The nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court has obliterated a seeming “truce” in the the fever-pitch build up of polarization that was seen this year with the Terri Schiavo affair, “nuclear option” filibuster threats, and preparation for all out political war once President George Bush began to get ready to announce his Supreme Court picks.
What changed it? Schiavo’s death plucked much of that issue off the nation’s front burner, the U.S. was smacked with a series of hurricanes, John Roberts charmed and impressed both sides enough to sail through, Harriet Miers flamed out — and Plamegate flamed to one top-level indictment.
But now, with Alito’s nomination, GWB has virtually thrown-down-the-gauntlet by giving conservatives what they dreamed of — and liberals their worst nightmare: an unabashed conservative fitting the mode of the kind of candidate Bush promised to appoint during his two Presidential campaigns.
You know: those were the campaigns where Ralph Nader said there was no difference between the two parties.
Those who still believe that must be waiting for a jolly fat man in a red suit to slide down their chimneys on Christmas eve.
A Washington Post piece by Dan Balz nails the situation today: as the nation heads into the 2006 Congressional elections, partisan warfare is about to be burst to where it seemed to be heading earlier this year — and, in the end, political moderates will be caught in the middle of it.
By “in the middle of it,” we mean (a) in the Senate where they could hold swing voters and (b) in elections where GOP moderates (as few as exist) survive by straddling a shaky political line. In effect, Bush has now grabbed the tightrope and is shaking it. And guess what happens to the nimble who can’t keep their balance?
With the ideological balance of the court now in question, partisans on the left and right moved swiftly to the barricades. Senate Democrats declined to rule out a filibuster to block Alito, and Republicans renewed talk of invoking the “nuclear option” if necessary to prevent one.
Whether the upcoming battle, which is likely to focus heavily on the divisive issue of abortion, ultimately helps a president whose approval ratings are scraping 40 percent, and whose support among moderates and independents has plummeted even lower, is an open question — and one hotly debated among strategists yesterday.
Our view is (1) he will reunite his party, (2) he will in turn unite the Democrats (3) he risks losing moderates and centrists if this becomes a political holy war because many of them took a calculated risk that Bush was a “uniter not a divider” and a “compassionate conservative” and polls show these folks steadily heading for the GOP exit. MORE:
Given the state of his presidency and party, Bush may have had no other choice than to name a Supreme Court candidate who would help to heal the divisions within the GOP coalition, even at the risk of further alienating voters in the center. Democrats were convinced the choice would move Bush’s image irrevocably to the right, but some Republicans said this is exactly the kind of fight that could help turn around Bush’s troubled presidency.
“The dispute over Miers’s nomination shows that they’re not adept at dealing with discontent on their own side,” said Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore. “This is a president who has never governed from the center and who is clearly uncomfortable with the crosswinds that come with that. So they went back to familiar turf. I’m not sure they can afford to do that, but they lack the dexterity to do something different.”
Indeed: Karl Rove has made no secret of his (successful) strategy of “mobilization” elections — where you mobilize your base, elections that could be won if you get virtually your whole base out to vote (then who needs those wishy-washy moderates and centrists anymore?). It has worked before. Will it work in the future? MORE:
But Republicans said the only sensible recovery strategy for the embattled president begins with putting his own coalition back together. After months of bad news, the Republicans need a symbol around which to unify and for conservatives, Alito and changing the court may be precisely the answer.
That is also CORRECT. So many bad things have happened with the Bush administration in recent months that he did need a symbol, and just look at what Alito does. He:
- Gives conservatives the “red meat” candidate — one who proudly can proclaim conservative beliefs. Conservatives have asked “what’s so wrong about saying you’re a conservative on issues” JUST as much as liberals in recent years have asked “what’s so bad about being called a liberal?” Conservatives have LONG defined liberalism as bad in the general population; liberal lawmakers have long defined conservatism as bad in a high-level judge.
- Gives talk show hosts, conservative pundits and activists a NEW issue to trump some of the other ones (like Plamegate). It can’t be dismissed as a trivial matter; it is a Supreme Court seat. But time and energy spent talking and ranting on the nomination takes up time and energy talking and ranting on other subjects. It allows them to go on the OFFENSE (clamoring for an ASAP “up and down” vote on Alito, although that was not so terrific an idea for many of them in the case of Miers) versus DEFENSE (any bad news out of Iraq; Plamegate news).
- Gives Republicans (particularly pundits and talk show hosts) new targets for demonization — which is circular, since this again ties in with the idea of a “mobilization election.” The base (which listens to talk radio) must be kept aroused. Verbal political foot-in-mouth disease afflicts both parties (and independents, too) so any verbal excesses, or gaffes and Sean, Rush and Bill will be on the warpath against the “obstructionist” liberals.
The Post quotes Republican Vin Weber, a former representative from Minnesota, as saying the fight could help Democrats more than GOPers: “The Democrats don’t need rallying right now and the Republicans do.” But here’s the quote we like the best:
Charlie Black, a veteran GOP strategist and outside adviser to the White House, said Democrats may overestimate how much middle-of-the-road voters will be drawn to an ideologically polarizing debate over Alito’s views. “I think average Americans — moderates, independents — look at the qualifications and credentials first, then will want to get to know the person better through the hearings,” Black said.
Clearly, a lot of emphasis will be on the Senate hearings performance.
But is Black correct on this one?
Content does matter. If Roberts was a conservative with views somehow a bit open to interpretation, and Miers a nearly blank slate, Alito represents reams of specific stands and ideas for Republicans to embrace and Democrats to reject.
Enter the moderates:
If GOP conservatives were energized by Bush’s choice, Republican moderates in the Senate found themselves in an uncomfortable position. Sen. Lincoln D. Chaffee (R.I.) issued a statement outlining a string of concerns about Alito’s record. Other moderates remained silent. Their votes will be the target of fierce competition between the White House and the Democrats, as will the votes of the seven Democrats in the bipartisan Gang of 14, whose compromise agreement in the spring averted a showdown over the future of Senate filibusters on judicial nominees.
“If you lock your moderates down, the likelihood of filibuster becomes less likely,” one GOP lawmaker said yesterday. If Democrats “sense weakness on our side, then this guy is in trouble. The first goal is to lock down your moderates and then work on the seven Democrats in the Gang of 14 and create a comfort level with both.”
So they’re going to “lock” the moderates “down” via enormous pressure. In other words: this vote or your career.
In the end, perhaps the moderates will be influenced in a tough choice by polling in days to come on how the public perceives Alito. And then there’s this:
Weber said a successful fight to confirm Alito would leave Bush and the Republican Party in “dramatically better shape” by early next year. But Democrats said they can foresee no significant risk in waging an all-out battle, which they believe will leave the Republicans further to the right than before, even if Alito wins confirmation. That assures the kind of confrontation the country has not seen over a high-court nomination since Bush’s father picked Clarence Thomas in 1991.
That would not be surprising, coming as it does amid one of the most politically polarizing administrations the country has ever seen.