Right to Bush: Gonzales still unacceptable

September 6, 2005

In July, shortly after Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, word from the White House was that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was at the top of the president’s short list. C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel under the first President Bush and someone brought in to help this Bush make his selection, made the president’s thoughts clear: Bush, Gray said, “really does want to appoint Gonzales.”

Of course, hanging over that wish was the realization that Bush’s far-right base didn’t believe Gonzales was nearly conservative enough for their tastes. (A common joke at the time was “Alberto Gonzales” is Spanish for “David Souter.”)

Now that John Roberts is slated to be Chief Justice, Bush has another vacancy that could have Gonzales’ name on it. So, once again, the right-wing powers-that-be are making it clear: pick someone else.

Within hours of the death Saturday of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, leaders of some social conservative groups began to signal their adamant opposition to the possible selection of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to replace him.

Most leaders on the right were careful to avoid publicly criticizing Gonzales for fear of angering President Bush. The conservatives privately expressed determination, however, to communicate their concerns that the attorney general does not share their views on abortion and affirmative action.

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum and author of “The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges — and How to Stop It,” said nominating Gonzales would “be a betrayal by the president.”

ABC News’ The Note raised the possibility today that Bush could move ahead with Gonzales anyway, and actually welcome right-wing complaints.

[I]f it appear there is no [media-savvy, experienced, oblique, stealthy Hispanic woman] on the planet, the President will pick Al Gonzales, after making sure that the Brownbacks and Inhofes and McCains of the world will support him, and the White House will (secretly) welcome the opposition of a few conservative groups (making Gonzales seem more moderate), knowing that many members of the pro-Roberts coalition will be for whomever the President picks, including Gonzales.

Maybe. Bush has never expressed any real interest in appearing moderate or steering clear of an ideological fight, so it’s hard to see why he’d start now.

Nevertheless, the White House is still in a tough spot. If Bush does tap Gonzales, he’ll be thumbing his nose at the Republican base on an issue that ranks at the top of the conservative agenda, which will infuriate Dobson & Co., and could undermine the GOP coalition in advance of next year’s election. If he nominates a right-wing favorite, Bush will, once again, appear beholden to far-right activists, while also sparking a major fight with Senate Dems and the left.

Your move, Karl.

What choice does the far right have but support the Republican agenda, they are a toothless tiger in that they have zero choice but support GOP candidates because they sure as hell can’t support a democratic one. Dobson can go hang, his real usefulness to Bush personally is over as of Nov 2nd 2004.

Bush has nothing to loose, Gonzales looks like a more viable choice now than he did before.

  • And if he nominates Alberto, can we please have a full opening of the files which document the president’s and the man he is nominating for the supreme court involvement in shaping a policy that allowed our soldiers to stray so far from their orders and into the depths of torture, murder and rape. Or was it their orders?

    Alberto, please warm up for your “you can’t handle the truth” moment in the senate.

  • What is the point of being President if you don’t get to reward your friends?

    Fealty seems to be the only human virtue that BushCo values at all. Ruining the work of a lifetime, like Colin P., doesn’t mean squat. He wasn’t a team player, so pimping him to the UN – seemingly with lies and guilt, does not matter.

    Lying and whoring on command, year after year, is another matter. I’m with ninjab, the feces throwing winged monkeys will squawk, but Bush can do what he wants and they still have nowhere else to go. Remember, if they had any Judean/Christian principles, they’d have left the wicked witch long ago.

    -jjf

  • Fealty and Omertà (silence): two primary virtues among the Mafiosi, er, the Bush Crime Family. Show any sign of independence and your career is over. Blow any whistles and we’ll ruin your character, too … at least.

  • If he nominates a right-wing favorite, Bush will, once again, appear beholden to far-right activists, while also sparking a major fight with Senate Dems and the left.

    So, he’ll nominate Brown, Owens, or Moore? They have to be near the top of the list if Mr. Carpetbagger is correct with his assertion above as Bush has never resisted sparking fights with Dems or appearing beholden to far-right activists. My money is on Owens.

  • It seems to me that if the Dems are going to get hammered for blocking court appointee nominations regardless of how generous they are, why not block both seats? Doesn’t that tip the High Court in the liberal direction?

    It seems to me that scenario is what the repubs may be concerned with–thus the quick switching of Roberts to Cheif Justice. They want to secure the vacant spot as quickly as possible.

    • Comments are closed.