PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: goldworldnet who wrote (690420)	7/6/2005 3:04:32 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) of 769670

Interesting... don't know if I would take that bet or not. (What I do believe is that Bush has near-certainty that he will have at least two vacancies to fill this fall... With the Chief Justice's slot only waiting for a seemly time to be presented.) If that is the state of things... then I can see arguments FOR and AGAINST making Gonzales the first choice. FOR: Bush gets to 'assert his independence' from the 'Christian right' (at least for a month or two... the following appointment could bring them back to camp, where they will be needed), and this 'move toward moderation' is smart politically in the run-up to midterm elections next year... Bush gets to put his stamp on the Court with the pick of a personal friend and supporter (and one of the youngest candidates, at that. Someone who will be there a LONG time.) Appointment of a Hispanic also serves the Party well, shoring up support among the fastest growing (now the largest ethnic minority in the US) political group. It would be like a 'judo move' to scare the Liberals so much with a threatened more 'Radical' appointment that they would fail to mount an effective opposition to Gonzales... and he would thus cruise to victory. Nominating the 'hardest Right of all possible candidates' first would stalemate the Senate --- all other actions would be stopped... perhaps until after midterms. (That means: Social Security, Tax Reform, etc., etc.) Against: Why break with the Religious Right if you don't have to? By nominating a 'hard Right' candidate for the first slot, he would have no one taking pot shots at him from the Right wing (at least until the second nomination :) The extreme difficulty of getting such a 'hard Right' nomination through to confirmation (there is even a good chance that confirmation would be withheld in the end... at best it would be messy, bloody, and close) would provide Bush the ammunition he would need to 'back down' the Religious Right in the second go-round. He would be widely perceived as having ALREADY 'carried their water', and fought the good fight in the first battle; and could make a convincing argument that the Senate would never confirm a second hard-right choice on the heels of the first (that is: if the first choice wasn't rejected... leaving Bush's political aura damaged). He could much more easily argue: this one is MINE. I am the PRESIDENT!

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next