This is stereotypically shrill blogger of me, but I think Brian Beutler's right that there's no sense in writing about how Bush "should" appoint a widely respected Attorney-General who'll restore the nation's confidence in the neutral administration of justice. At this stage in the game, one knows that the leopard doesn't change its stripes. Besides which, I'm still fairly convinced that the White House is going to be looking for a fight over its nominee's confirmation believing that, at this point, the most important political task for Bush is to continue the post-immigration efforts to reconsolidate his base.
« Failure is not an Option | Main | Corporate Anthems »
Replacing Gonzales
28 Aug 2007 10:04 am
Comments (18)
spots ... leopards have spots, not stripes. carry on.
You're wrong Matt. Bush's top priority at this point is keeping as many of his people out of jail as long as he can so he can issue pardons after November 2008 for crimes yet to be prosecuted. He needs someone in the DOJ to cover up what happened over the past 7 years.
Reconsolidate his base for what purpose?
"Reconsolidate his base for what purpose?"
--Maybe he dreams of edging up past 40 percent approval, so his legacy doesn't register him as one of the most unpopular presidents of all time. Or maybe he's fantasizing about one last tax cut for the road. It it's corporate taxes, he's got a good shot at getting people like Lieberman and Schumer to support him. Dare to dream...
Reconsolidate his base so that the "loyal 28" can get jobs as our overlords after the coup.
An honest, capable attorney general would begin by putting Rove and Cheney in jail and firing half the Bush era appointees. No way Bush is going to touch this.
Reconsolidate his base for what purpose?
you can bet the Rep leadership is begging him 24/7 to do things that will help the GOP in 2008.
I don't really care who Bush nominates. I just hope the Democrats figure out how to play it smart, and not get sucked into playing on Bush's terms.
A see a swarm of Nutroots people deep into vast, rightwing criminal conspiracy theory have dropped in.
Don't forget the Ashcroft-Gonzales coverup of the CIA-Mossad Plot that brought down the WTCs, folks!
I predict a change of heart by Bush. He will seek to alleviate insults from his first AG, Ashcroft, toward James Hormel. Ashcroft opposed Hormel's appointment as an ambassador (back when he was a senator) because he was openly gay. To make up for this, Bush will appoint a can of spam as his next AG.
A see a swarm of Nutroots people deep into vast, rightwing criminal conspiracy theory have dropped in.
Yes, believing that political calculations will play into Bush's selection of a nominee is clearly crazy conspiracy stuff.
Why Schumer said he didn't want to put out a 'Democratic name' is beyond me. It seems politically smart for them to say 'well, Jim Comey's a former DAG with a record of independence and integrity', just so you get Tweety Matthews on one of his man-crushes, and various GOP flacks having to explain, in the manner of Miss Teen South Carolina, why this particular loyal Republican is just plain, such as, unacceptable.
Do I think Bush wants a political fight? Not really. I do think he wants a firewall at DOJ against Leahy, Conyers and Waxman, and if he can find a firewall who's also a base-rallying nimrod, then you might get a political fight. But he wants a firewall first.
"[I]he most important political task for Bush is to continue the post-immigration efforts to reconsolidate his base."
This may be true, but it doesn't explain the entire why behind Bush's choice to pick a fight with Democrats. The main reason Bush will pick a hardliner like Chertoff is because he knows he can win. It's not about optics or "rallying the base." It's about real, actual, substantive victory. Only a fool concedes defeat when he can win.
Senate Democrats have no will, no staying power, no fight in them. Thus, when Sam Alito replaces Harriet Miers as the Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Democrats fold, exhausted by the easy Miers victory. Or during the recent FISA debate, when McConnell double-crossed them. The "tough" Democratic negotiating position was completely illusory. They folded the second the White House shifted the debate. It was easy and predictable.
If I were Bush, I would seek a replay of the Miers/Alito nomination. Start with a truly unreasonable candidate like Chertoff. Let the Democrats go nuts and sink the nomination. Then follow Chertoff with a Fielding or Clement. And watch the Dems fold.
This scenario allows Bush to (1) rally the base, (2) protect himself from future DOJ investigations, and (3) defeat the Democrats. After all, this victory will be much easier than even the Supreme Court debate because the AG touches on the issue of terrorism, which scares "moderate" Democrats far more than any domestic issue. Not only will Bush get a loyalist as AG, but he will do so easily. He may need to sacrifice someone like Chertoff to get there...but it will happen.
"Reconsolidate his base for what purpose?"
I was thinking so a GOP President can be elected to continue his policies in Iraq, but at this point, I can't help but wonder if Bush would want a Dem to be elected so he can blame the failures of Iraq on the policies of a Dem president.
"I'm still fairly convinced that the White House is going to be looking for a fight over its nominee's confirmation" -Matt
I get that vibe as well, but I bet Democrats think they've hit on a fool-proof plan to avoid falling into *that* trap: Don't fight the nomination!
Hah, that'll show the Bush Administration.
(/sarcasm)
Jomentum is a good bet and a perfect gonzo-with-a-tiny-d for Dear Leader lead by the nose.
He could also play a game regard a recess appointment. Considering that 2 of the top Democratic candidates are sitting Congress members, I can see his crew playing it out like this:
- Simply put up a really odious choice
- Play to the pundits who only "want bipartisanship" and say that refusing confirmation is just a "partisan game"
- Threatening to use a recess appointment.
If the Democrats want to fight his choice they will have to keep Congress in session, meaning that Clinton and Obama would be forced to stay in town or be accused of abandoning their posts. If they leave we get stuck with some creature like Terwilliger.
Comments closed September 11, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
At this crucial stage in the restoration of trust in the Department of Justice, it would behoove the Bush administration to invent a device to travel back in time to 2000 or 2001 and agree to drop Bush v. Gore and surrender the presidency to the rightful, and decent winner, and also perhaps preventing the 9/11/2001 attacks. That would be nice.
We at the New York Times believe that though it is unlikely that the Bush White House will do this right thing, we will write a serious editorial as if they would in the hopes that Americans will let the whole issue drop and not really worry about it too much.
Posted by El Cid | August 28, 2007 10:14 AM