Farakkhan and David Koresh are in the same league. Back to Bush.
Is Bush weak or strong? He's both
BY MICHAEL TACKETT
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - So let's just be clear: President Bush is strong because he is weak.
He has remarkably low standing in the polls. His signature domestic proposal of a sweeping overhaul in Social Security - complete with private accounts - is sinking, if not sunk. Support is waning for the war in Iraq. And the administration is still trying to recover from a poor initial response to Hurricane Katrina. If the president ever had the political capital he claimed from his re-election, it long has been depleted.
It would seem, then, that this would be the time to make an actual accommodation, prove up the uniter-not-a-divider rhetoric and nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is in the mold of the justice about to be replaced, Sandra Day O'Connor. Which is to say, not a doctrinaire conservative who would simply ignite a partisan firestorm and give the Democrats something they have so desperately lacked, namely a coherent national forum for criticizing the president.
But, apparently, this is no time to make sense.
No, this is the time to make history, at least as defined by conservatives. The way many of them see it, Bush needs them now more than ever, and as such he needs to deliver for them.
What do they want? The second coming of Antonin Scalia as a first choice or Clarence Thomas as a close second. In other words, no one like the woman nominated to the Supreme Court by none other than their hero, Ronald Reagan.
Democrats have already prepared the battlefield for just such a fight. They lust for the chance to heap truckloads of ridicule on Bush over a broad range of issues. Many of them will think they have ready cover to savage Bush's next choice when they vote to confirm his first, John Roberts Jr., as chief justice of the United States this week.
To which the conservatives say: So what?
"Since the Democrats are going to go after the next guy whoever it is, I think the smart move for the Bush White House is a very serious, solid person, not someone you try to buy Democratic votes with because that ain't happening," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
No time, in other words, for Bush to start rewarding his enemies.
"The one group staying loyal are conservatives," said a Republican strategist with strong ties to several conservative groups, including those pressing the White House on the Supreme Court. "So it would really be a mistake to tick them off at this point. In fact, it almost argues for picking a conservative now because Roberts went over so well with the country. People think Bush did a good job on picking judges."
But if the White House has another Roberts in waiting - a genial, brainiac conservative with a non-threatening manner - that will be a revelation in itself.
At least one Democrat who already has voted for Roberts, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, is cautioning the president to reject the conservatives' special pleadings. For example, either of two federal appeals court judges recently approved by the Senate after an unusual procedural compromise, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, would be huge mistakes, Feingold said.
"He would be asking for a very difficult fight, including from people like me, who gave him the benefit of the doubt on John Roberts," Feingold said.
Under a strange agreement earlier this year, the Senate decided that it would not filibuster a judicial nominee unless there were "extraordinary circumstances." Count on that term having an expansive definition in the Democratic dictionary.
Many conservatives believe that Democrats will try to eviscerate any nominee that Bush puts forth, so why try to dance? Instead, blow up the filibuster, which would mean 40 Senators could no longer block a nomination, and move on with essentially a party-line vote. Who will remember the vote margin 20 years from now? But everyone will remember the impact of the court.
Not that conservatives aren't exerting their own form of pressure. They have their own list of nominees they deem unacceptable, and to many, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tops the list.
"For whatever reason, people who care about judges don't think he is a Scalia or Thomas," Norquist said. "You've got a half-dozen people who the movement thinks would be perfect and would be comfortable with. Is it possible that Gonzales is Scalia? I suppose. It's also possible that he is (moderate Justice David) Souter.
"So because the stakes are so high and the appointment is forever, the standard of proof is higher. And it's not as if you went with a guy who is 10 percent less conservative you would have 10 percent less opposition."
And while Norquist said that conservatives might give Bush some quarter on other issues, there is no margin for error among them when it comes to the court. "If the issue is we must invade Grenada, fine, we trust you," he said. "Invading Grenada is not forever. Supreme Court justices are."
Conservatives feel like they can roll the president just as some liberals feel they can roll the leadership of the Democratic Party. Why? Because success in the midterm elections in 2006 is dependent on turning out core voters in large numbers. So any senator facing a difficult election wouldn't likely reject any nominee who doesn't excite the base.
"The No. 1 desire of the pro-family movement is to overturn Roe v. Wade," the strategist said. "The No. 1 fear is legalization of same-sex marriage. There is no wiggle room."
So Republicans and Democrats each have a self-interest in perceiving the president as weak. Which means the president is actually strong. And can make almost any choice he wants. |
