If Richard Nixon had his group of “plumbers,” George Bush may need a whole city of firemen to douse the political firestorm raging on his right due to his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court — and the question now becomes: no matter what happens on this nomination, does it signal some kind of party realignment?
The answer: anything can happen and it’s hard to believe that Miers being voted in, withdrawing, or being yanked as a nominee would erase the unleashed political forces now swirling around the White House as Bush winds down on his second term.
The topsy-turvy world of 2005 politics has sparked snark from the New York Times which in an editorial declares:
The same conservative legal groups that held rallies attacking Democrats for resisting the president’s choices for the bench are now talking about blocking a Bush nominee.
During the Bush era, another constant of the confirmation process has always been the Republicans’ resistance to Democrats’ attempts to learn more about nominees, either by getting hold of documents or questioning them vigorously at their hearings. Now it’s the Republicans who are demanding more information…
If Ms. Miers’s nomination has caused Republicans to suddenly acquire standards, it may be causing Democrats to forget theirs. Many appear to have calculated that Ms. Miers would be a more moderate justice than anyone the Bush administration would nominate if she were defeated. Perhaps as a result, Senate Democrats have been remarkably restrained about criticizing Ms. Miers’s close ties to the president and the thinness of her résumé.
The Times comes close to saying “A pox on both their houses” but doesn’t (perhaps out of fear of being arrested under the Patriot Act…).
Miers is being vetted by conservatives — and the press. One press report even goes into her gun ownership in Texas (she owned a gun but was she licensed to have it?)
How bad is it for the White House? Let’s put it this way: Rush Limbaugh has turned against the nomination.
What’s most notable about this debate, though, is not that it centers on Miers — but that a large part of it is actually centering on the character of George Bush. Supporters feel like spurned lovers. Bush’s foes within and outside of his party are saying “I told you so.” And theories now abound about WHY he picked her.
One of the best summaries comes from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson:”Any of a dozen other names would have brought joy to the hearts of his conservative supporters. So why did he pick Miers? Was he feeling impotent or omnipotent?”
He goes into detail about both and reaches a conclusion that we think is logical:
That leads me to the omnipotence scenario: that the president knew he would create a firestorm with the Miers nomination and decided to go ahead anyway. He knew Miers, knew she would be a reliable conservative vote on the court, knew that some of his allies might resent having to vote to confirm the Unknown Justice and decided to name her anyway because he’s the president, and he can do anything he wants.
… I’m more worried that the president is feeling — wrongly in both cases — that he’s either powerless or all-powerful. If I had to choose, I’d rather have this president feeling tentative than have him feeling arrogant. But it’s a close call, given that he’ll be in the White House another three years and change. The country and the world face enormous challenges, and while I want Bush to stop driving us up blind alleys and over cliffs, it’s way too early for the wheels to fall off entirely.
Six months can be an eternity in politics — let alone three years. And where are most polls for Bush trending? Downwards. Does the adminstration seem to be expanding support by aggregating interests? Or is it in a holding pattern? Or is it in danger of losing pegs that traditionally propped up its support?
So, more likely than not, the prospect is for more conflict and political drama — not less — no matter what Bush does on this. And it seems as if he’s no longer being given a “pass” by some supporters.
In conversations, on blogs, in news stories, the Miers nomination controversy coming on the heels of the furor over federal government’s performance during Hurricane Katrina has shifted a bit from specific policies to issues such as cronyism (does it exist, how much and why), corruption (is the GOP of 2005 as corrupt as the Democrats of 1994?) and raised questions about whether the administration has been in power for too long. On his website, Dr. Harold Damerow, Senior Professor of Government and History at Union County College in Cranford, NJ offers these key political party realignments:
**1860 – 1876 Radical Republicans are dominant
**1876 – 1896 Two Party Competition
**1896 – 1932 Republican Dominance
**1932 – 1968 Democratic Dominance
**1968 – 2000 Period of Divided Government
The current period clearly is one of GOP Dominance — more than ever before. But will it last?
The centrist blog Bull Moose sees it as an opportunity for the country’s center:
As the Bushies implode, who will take their place? Will it be a reformed Republican Party? Will the Democrats get their act together and convince the mighty middle that the party is not beholden to its liberal interest groups?
Will a force emerge within or outside the major parties that puts the national interest first? A faction which comes forth that argues that we must have a strong national defense, reform entitlements, requires national service and promotes progressive, pro-capitalist economics? Independent voters have largely given up on this Administration, but do they have anywhere to go?
Mooseketeers, the nation calls us. We must seek converts to this grand effort – to unite the country around a new politics of national unity that transcends the petty, partisan divisions.
Bull Moose then points to a column by New York Times columnist David Brooks that has a paragraph that speaks volumes to where the U.S. is heading in light of recent events:”After a while, you get sick of the DeLays of the right and the Deans of the left. After a while, you tire of the current Republicans, who lack a coherent governing philosophy, and the current Democrats, who are completely bereft of ideas. After a while you begin to wonder: Did I really get engaged in politics so I could spend months arguing about the confirmation of Harriet Miers, the John Major of American jurisprudence?”
Bull Moose again:
Yes indeed, it is time for a revolt of the middle – a rebellion of the immoderate centrists. Mavericks in and outside of the two parties should step forward, throw caution to the wind, and make their voices heard to represent the unrepresented middle. Where are the statesmen, columnists, bloggers and activists who will connect with their inner Bull Moose?
Are a large number of people beginning to overdose on politics largely comprised of opposing something or someone?
Bull Moose has a point: if a politico (on the right, in the center or the left) emerged to offer positive, fresh ideas and speak in direct terms versus the Ballet Of Winks that now marks much of the nation’s politics, he/she might find an audience.
It happened once before, but the guy self-destructed. His name was Ross Perot.
Is there someone waiting in — or outside of — a party’s wings who will not only offer fresh ideas but a fresher tone and convey sincerity about the words coming out of his mouth in winkless public pronouncements?
NOTE: This post is long. There some other great NEW posts underneath it — so please SCROLL DOWN.