives can't bear the thought that they may have had nothing to do with Bush's strategy at all in any of this.
They too often forget that Bush was elected to lead, not to take orders from the troops.
I happen to think Bush is smarter than some non-"True-believer" conservatives are willing to give him credit for.
Maybe even you too.
"This journalist obviously reads DU, LOL, because that is exactly what they think...Bush planned it all along."
And that is where they are wrong. Bush didn't plan it. Rove planned it.
IMHO, Miers took one for the team. The Republicans were quickly splitting apart on issues and they needed to come together. Sometimes the way to do this is unite the players against the coach.
The Miers pick did that. Conservatives banded together and once Bush substituted an anti-abortion, Christian with no experience on the bench with an anti-abortion, Christian with 15 years on the bench, he contrasted the experience factor and took the other two off the table.
In addition, He forced the gang of 14's hands, most notably McCains. McCain cannot win without the Conservatives.
Last but not least, Rove got rid of the problem in Bush's administration. Libby, the RAT attorney for Marc Rich is no longer a thorn in the side of Cheney.
These things don't magically happen. Everything Bush has done for 5 years has been orchestrated to hurtthe RATS. Why would this be any different?
Lost there too have you?
You were just another pathetic Buchananoid whiner during the 2004 campaign IIRC. He didn't need you then and quite frankly doesn't need you now either.
Sorry you have me confused with some one else as I have often posted Buchanan is a hypocrit
But that is understandable since your posts are so illogical anyway
The Commander in Chief must out of necessity put soldiers in harms way to achieve the intended goal in Iraq and elsewhere. Some die in the process. Is that strategy also cynical and also "too-cute by half?"
Actually it has been the likes of Coulter and Frum who have been "too cute by half."
Why can you not see Miers as a good soldier, but in another context -- a far less deadly one in fact, pro-actively volunteering to take a very temporary hit in the line of battle in order that the greater goal might be achieved?
Politics is neither for the naive nor the timid.
You're a cynical conspiracist who sees George W. Bush as a manipulator of his trusted staff.
I don't see it that way. This is not a "war"; Bush certainly doesn't see it as one.
You are free to hold your Art Bell theories. I disagree with them.
Let's leave it at that.
Selecting a well-qualified non-activist conservative judge to fill a supreme court vacancy who just so happens to be acceptable to the vast majority of conservatives would not be a case of Bush taking orders from the troops.
It would be a case of Bush using his leadership role to show that he was in concord with the views of the vast majority of conservatives.
I don't know of any conservative that is worried whether or not Bush will follow his advice. Conservatives are generally worried whether or not Bush will do things that a conservative president would be expected to do.
Greatly expanding the Dept. of Education, greatly increasing government spending, making exhorbitant promises to flood victims, nominating a cipher to the supreme court. These are all actions which suggested to thoughtful conservatives that Bush just might not be a conservative.
As Reagan used to say: Trust, but verify!
I'm not going to suspend my critical faculties for fear that the bushbots will call me a bushbasher.
And if we're going to go the route of conspiracy theories then it is just barely possible that super-intelligent space aliens have been in control of earth for centuries and this is all their doing. They're just ginning up the action in this big reality show called Earth in order to spike the ratings during Sweeps Week on the planet Zoltar! ;-)
Nor do I. I am not part of his inner circle, and I suspect that neither are you. Wisely, he didn't ask for any of our approval. It was up to us to trust his judgment with the process -- that maybe he knows a few things on the inside that none of us know out in the hustings. As one who trusts that he has a plan and he's leading the direction of the reformation of the judiciary -- and with great success so for too -- why should I doubt the plan he has for reshaping the USSC?
He takes counsel of his most loyal staff and regards their loyalty highly. He entertains dissent when formulating strategy, for sure. Any good executive will. Once the strategy is settled, he informs only "need to know" staff, demands loyalty of those who will execute the strategy, and declares that it's "go time."
Too many conservatives particularly media types feel slightled when they are not consulted in the strategizing process. Media types of all stripes tend to blab. Can't keep the strategy a secret that way, can you? If you are going to sucker punch your opposition, you don't announce when or how you are intending to deliver you punch.
Conservative media types just forget who is calling the shots and they are unhappy to learn it when it's not them.
Sadly, politics isn't pretty. And as I said before, it is also not for the naive. You confuse the concept of political strategy with "conspiracy," and "manipulation."
I don't see it that way. This is not a "war"; Bush certainly doesn't see it as one.
And you know this how, exactly?
You are free to hold your Art Bell theories. I disagree with them. Let's leave it at that.
Give it a rest. You just don't understand how the game is played, and you find the politics of it all too distasteful. Like I said, politics is not for the naive.
Who is Art Bell, what relevance does he have to this exchange, and to which theory that this person happens to hold do you refer? I gather that was a faint insult of some sort you were trying to make, but it has been completely lost on me.
I'll just be the happy one, and you can be the one still wringing your hands.
Have fun.
"Who is Art Bell"
He has a radio show. He's sort of the grand poobah of conspiracy theories, lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.