Hugh Hewitt's Odd Thinking
The Blogfather has a lot going for him - quality radio talk show host, unparalleled leadership in this new medium, and (usually) rock-solid conservative/Republican credentials. But there are occasional times when he can fail to see the forest for the trees.
Just moments ago I came across another one:
I can explain this for you real easy, Hugh.
1) Through last Friday there were nine Supreme Court Justices. Seven of them were Republican appointees. Of those seven, only three proved to be constitutionalists. Now a .429 percentage would be fantastic if you were a baseball hitter, but is, shall we say, "underachieving" in just about any other competitive endeavor.
2) That dismal percentage is all that conservatives have to show on such a key issue for a generation of working in election after election to get conservatives elected to the presidency and both Houses of Congress. I think we can all agree that that rate of return is not satisfactory.
3) That dismal percentage is largely the product of "stealth" nominations (David Souter), "compromise" nominations (Anthony Kennedy) and "identity" nominations (the now-retired Sandra Day O'Connor) that have partially or completely backfired. It is not unreasonable, as the WSJ opines, for the President's "most loyal supporters" to have the expectation, especially in light of his oft-repeated pledge to appoint judges in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, that he take no such chances now that he finally has an appointment opportunity.
That's the baseline from which Mr. Bush is operating. What mystifies me is that Double-H doesn't appear to "get it." For instance, where does this "consultation" parallel between Senate Democrats and the GOP base come from? Nobody in the latter is suggesting that the President is obligated to submit his choice to their - our - pre-vetting; and that wouldn't be an institutional matter even if we were.
The reason a lot of conservatives are "feverishly denouncing" Alberto Gonzales, apart from the fact that he'd have to recuse himself from numerous cases likely to come before the SCOTUS in the near future because of his advisory and policy-making role in the Bush Administration as White House Counsel and Attorney-General, is he embodies at least two of the three dubious categories cited above ("compromise" and "identity" - i.e. "first Hispanic Justice") plus a fourth (cronyism) that does such a pick no credibility favors either. There's a reason that right-wing wags are quipping that "Gonzales is Spanish for 'Souter'": because it is highly likely to end up being true, and many of us who have been in or beheld these fights over the years have lost patience with Republican bamboozlings and capitulations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we didn't elect and re-elect a GOP president and give him a double-digit GOP Senate majority only to see that same president, who made judicial nominations a top issue in the last three election cycles, repeat the same feckless mistakes of the past.
Indeed, if anybody is mistrusting Dubya's judgment, it's Hewitt for believing that the grassroots he so celebrates raising commonsensical objections to an awful alternative that would damage the President politically at a time when he needs his base support more than ever will "push" him toward that very awful alternative. For my part, I credit GDub with sufficient mental wattage and political savvy to recognize that a Gonzales nomination would be a betrayal of his core supporters that would purchase exactly nothing with the DisLoyal Opposition, who would treat Mr. Bush's "great friend" no differently than they did any of the constitutionalist appellate court picks they shafted, or will the constitutionalists he can appoint.
Frankly, I resent the "feverish denunciation" crack itself, as it's an exercise in moral equivalency. No conservative is doing anything with the current A-G but criticising his judicial views and temperment based upon his tenure on the Texas Supreme Court. We're not calling him names, or rummaging through his trash, or rifling through his Blockbuster receipts, or peeping through his keyhole. We plainly and simply do not want yet another GOP appointment who will end up "growing" once ensconsed on Olympus.
I thought that's what Double-H wanted as well. Would he really be satisfied with Gonzales?
UPDATE: The American Spectator's Prowler column is also naming Emilio Garza as the frontrunner to replace Justice O'Connor, and A-G Gonzales as a possible nominee should Justice Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg quit later this year, presumably the third opening after a Rehnquist retirement.
Makes sense to me. I wonder what Hugh thinks?
UPDATE II: Here's how Jed Babbin puts it:
Somehow, I don't think Alberto Gonzales would fit that bill.
UPDATE III: Double-H predicts Judge Littig, followed by Judge Garza.
Just moments ago I came across another one:
The Wall Street Journal editorializes for a Scalia/Thomas choice: "After O'Connor: The President owes his supporters a nominee in the Scalia-Thomas mode." The editorial concludes: "Mr. Bush told voters in 2000 and 2004 that he would nominate Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He owes it to the country, and his most loyal supporters, to keep that promise."
This is odd thinking, especially coming from a page that would agree that the Constitution does not oblige the sort of "consultation" that the Senate Democrats are demanding. The same document doesn't demand of the President anything at all, and "his most loyal supporters" is certainly an odd phrase for the Journal to use. The feverish denunciation by some conservatives of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has already pushed the President towards nominating him: "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it. We're lucky to have him as the attorney general, and I'm lucky to have him as a friend." Amazing how some who trust the President's judgment in the war are so worried about it on the nomination issue.
I can explain this for you real easy, Hugh.
1) Through last Friday there were nine Supreme Court Justices. Seven of them were Republican appointees. Of those seven, only three proved to be constitutionalists. Now a .429 percentage would be fantastic if you were a baseball hitter, but is, shall we say, "underachieving" in just about any other competitive endeavor.
2) That dismal percentage is all that conservatives have to show on such a key issue for a generation of working in election after election to get conservatives elected to the presidency and both Houses of Congress. I think we can all agree that that rate of return is not satisfactory.
3) That dismal percentage is largely the product of "stealth" nominations (David Souter), "compromise" nominations (Anthony Kennedy) and "identity" nominations (the now-retired Sandra Day O'Connor) that have partially or completely backfired. It is not unreasonable, as the WSJ opines, for the President's "most loyal supporters" to have the expectation, especially in light of his oft-repeated pledge to appoint judges in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, that he take no such chances now that he finally has an appointment opportunity.
That's the baseline from which Mr. Bush is operating. What mystifies me is that Double-H doesn't appear to "get it." For instance, where does this "consultation" parallel between Senate Democrats and the GOP base come from? Nobody in the latter is suggesting that the President is obligated to submit his choice to their - our - pre-vetting; and that wouldn't be an institutional matter even if we were.
The reason a lot of conservatives are "feverishly denouncing" Alberto Gonzales, apart from the fact that he'd have to recuse himself from numerous cases likely to come before the SCOTUS in the near future because of his advisory and policy-making role in the Bush Administration as White House Counsel and Attorney-General, is he embodies at least two of the three dubious categories cited above ("compromise" and "identity" - i.e. "first Hispanic Justice") plus a fourth (cronyism) that does such a pick no credibility favors either. There's a reason that right-wing wags are quipping that "Gonzales is Spanish for 'Souter'": because it is highly likely to end up being true, and many of us who have been in or beheld these fights over the years have lost patience with Republican bamboozlings and capitulations.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but we didn't elect and re-elect a GOP president and give him a double-digit GOP Senate majority only to see that same president, who made judicial nominations a top issue in the last three election cycles, repeat the same feckless mistakes of the past.
Indeed, if anybody is mistrusting Dubya's judgment, it's Hewitt for believing that the grassroots he so celebrates raising commonsensical objections to an awful alternative that would damage the President politically at a time when he needs his base support more than ever will "push" him toward that very awful alternative. For my part, I credit GDub with sufficient mental wattage and political savvy to recognize that a Gonzales nomination would be a betrayal of his core supporters that would purchase exactly nothing with the DisLoyal Opposition, who would treat Mr. Bush's "great friend" no differently than they did any of the constitutionalist appellate court picks they shafted, or will the constitutionalists he can appoint.
Frankly, I resent the "feverish denunciation" crack itself, as it's an exercise in moral equivalency. No conservative is doing anything with the current A-G but criticising his judicial views and temperment based upon his tenure on the Texas Supreme Court. We're not calling him names, or rummaging through his trash, or rifling through his Blockbuster receipts, or peeping through his keyhole. We plainly and simply do not want yet another GOP appointment who will end up "growing" once ensconsed on Olympus.
I thought that's what Double-H wanted as well. Would he really be satisfied with Gonzales?
UPDATE: The American Spectator's Prowler column is also naming Emilio Garza as the frontrunner to replace Justice O'Connor, and A-G Gonzales as a possible nominee should Justice Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg quit later this year, presumably the third opening after a Rehnquist retirement.
"That's the seat for [Alberto] Gonzales, that third seat if it opens up," says Department of Justice staffer. "All of this depends on how the first nomination goes, but the assumption here is that this is not the time for Gonzales."
Makes sense to me. I wonder what Hugh thinks?
UPDATE II: Here's how Jed Babbin puts it:
This is win or go home time for Dubya. To win, the President needs to adapt his war strategy to his politics: the best defense against the coming liberal onslaught is a good offense. One that absorbs much of the Senate's excess energy and corners the liberals in the same way they were cornered last year.
The President should take the offense in the Supreme Court fight for one simple reason: the libs are vastly more vulnerable politically than he is. If he allows them to dominate politics with the confirmation process, they may win that fight and too many others. Decisive, forceful leadership on the Court and other issues is the way to stop the Deanocrats in their tracks. The President's victory last November is attributable, in no small part, to social conservatives who voted not so much for Mr. Bush as against legalizing same-sex marriages, against courts that toy with the Pledge of Allegiance, and against a man who they obviously could not rely on to defend their personal freedoms at home or their nation abroad. When the President nominates someone who produces howls and shrieks from NOW, Michael Moore, and Howard Dean, the Americans who re-elected George Bush in November can be re-energized, and the libs again defeated.
Somehow, I don't think Alberto Gonzales would fit that bill.
UPDATE III: Double-H predicts Judge Littig, followed by Judge Garza.
posted by JASmius at 10:44 AM
<<< Home