Give 'em A New Tone, They'll Take A Mile
The natives appear to be restless over President Bush's unprecedented decision to "consult" with over sixty senators of both parties (but mostly Democrats) as part of the process of selecting the next Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Just to cite a single (and singular) example, here's something of what Mark Levin had to say:
As former Seattle Seahawk offensive lineman Pete Kendall once said in his chowder-thick "Baaaahston" accent, "That's a faih question." Especially since this herculean effort in bipartisan bending-over-backwards-ism, as was tiresomely predictable, doesn't appear to be winning any comparable - or just "any" - recuprication from the DisLoyal Opposition:
Thus we see the Donks openly admitting what we in the grassroots said from the beginning: that "consultation," to the White House, meant "consultation," while to the Dems it meant dictating to the President who his choice was - and was not - going to be.
Cap'n Ed calls this "a first step towards building an excuse for another filibuster" - as if they need one. Any pretext for what amounts to an inter-branch coup de'tat by the legislative minority against the twice-elected Chief Executive will be flimsy by definition because the very act of eviscerating the President's sole appointment power recorded in Article II, Section II without Amendment is unconstitutional. The Dems are only pursuing this particular "excuse" because Dubya has yielded considerable ground on it.
Regardless, it's not as though they're not still as submerged in delusions of grandeur and nostaglic dementia for the days of glory before 1994 as they've always been. Get a load of Chucky Schumer's ego trip:
A "suggestion" that is phrased as a de facto command. As though Bush doesn't just owe the Donks this deference, but is obligated to do so. Really, a declaration of a co-presidency by a committee of forty-six members: all 45 Senate Democrats and George Bush, with each member getting a single vote.
Something similar was pulled on President John Tyler after the sudden death of his Whig predecessor William Henry Harrison created the first presidential succession. Only at his first Cabinet meeting did Tyler learn that Harrison was meant to be a figurehead for the Whig congressional poobahs Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (via historian Frank Freidel):
The Democrats' chutzpah is worse. The Whigs at the time (1841) were the majority in Congress, and Tyler, a states' rights Democrat, stumbled into a scenario he knew nothing about and which nobody had expected. Today's Donks are deep in the minority and, far from trying to hookwink an unsuspecting incoming veep, are genuinely expecting the sitting POTUS to bow down and surrender his presidency to them. Or, as the aforementioned Mr. Morrissey put it:
The only real question is whether Bush is casting the Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves or the Democrats are exuding the confidence of a poker player holding four aces. Arguing for the former is this comment from Darth Queeg:
Has "Sailor" "had enough of Democrat intransigence," or does he merely seek to salvage what broken shards remain of his 2008 presidential ambitions? Or, bolstering the second answer above, is he lying in wait to break the inevitable filibuster and then pull an even bigger double-cross by helping the minority vote down the President's nominee?
I'd love to pick door #1, would settle for door #2, but am resigned to door #3. My partisan morale, though, like Mr. Levin's above, would be cheered considerably if the President would simply be more partisan. I mean, four and a half years of being a nice guy to his enemies hasn't gotten him bupkis. It's the one lesson of his father's presidency that he has never learned.
But what we have to remember about Dubya is that he is what he is. The "New Tone" is dogma to him. If he was going to deviate from it, he would have done so during the last election cycle. His White House does not and will never have a propaganda machine like its predecessor did that hunts the opposition like the PR equivalent of the Alien. They will never have a cross word to say against Reid or Pelosi or al-Durbini or Kennedy or Schumer or Boxer or the Clintons. It's just not the way they do business.
And so, Bush "consulted." If his word means anything (and thus far, with a couple of gaping exceptions - free trade and campaign finance "reform" - it has), he will proceed to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS that is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, Dirty Harry & Co. will "cry havoc," and the dogs of "war" will be released.
And then we will see if the bold pronouncements of McCain and his mini-me (Lindsey Graham), to the effect that the President's choice will receive an up-or-down vote, will be honored.
Any way you slice it, unless the President totally caves, the SCOTUS will convene in October with eight (or fewer) members.
But we can count on one thing: Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will all be getting nice White House fruit baskets. After all, it's the least Dubya can do.
Just to cite a single (and singular) example, here's something of what Mark Levin had to say:
President Bush should listen to his base, not his opponents.
Last week the President admonished conservatives for daring to suggest that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee because of an opinion he wrote in a Texas parental-notification case while serving on the Texas supreme court, and because of his role as White House counsel in watering down the Administration's brief against reverse discrimination in admissions policies at University of Michigan....the same conservatives who went to bat for Gonzales when the President nominated him for attorney general.
Meanwhile, this morning, President Bush had breakfast with, among others, Senators Harry Reid and Patrick Leahy — both of whom voted against Gonzales's confirmation and who led efforts to tie him to torture — for the purpose of consulting with them about his nomination to the Court. And, of course, Reid famously called the President a "loser" and a "liar." And Leahy has conspired with leftwing groups in an effort to derail the President's appellate-court nominees for the last four years, including through the use of unprecedented and unconstitutional filibusters.
What's wrong with this picture? President Bush was quick to slap his conservative base, yet he has shown an inexhaustible supply of sensitivity to those who plot to derail his presidency.
As former Seattle Seahawk offensive lineman Pete Kendall once said in his chowder-thick "Baaaahston" accent, "That's a faih question." Especially since this herculean effort in bipartisan bending-over-backwards-ism, as was tiresomely predictable, doesn't appear to be winning any comparable - or just "any" - recuprication from the DisLoyal Opposition:
Democrats are trying to establish their own standard for the consultation, with emands likely to increase. Unless Bush shares the names of potential nominees, they say, the process will have been a charade that could affect the confirmation battle. "There has to be more consultation," Senator Patrick J. Leahy (VT), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said after the meeting. "This was only a first step."
Thus we see the Donks openly admitting what we in the grassroots said from the beginning: that "consultation," to the White House, meant "consultation," while to the Dems it meant dictating to the President who his choice was - and was not - going to be.
Cap'n Ed calls this "a first step towards building an excuse for another filibuster" - as if they need one. Any pretext for what amounts to an inter-branch coup de'tat by the legislative minority against the twice-elected Chief Executive will be flimsy by definition because the very act of eviscerating the President's sole appointment power recorded in Article II, Section II without Amendment is unconstitutional. The Dems are only pursuing this particular "excuse" because Dubya has yielded considerable ground on it.
Regardless, it's not as though they're not still as submerged in delusions of grandeur and nostaglic dementia for the days of glory before 1994 as they've always been. Get a load of Chucky Schumer's ego trip:
"For consultation to work, and we all want it to work, the President should suggest some names and get the opinion of those of us in the Senate," he said. The senator also suggested the President convene a summit at Camp David or "a dinner at the White House" to privately discuss the nomination.
A "suggestion" that is phrased as a de facto command. As though Bush doesn't just owe the Donks this deference, but is obligated to do so. Really, a declaration of a co-presidency by a committee of forty-six members: all 45 Senate Democrats and George Bush, with each member getting a single vote.
Something similar was pulled on President John Tyler after the sudden death of his Whig predecessor William Henry Harrison created the first presidential succession. Only at his first Cabinet meeting did Tyler learn that Harrison was meant to be a figurehead for the Whig congressional poobahs Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (via historian Frank Freidel):
At the first Cabinet meeting, on the day after Harrison's death, Webster [appointed Secretary of State by Harrison] asked [Tyler] whether he intended to continue Harrison's procedures. When Tyler nodded slightly, Webster told him that Harrison had agreed that at Cabinet meetings questions were "to be decided by the majority, each member of the Cabinet and the President having but one vote." Rising to his feet, Tyler retorted, "...I can never consent to being dictated to...I, as President, shall be responsible for my administration."
The Democrats' chutzpah is worse. The Whigs at the time (1841) were the majority in Congress, and Tyler, a states' rights Democrat, stumbled into a scenario he knew nothing about and which nobody had expected. Today's Donks are deep in the minority and, far from trying to hookwink an unsuspecting incoming veep, are genuinely expecting the sitting POTUS to bow down and surrender his presidency to them. Or, as the aforementioned Mr. Morrissey put it:
A summit? Perhaps Schumer has listened to the Cold War rhetoric emanating from the Left too long, but Presidents do not hold summits with partisan hacks over executive nominations. The very use of the term, popularized by the press for meetings between American presidents and Communist heads of state, serves as an ironic and revealing look into the mind of Schumer and his political allies. They don't see themselves as a loyal opposition or an opposition of any sort. They see themselves as the mortal enemies of the Administration and want to do everything possible to obstruct its exercise of Constitutional duty. [Latter emphasis added]
The only real question is whether Bush is casting the Democrats all the rope they need to hang themselves or the Democrats are exuding the confidence of a poker player holding four aces. Arguing for the former is this comment from Darth Queeg:
This point was endorsed by Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican who helped broker a pact with Senate Democrats to move forward on several stalled lower-court judicial nominees.
"During the campaign, President Bush said he will appoint judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution," the senator said in Dallas. "Thinking anything else is either amnesia or ignorance. ... Whomever he nominates deserves an up or down vote and no filibuster," Mr. McCain said. "And an up or down vote is what we will have."
Has "Sailor" "had enough of Democrat intransigence," or does he merely seek to salvage what broken shards remain of his 2008 presidential ambitions? Or, bolstering the second answer above, is he lying in wait to break the inevitable filibuster and then pull an even bigger double-cross by helping the minority vote down the President's nominee?
I'd love to pick door #1, would settle for door #2, but am resigned to door #3. My partisan morale, though, like Mr. Levin's above, would be cheered considerably if the President would simply be more partisan. I mean, four and a half years of being a nice guy to his enemies hasn't gotten him bupkis. It's the one lesson of his father's presidency that he has never learned.
But what we have to remember about Dubya is that he is what he is. The "New Tone" is dogma to him. If he was going to deviate from it, he would have done so during the last election cycle. His White House does not and will never have a propaganda machine like its predecessor did that hunts the opposition like the PR equivalent of the Alien. They will never have a cross word to say against Reid or Pelosi or al-Durbini or Kennedy or Schumer or Boxer or the Clintons. It's just not the way they do business.
And so, Bush "consulted." If his word means anything (and thus far, with a couple of gaping exceptions - free trade and campaign finance "reform" - it has), he will proceed to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS that is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, Dirty Harry & Co. will "cry havoc," and the dogs of "war" will be released.
And then we will see if the bold pronouncements of McCain and his mini-me (Lindsey Graham), to the effect that the President's choice will receive an up-or-down vote, will be honored.
Any way you slice it, unless the President totally caves, the SCOTUS will convene in October with eight (or fewer) members.
But we can count on one thing: Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy will all be getting nice White House fruit baskets. After all, it's the least Dubya can do.
posted by JASmius at 10:38 PM
<<< Home