The fight for control

Of all the political fights associated with filling the newly-announced Supreme Court vacancy, I didn’t expect the most divisive and contentious to be the bitter dispute between conservative Republicans and far-right conservative Republicans over whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales belongs on the short list. And yet, that’s what we have.

The White House and the Senate Republican leadership are pushing back against pressure from some of their conservative allies about the coming Supreme Court nomination, urging them to stop attacking Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a potential nominee and to tone down their talk of a culture war.

In a series of conference calls on Tuesday and over the last several days, Republican Senate aides encouraged conservative groups to avoid emphasizing the searing cultural issues that social conservatives see at the heart of the court fight, subjects like abortion, public support for religion and same-sex marriage, participants said.

Instead, these participants, who insisted on anonymity to avoid exclusion from future calls, said the aides – including Barbara Ledeen of the Senate Republican Conference and Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader – emphasized themes that had been tested in polls, including a need for a fair and dignified confirmation process.

Mr. Ueland acknowledged that he and others had been working almost since the vacancy occurred last Friday with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation to persuade conservative activists to steer clear of divisive language.

“Every contact we have with these folks is ‘stay on message, stay on purpose,’ ” Mr. Ueland said. “The extremism of language, if there is to be any, should be demonstrably on the other side. The hysteria and the foaming at the mouth ought to come from the left.”

And yet, it’s not. The real hysteria is almost exclusively coming from the GOP base, which is emphasizing the same message repeatedly: Gonzales isn’t good enough.

Part of the problem for the right, I think, is not just over Gonzales’ right-wing bona fides. The dilemma seems to be over whose job it is to fill this vacancy. The White House is looking at the Constitution and believes it’s Bush’s choice. The far-right GOP base is looking at the election results and believes it’s their choice.

That’s only slightly hyperbolic. In the immediate aftermath of the O’Connor retirement announcement, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, “We have been waiting over a decade. We will seize this opportunity.” Moreover, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, declared, “For President Bush, social conservatives and the senators they helped elect, the moment of truth has arrived.”

This language isn’t subtle. Far-right activists have been waiting for this vacancy and, as far as they’re concerned, they’ve earned a lot more than a seat at the table. They believe that they should either a) play an integral role in choosing the nominee; or b) at a minimum, have veto power over a choice they believe is unacceptable. And as far as they’re concerned, Gonzales is unacceptable.

Within hours after Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s announced retirement from the Supreme Court, members of conservative groups around the country convened in five national conference calls in which, participants said, they shared one big concern: heading off any effort by President Bush to nominate his attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, to replace her.

Late last week, a delegation of conservative lawyers led by C. Boyden Gray and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III met with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., to warn that appointing Mr. Gonzales would splinter conservative support.

And Paul M. Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said he had told administration officials that nominating Mr. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are considered suspect by religious conservatives, would fracture the president’s conservative backers.

The fascinating part is seeing the fight unfold in ways in which neither side (right vs. far right) knows how to hold back. The base says Gonzales has to be off the table … prompting the White House to tell the base to shut up … prompting the base to say, “No, you shut up.”

This creates an unexpected dilemma for the Bush gang and a fight that’s pitting the grassroots against the establishment.

Keep in mind, the president wants to nominate Gonzales. How do we know? The key conservative insider guiding the process said so over the weekend.

“It’s a fairly sophisticated choice to be facing,” said C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush and now a strategist on court nominees for the current administration. Bush “really does want to appoint Gonzales.”

If Bush does tap Gonzales, he’ll be thumbing his nose at the Republican base for the first time, which will infuriate Dobson & Co., and could undermine the GOP coalition in advance of next year’s election. If he doesn’t, Bush, once again, will appear beholden to far-right activists who are driving the White House agenda.

Your move, Karl.

This is Kabuki theater, positioning the eventual nominee to look like an exemplar of centrism, and positioning Bush to look like he had the resolve to do the right thing in the face of pressure from his base.

  • This is Kabuki theater…

    Maybe. The right attacks Gonzales, Bush picks him anyway, and Dems figure he couldn’t be too bad if the GOP base hates him so much. That’s a possibility.

    But these far-right activists aren’t that clever and they really don’t do subtlety very well. Consider what some of these guys are saying.

    “The president has some close friends whom he trusts and knows well, Gonzales being one of them,” said Paul Weyrich, CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and one of several conservatives who have advised the White House not to choose Gonzales to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “I respect and admire that about the president. But it shouldn’t interfere with his judgment. … I could not explain to my supporters why I would be totally behind a nominee who’s taken the kind of positions (Gonzales) has.”

    “The president is a man of his word and he has said he is not going to stand for judges who legislate from the bench,” says Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum. Gonzales, she says, would be a “supremacist judge … the type that think whatever they say overrides the other branches” of government.

    Weyrich and Schlafly just aren’t the types to say these things as part of a grand charade. Their distrust of Gonzales is sincere and their outrage if Bush picked him wouldn’t be for show.

  • I was listening to Tony Snow’s radio show yesterday. He was talking with a senator (Kyle maybe) and he was asking whether a judge who had merely served on a state court and not a fed court would be fit for the Supreme Court. Gonzo served on the TX Supreme for a while, if I recall. So I guess that was one of the fundy talking points making the rounds.

    The question is whether the fundies are doing this on their own, or coordinating with the White House to make Gonzales look like a moderate. Not sure they’re that cunning.

    Bush likes to appoint loyal cronies to power, and I can’t think of any crony more loyal than Gonzales.

  • I find this “funny.” The GOP as a party made a Faustian bargain with the religious right and now the religious right is demanding payment.

    The GOP wanted their money and their votes but wanted them to shut up and let the people who know better run things – ho paternalistic. Now that a situation has come that the religious right really feel like their desires need to be heard and those that were willing to make money/votes don’t want them to be seen or heard.

    The GOP and Bush has gotten themselves into this and I have no sympathy for them – they deserve to be abndoned by the religious right (assuming they follow through) or by the moderates (if they gather up their courages) depending on the choice.

  • That’s the thing when you have two parts of the same group that each demand absolute power within that group. Sooner or later they will be at each other’s throats, because when the chips are down their ultimate loyalty is to their particular clique not the group as a whole. My guess is that the radical wing will have to back down eventually but for all their bluster their leaders won’t really mind too much. They can use the issue to keep their lobotomized flocks all worked up and pumping their hard-earned cash and votes into the pockets of Dobson and the rest. They have no shame, but then we knew that already.

  • I agree with Matt in #1 – it is theater.

    In comparison to others being mentioned, Gonzales is “moderate.” Dub can exert his “independence” and appoint Gonzales and anger the base. But if only the Weyrich and Schlafly types are pissed off, and not the “country club” republicans, that’s OK because where else are the wingnuts to go? They’ll get their reward when Rhenquist steps down.

    Dub gets it all – he appears to do the right thing, appoints the guy he really wants, and gives the wingnuts their red-meat later. And we Dems will sigh with relief thatDub appointed the “moderate.”

  • Mr. McFarland has nailed it. The blowhard wingers are truly in a win-win situation. Get the seat, tout your clout, lose the seat and ‘God needs you to send me more money for his cause…’

    Gonzo has shown himself to be a pretty agreeable lap dog, so Roe may erode or fall in any case. Unless, that is, the mainstream GOP (if there is such a thing), comes to its senses. I’m not saying that eroding reproductive rights is a good thing (though being a male and living in California nothing short of a Federal ban would probably impact me). But, does the GOP really want to make reproductive rights, an area where the wing nuts are fairly out of sync with the majority, an important issue at the state and local level?

    -jjf

  • I agree that they will try to appeased the religious right with a clearly anti Roe appointment next time – and probably before the next election. However, you all are missing the other part of the equation. There are senators who are supported by the Dobson’s et al., also. The theocrats will go after them next if it appears that Bush will go ahead and appoint Gonzales against their wishes. Is it possible that Gonzales will be defeated in the senate if enough of the wingnuttiest senators, those most dependent on religious-right support, cave to the theocrats’ threats of supporting someone else in their next election?

  • What is so interesting is also that Gonzales is being chatted about – only because he is so utterly loyal to Bush and not becuase he actually has any qualifications for the job. Also, we and the press talk about him but is he really in consideration – I don’t know. On one hand I think he is, on the other I think this is distraction and a softening up of the war zone. He has been Attorney General for what like 20 seconds and then he goes through another confirmation? I don’t know… I am feeling a bit …. unsure on this. Something doesn’t seem right. It seems a bit like the press talking up Howard Dean as the undisputed 2004 Democratic nomination (or Hillary for 2008). Almost like if they say it enough it will come true so they can then brag about how they got it right.

    I think we should fight the nomination that is made, not the one we think is going to be made – this fight is going to happen why waste copious amounts of energy before someone is even named. I personally, am not in the mind of Karl Rove (shudder) or any other people in the know at the WH, so I don’t know what they are thinking. The case could be made for half a dozen or so contenders and they would all be valid.

    Of course I say all that and watch Gonzales be the nominee and all that I wrote is so much blog blather.

  • Question: is there anything we can do to continue to stoke the flames in this situation?

    Unlike others here, I think the religious right are serious about wanting to either select the nominee or have veto power. They may have no where to go, but they may decide that they will no longer actively support the GOP if they don’t get what they want. Hence, my quesiton above. And if the answer is “yes”, then what can we do?

  • It’s fun watching the wingers squirm and confront their internal contradictions. Hell, it’s a blast.

    But I can’t help wondering: are the Democrats holding conference calls? Are they trying to formulate a common message? Even if they have one, will they have the discipline to stay on-message? What are the Democrats’ talking points?

  • All this hot air and bloviating and yet the fact that the guy made the legal case for and supported torture and war crimes is a total non-issue with the navel-gazing right. There are plenty of reasons to be against a Gonzales appointment – his supposed abortion views are really minor in the scheme of things – yet we are completely letting the wingers dominate the terms of the discussion yet again.

  • In reading these comments it just occurred to me that I do not know if Shrub has any interest in a legacy or not. Most 2nd term Presidents do, but most have more intellectual curiosity than a toenail clipping as well.

    Appointing a centrist (but conservative), latino, woman would be quite a legacy. When historians are writing about Iraq, debt, and corruption, there would always be a footnote that Bush must be a more complicated and less stupid person than most of his record indicates because…

    Never happen of course, bubble boy still thinks that he is going to be Mr. Reform. Lame duck status and his real legacy haven’t sunk in.

    -jjf

  • It’s a moral dilemma for the Left as well. Do we support a nominee who is .as moderate as we are likely to see from this administration, despite his views on torture? Perhaps the idea is to squelch opposition from the Left, not the Right.

  • jjf – I think you have it exactly wrong. I think they’re thinking of nothing but legacy. A centrist, latino woman would be the old post-depression paradigm (and you assume the historians of the future will be liberal by today’s standards. I’m not so sure.). They believe that there has been a paradigm shift starting about 1964. They’re using 9 the 11th as the new starting point to try to push that shift. The idea is to turn the court to the far right – for generations. That’s the legacy they’re going for and it’s one that will be very difficult to overturn.

  • smiley is right. The Bush Administration’s idea of a legacy is to begin the steps that they hope will lead to the elimination of all social programs (figuring that if they can get rid of social security they can get rid of anything) and to make the court as far to the right as they can with justices as young as they can find.

  • I love this. From a jurisprudence standpoint, no matter who Bush nominates, we are well and truly screwed. Anyone he nominates will turn back the clock on progressive legislation and decision; there is simply no way around that, so let’s just write off that loss. But Gonzales is the best possible nominee from a political standpoint; we could not have asked for a better choice. If we play it correctly, it can drive a deep wedge into their coalition. I think that’s the way to take the lemons of O’Connor’s retirement and turn it into very tasty and nourishing lemonade: that of *revenge*.

    The Repugs are starting to self-destruct in a manner similar to the Democratic self-destruction in 1968. Back then, it was Vietnam and Civil Rights which fractured the great Democratic alliance which had been in place since FDR. Nixon aggressively pushed the Democrats into fratricide by taking advantage of those contentious wedge issues (“Southern Strategy”, anyone?).

    Today, it’s Supreme Court nominees, Iraq, and the “PATRIOT” Act which will fracture the Repug alliance (of “guns, god, and greed”) which has held since Reagan. Democratic leaders like Reid and Dean can aggressively push the Repugs into fratricide by taking advantage of these contentious issues. And they’re doing exactly that. Well done!

    I want to see a fucking circular firing-squad over in Repug land. I want to see Norquist’s Wednesday morning breakfast turn into a goddamned food fight. If Democrats aggressively keep the pressure on– and keep being pragmatic and level-headed about it– the Repugs will fracture. This is the first sign of a beautiful new era.

    Once the smoke clears on this Supreme Court insanity, and once the Plame scandal thorougly envelops Rove, then I want to see some Democrat in the House step up and summon up the balls to file a formal fucking ethics complaint against Cunningham and DeLay. Then I want to see those corrupt bastards in jail along with Rove.

    And then, with all this unpleasantness out of the way, we can go to the voters in 2006 with our positive vision of an America we can all be proud of: an America of prosperity, opportunity, honesty, ingenuity, self-sufficiency, good health, and generosity and responsibility towards our own citizens, and towards our neighbors and co-travellers on this Planet Earth. It’ll stand in stark contrast to the insane rantings of the violently-bickering, back-stabbing, murderous, greed-addled Repugs. The corporate robber barons and religious demagogues who have taken over and disgraced our once-great nation, are at last beginning to destroy each other.

    Great work, Democrats! Please keep up the solidarity and unity. We can and will take back our country.

  • Smiley, I’m sorry, I just don’t see it. Bush is just too lazy to form a cohesive world view. Look at religion, he wears it on his shirt sleeve but does not participate in a church community, has not even superficially studied the tenants of his selected faith, and apparently feels no Christian obligation to the poor.

    He is just a spoiled, rich, frat boy, who wanted to prove he has bigger acorns than his daddy – which is why campaigning is the only aspect of being President he has ever shown enthusiasm for. Daddy didn’t get a second term.

    Cheney? They guy may spout neo-dribble and the nutbags may slurp it up, but the only thing the guy believes in is power and profiteering. He’ll put a scarlet letter on his own daughter, and never break a sweat. She’ll even run his campaign. Why? Because they both seeing it as just pandering to the worthless masses that they bilk. The only time he feels real emotion is when he is really sticking it to us. When Bush mentioned asbestos in the state of the union speech, I thought the guy was going to play with himself. Never mind the horror that accompanies the legal hassles he wants to get Haliburton out of…

    As far as I can see, none of this has anything to do with real ideology. It all has to do with redistribution of wealth. True Cold War missile defense thinking? Or just a return to spectacularly juicy military contracts…

    Attack on Social Security based on true ideology? Or just a massive gift to banking interests? If it were about killing Social Security, the President would have been more flexible. It was all about personal accounts because that is how you funnel billions to private interests.

    Karl Rove does not believe in anything but winning. It is all about obtaining power and consolidating it.

    He is not alone. How on earth can Tom Delay be a legitimate religious conservative? ‘Well, I know it is about forced abortions and teenage prostitution, but when it comes to Saipan, I got money and a nice vacation…’

    I *know* they want profit and power. I just was wondering if Bush wanted a legitimate legacy.

    -jjf

  • Comments are closed.