Bush’s next move

Less than 24 hours ago, which suddenly seems like a long time ago, I noted that U.S. News ran with a rumor that Alberto Gonzales would soon be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. I suggested that the president would “probably pick someone who stood a good chance of being confirmed,” and questioned whether Chertoff would fit the bill.

I heard from a variety of readers who argued the opposite — Bush doesn’t care about getting a nominee confirmed; he cares about giving the GOP something to be excited about. It’s a fair point, and I’m beginning to reevaluate my initial take.

Indeed, Matt Yglesias’ argument is helping push me further from my argument.

Conventional wisdom started to congeal over the weekend that for a replacement Bush was going to try to find a relatively uncontroversial figure who’d have an easy time getting confirmed.

That might happen, but my best guess is that Bush will go out of his way to pick somebody fairly controversial — someone whose confirmation liberals will find outrageous — and then start loudly and immediately declaring that each hour’s delay in confirming his nominee is putting thousands of lives at risk. The hope would be to generate one of these situations where all the Republicans plus maybe a dozen Democrats vote to confirm, and then progressives spend the next month arguing with themselves over it, and even the Democrats who reliable agree to surrender on anything terror-related get criticized in fall ’08 for being soft on terror.

That not only sounds right, it sounds like a scenario we’ve seen play out over and over again.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I’d be surprised if Bush did care about finding some kind of “consensus” nominee who’d draw broad, bipartisan support. Has this president ever behaved this way?

As a matter of governing responsibly, Bush should realize that the departure of a scandalous AG gives him an opportunity to heal some rifts, mend some bridges, and finally bring some honor and competence to the Justice Department. But therein lies the rub: Bush has never taken seriously the notion of governing responsibly.

I know Karl Rove is on his way out, but if his philosophy still has any sway in the West Wing, and I suspect it does, Gonzales’ resignation is an opportunity to exploit — pick another conservative loyalist. If Dems balk, whine bitterly and use it as a rallying cry to drum up some enthusiasm among depressed activists in the GOP base.

Indeed, Beutler noted the benefits of a Chertoff nomination.

That obviously doesn’t mean Chertoff is definitely going to be his replacement. But what wouldn’t surprise me is if Bush takes the opportunity to pick a terrorism-related fight with Democrats by appointing some draconian monster to fill the resulting vacancy. Both Justice of DHS have enough to do with national security that the administration can construe the battle over any controversial nominee as an example of liberals being weak on terrorism.

Here’s a radical idea: the president, after Congress returns from recess, should invite the Senate Democratic leadership, including Leahy, to the White House for a friendly chat. Lawmakers should bring a list of respected Republican attorneys with distinguished records and management experience, all of whom would be confirmed. The president should consider the list, and pick the best candidate from the Dems’ field. It could all be done quickly, cooperatively, and in good faith, with no one trying to score points off the other.

That, of course, will never, ever happen — indeed, it’s ridiculous to even contemplate — but once in a while, it’s amusing to remember how the political process used to work before 2001.

Interesting analysis on NPR.
Senator Orrin Hatch.
Senator Arlen Spector.

I think Hatch rather than Spector as Utah will likely put another Republican in the Senate. I PA there might be a lost seat. I think either of these guys would be good choices. We all know it’s not going to be a liberal or a Democrat so why not a respected pre-neocon Repbulican Senator?

I don’t like the Fitzgerald option. It would be a good way to throw him off the investigation trail however.

  • I’m still stunned that he let the whole weekend go by, knowing as he did that AG-AG was gone, and did not recess-appoint Harriet Myers to the position.

  • My fear is that after Gonzales, anyone else will appear to be emminently reasonable. After such a flaming *sshole, any plain *sshole will be such a nice guy in comparison.

    Chertoff would be a smart move, from the president’s perspective, because while competence is still an issue, Chertoff is still the president’s man and will do what W wants, but he does not have the vitriolic oppostion on the Hill that Gonzales does. Chertoff has also been an accomplice to may of the FISA-related misdeeds so he will not be shocked, as any outsider would be, about the abuses that have taken place. The Bush administration will simply move from perpetrating outrageous evils to pursuing a style of low-key evil instead.

  • Hatch has been a reliable apologist for the administration for years, and mormon Utah isn’t going to replace him with a Democrat. Spector’s gig is making rebellious noises before ultimately caving to whatever the right wing wants, which is valuable as a distraction. Also, given the pasting Santorum took in 2006, PA could very well elect a Democrat to replace Spector. However, Chertoff is probably the most likely choice – it flips the bird at the Dems and doesn’t end the career of a long-serving GOP senator.

  • If we had real Democrats and not a herd of sheep, we could slam any retarded nominee hard.

    But NOOOOOO…..

  • My fear is that after Gonzales, anyone else will appear to be emminently reasonable. After such a flaming *sshole, any plain *sshole will be such a nice guy in comparison. — petorado

    Yep. Combine this notion with what Matt Yglesias’ writes, and Bush still comes out ahead — even if it’s not as far ahead as he wanted.

  • Not only do I agree with Matt, but let’s say Bush is forced to withdraw his nominee. Will Dems have the stomach to oppose the next one? Not with Broder employed.

    If Dems DO have the stomach to fight, Bush is willing to use that as a punt until the end of the term.

    At this point, all Bush needs to do is leave without handcuffs.

  • My advice: Do what the GOP did with Clinton judicial appointees about two years out; claim it’s too close to the end of the term to confirm anyone, and move on.

  • Hatch is the safe choice for Bush. The Senate seat will still be R. Senate confirmation will be a slam dunk because of the collegiality nature of the body. Hatch will be able to impede any and all DOJ criminal investigations into the Mormon Mafia, Liberty University and other crooks and liars. Additionally, his singing buddy Ashcroft can provide a great character reference.

  • Many are talking about Democrats being sheep – which is not to say they aren’t – but what about Republicans? If the one or two sane/grow up Republicans would find their spines the scenario could be a lot different. Of course Repubilcans in Congress are a pathetic and cowed group of individuals so that isn’t likely to happen either. Congress (or in this case the Senate) is not endowed with many independent minded members no matter the party. Heck, there don’t seem to be many (especially Republicans) who are greedy to keep Congressional influence and so Bush is in the better position despite the fact that he is lame as well as being a lame duck with horrendous polling numbers.

  • Maybe Irving Lewis Liddy Libby needs a job.

    The name and the face don’t matter –the Attorney General serves at the whim of the Acting President, not some utopian concept of “justice.”

    Who exactly is soft on terrorism?

    Are the Democrats responsible for under-funding the 9/11 Commission? The DoD spent more ($20M) on $68K worth of parts from a South Carolina distributor than was allocated for the 9/11 Commission ($15M).

    Are the Dems responsible for the “unsolved” anthrax terrorism attacks in the weeks following 9/11? Were Senators Daschle and Leahy “soft on terrorism” because anthrax was sent to their offices?

    Are the Dems responsible for providing free passage out of the United States to the Saudi Royal Family on a flight chartered by Osama Bin Laden on September 19, 2001? That was six days after Dear Leader identified finding Bin Laden as the “number one priority.”

    Again, who exactly is soft on terrorism?

  • Actually, as a “poke in the eye with a sharp stick,” I can see the Bush gang letting the professional bedwetters and knicker-knotters get all in a tizzy over Chertoff, then nominate Hatch. The collective sigh of relief will be so strong it blows Hatch directly into office. And if anyone things a paid-up senior member of the Mormon Mafia won’t reliably man the battlements for the next 500 days and willingly throw himself on his sword for his dear leader, then you don’t know the Mormon Mafia. And Hatch is just as reliably right wing, and will have even more opportunities to “fire up the base” than Chertoff ever would.

  • “Bush will go out of his way to pick somebody fairly controversial — someone whose confirmation liberals will find outrageous “

    John Yoo?

    My money’s on Hatch. He’s been auditioning for the role all year.

  • “probably pick someone who stood a good chance of being confirmed,”

    Absoulutely NO ONE who is nominated by Bush should stand a good chance of being confirmed. Let him do a recess appointment who will get all the respect he deserves. Hell, anyone who agrees to be Bush’s AG would be totally without self respect.

  • To me, it didn’t sound implausible. To me, it sounded like a weather-balloon (as you note in you’re next post).

    When a rumor goes around, you have to ask, if it’s being leaked then why is this (specific) rumor being leaked? This didn’t sound like a make-Democrats-happy-and-love-us rumor. (Liberal) Dems don’t exactly like Chertoff.

    But how about letting it go around to see if (w/ regard a more broad-based group tham liberl Dems) finally forcing Gonzales’ resignation could be made politically advantageous? In that case the reason behind the rumor is, “Well what if we replaced Gonzales w/ Chertoff? Would giving in on Gonzales definitely help us then?” You’ll notice this fits in w/ a broader theme of a few of my recent comments- the Bush WH maneuvering for political advantage as they leave, to make the broader Republican movement and the next Republican contender for president look better. Bush is paying back what he’s been given– he’s got to clean up the place as well as he can so he can get his rent deposit back.

    The Iran rumors help this, too. Of course we’re not going to attack Iran. But if Bush can trade in his military moves for some kind of political capital, get one or two more successes out of them– then it won’t make them look like such preposterous failures in the future. Here, we’re trying to intimidate Iran- make them think, if the U.S. attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, we’d attack them, too. Putting a purported ex-CIA guy on TV to say it is just the latest attempt, and it’s a little nutso, because nothing else seems to be working. It’s ridiculous, the notion that a CIA guy or an ex-CIA guy would go on TV and tell everybody who we’re going to attack before the WH does. The idea must be that Iran might think that we couldn’t be that stupid to try such an obvious bluff, unless it actually wasn’t a bluff, and this ex-CIA guy were actually letting the cat out of the bag for some reason.

    As far as Yglesias’ speculations, Bush isn’t always that rational, but he can’t always be understood by just picking out what course would be most annoying for him to do. There actually are a lot of relatively intelligent people charting his course, who are giving counsel in furtherance of a self-interested enterprise. It’s not as if they’re a gang of schizophrenics.

  • As far as what the commenters write, the commenters are actually pretty unreliable. They might be saying all the right stuff and reinforcing their credibility 6 days a week, but every once in a while, when something’s important- like who you pick to support in the pres race- the commenters are there to make you drop the ball and suddenly give really bad advice- like distorting Hillary Clinton’s alleged faults way out of proportion to what they could actually be. Ex.: “Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ. . .” Since when?

  • I guess you can’t alway expect people to always act the same way, like cartoon characters. They’re not. They’re people.

  • I wrote:

    Bush is paying back what he’s been given– he’s got to clean up the place as well as he can so he can get his rent deposit back

    Coming from the position of having an outgoing Republican president, the basic strategic posture of the Republicans is to want to make the public want 4 more years of what they just had.

    I wrote:

    when something’s important- like who you pick to support in the pres race- the commenters are there to make you drop the ball

    What do the kind of people who float the rumor care what Carpetbagger thinks? The rumor is a test-balloon to see what more powerful people think, not what he thinks. His importance, since he gives really and often good advice, is as someone they want to make powerful Democrats not listen to. So if a rumor is going around, convincing CB to believe the opposite about it, relative to its actual veracity, is the way to go for Republicans. If they could make you believe Iran is going to be attacked when it’s not, it will make you look like you don’t understand what’s going on, and if you believe Chertoff is not going to replace Abu Gomzales when he is, it will make you look like you don’t know what’s going on.

  • So it doesn’t matter to the people who float the rumor, when they are floating a test-balloon, whether CB will think it is true or not, so long as the real target audience believe it enough to give their opinions of a Chertoff replacement within earshot of whoever is listening out on behalf of the rumor-floaters.

  • Comments are closed.