In the end, it’s all about Bush

Through most of the fight over the nuclear option, it’s seemed, at least on the surface, as though the White House has been on the outside looking in. Senate Republicans were the ones who came up with the idea in 2003, conservative activists have been demanding it ever since, and the debate has put Bill Frist at the forefront, but Bush, by and large, has been on periphery of the conflict.

But that’s not really the case at all. This is about Bush’s judicial nominees and Bush’s drive to reshape the federal judiciary, so you better believe Bush has a hand in everything that’s going on.

Bush has assumed a public posture of bystander as the Senate barrels toward a showdown that is likely to have repercussions far beyond the issue of whether every presidential appointment to the federal bench deserves an up-or-down vote…. Behind the scenes, however, the White House has become an active player. As recently as Tuesday, the vice president met privately with Republican senators to make the administration’s case for holding up-or-down votes on its judicial nominees. Tim Goeglein, the White House public liaison, regularly participates in conference calls and strategy sessions with outside groups seeking to pressure wavering GOP senators.

Other White House aides have been involved, such as Candi Wolff, head of the congressional liaison office, who last week shepherded Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla R. Owen and California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown around Capitol Hill for meetings and photo opportunities. Brown and Owen are the most visible of Bush’s judicial nominees who were blocked by filibusters in the last Congress.

To a certain extent, this should surprise no one. Indeed, the White House chose Bill Frist to be the Majority Leader because Bush expected him to be loyal to the White House agenda, so it’s hardly a shock that Frist has made Bush’s judicial nominees the Senate’s top priority.

But in the nuclear option fight, the fact that the White House is more involved than anyone lets on is part of an interesting strategy.

Publicly, GOP lawmakers are saying that Bush has left them alone on this issue. Privately, there is ample evidence that the White House’s heavy hand is busy at work.

The extent of the White House involvement in the controversy is difficult to assess since such activities take place out of the limelight. But, as [Stephen Moore, president of the Free Enterprise Fund, a conservative advocacy group] put it: “There’s no question that the resources of the White House strategy team and legislative team are being fully engaged in this fight. It’s being driven from the very top.”

The fact that no one seems to recognize that, however, is politically advantageous for Bush. Congress’ approval ratings are tanking, in part because the public hears so much about the squabbling over judges. Bush’s poll numbers aren’t much better, but to his benefit, the president isn’t getting dragged down by the nuclear option fallout. At least not yet.

But that doesn’t mean the White House is taking a hands-off attitude on this.

* Cheney, Tim Goeglein, and Candi Wolff are on the Hill twisting arms;

* C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel during the administration of Bush’s father, hosts weekly meetings to determine nuclear-option strategy, and White House staffers are always on hand for the discussions;

* Progress for America, which has spent $3.6 million to promote Bush’s judicial nominees, has close ties to Karl Rove.

In other words, as is usually the case, the Bush White House is pulling the strings.

Bush should move to IRAQ. He could be the new dictator.

  • as is also usually the case, the bush white house is lying about their role.

    and as is also usually the case (now here i’m betting), the so-called moderate republican senators will cave. why anyone still treats them as responsible adults is beyond me….

  • FRAME VIOLATION!

    How can you possibly use the term “conservative activists” with a straight face?

    These guys are *not* conservative. No fucking way. They are “radicals”, nothing more, nothing less. They are “right-wing activists” perhaps if you want to be polite. “Fundamentalist Christian activists” of you want to be totally accurate. “Neo-fascist theocrats” if you want to get serious.

    Please. Let’s stop calling radicals “conservatives”, while we “liberals” are defending tradition, stability, and a respect for law and order. If the “nuclear option” crowd is “conservative” than we’ve fallen victim to Orwellian language of the worst possible sort.

  • Comments are closed.