October 6, 2005
YOU JUST CAN'T GET GOOD HELP THESE DAYS [NOW WITH ADDED IRONY DEFICIT]
McCain’s Blunder: A liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand (Mark R. Levin, NRO, 10/6/05)
[T]he second argument about the impotence of the Senate Republicans is worth some discussion, too. The fact is that this Gang of 14 moderates, led by Senator John McCain, did make it much more difficult for the president to win an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats did, in fact, send warnings that they were prepared to filibuster the second nominee. And under such circumstances, the president would have needed 60 votes to confirm his candidate, not 51.The best response to those who are whining about a lost opportunity to have a knock-down, drag out fight in the Senate over an outspoken conservative came from [Scrappleface]Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol's favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort. And that's exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president's blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
David--
While it sounds like something Bush would say, that quote came from Scrappleface, who has quietly been one of the best advocates for Miers.
Posted by: Timothy at October 6, 2005 5:47 PMwhen he instructed his staff to "identify an issue where it's more important to stage a public fight with Democrats than to accomplish our strategic goals."
Um, David, that was Scrappleface who said that.
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 6, 2005 5:48 PMI almost prefer the next part of that quote:
"When we find that issue," Mr. Bush told the party faithful, "I'll just walk up to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and spit in his eye."
Posted by: Timothy at October 6, 2005 5:48 PMDarn Internet.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 6, 2005 5:53 PMYou're not taking Scrappleface seriously, are you? c'mon, admit it . . . .
Posted by: rds at October 6, 2005 5:53 PM#5:
Why not? Better than George Will, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan, in my opinion.
Posted by: sam at October 6, 2005 6:31 PMIt is curious that many conservative activists want a fight over the nomination -- considering how the last two big fights, Bork and Thomas, went. Bork lost. Thomas got through, but was badly damaged and both fights hurt the Republicans for years. Have the opponents of Miers who want a big fight forgotten that history? Did they never know it? Or do they not care, preferring an exciting loss to a boring win?
As for "Scrappleface" -- His analysis of this fight is far better than that from much better paid commentators. Why not cite him?
Posted by: Jim Miller at October 6, 2005 7:22 PMJim-- I think the point the Miers detractors would make--and it's a legitimate one--is that for Bork & Thomas, Republicans didn't have a 10 seat majority. That said, I think more than 5 R's voted against Bork (am I wrong? I'm honestly just guessing). And the damage to Thomas would have come regardless of the # of Republicans in the Senate.
Posted by: Timothy at October 6, 2005 8:14 PMDavid:
One does admire anyone man enough to acknowledge that at the point where NRO agrees with him he must be wrong.
rds:
That's the irony: Scrappleface makes a serious point through humor. Levin makes a laughable one while trying to be serious.
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2005 8:21 PMScott Ott is easily the most talented parodist in cyberspace. As shrewd as he is hilarious.
Posted by: ghostcat at October 6, 2005 9:08 PMWell, give Levin some credit for finally recognizing that a 55-45 majority in the Senate is no assurance of passage for a hard-line conservative for whom the left has been sharpening its knives for five years, based on the past action of 6-8 GOP Senators on similar contentious nominations. And it's ironic that after their long fight last winter to strip Arlen Spector of his Juiciary Committee chairmanship, the folks at The Corner seem to think good ol' Arlen and the six other Republicans from the "Gang of 14" would send a Luttig or Brown nomination through without bowing to any outside pressure.
Posted by: John at October 6, 2005 11:17 PMThey could not get Bolton through to a minor admin position, how are they going to get a Luttig or McConnell through to a life appointment on the Supreme Court?
Posted by: sam at October 7, 2005 2:01 AM