So, Did Reid & The Dems Play The Miers Nomination Like A Violin?

[stopbush]

Seems to me our usually hapless Dems played this one just about perfectly.

What say you?

[NYCGirl]

1. A beautiful thing. My admiration for Harry Reid just went up a lot! NT

[wtmusic]

19. Never underestimate the man

Learned a lot about Harry campaigning in Las Vegas last year. I met him once. He is smart and fearless; a lot like Fitz.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Yep

I loved watching them eat each other up. :) Now onto a real fight. Harry is a great leader. I love him and Nancy working together.

[Jack from Charlotte]

27. As the saying goes.... When your enemies are shooting at themselves....

don't friggin' interfere.

[texpatriot2004]

2. Oh yeah. hoo aww. It was terrific. n.t

[gkhouston]

3. why, yes. Can we retain this memory for a few days and not

immediately bash Reid when he gives his first reaction to the next nominee?

[bowens43]

4. Perhaps 'they' played the Dems like a violin.

It is yet to be seen.

If we end up with a known extremist instead of a possible right leaning moderate , what have we won?

This is tough one and we won't know the winner until someone is confirmed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. You're completely wrong.

Hell, I'd even argue that if he nominates a known extremist that we've ABSOLUTELY won. It just further exposes how "outside the mainstream" the GOP really is. It gives us something to legitimately fight and forces them to push the very unpopular nuclear button, and quite frankly, they have had the power to do it all along. We have no power to stop them one way or another. An extremist candidate will only make them look like assholes. The fact that we've pushed them this far is a huge victory.

Stop trying to steal defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. And people realize with Bush

that he doesn't care about the "conservative" agenda. Just himself.

[bowens43]

25. This isn't about bush.

In three years bush is gone. This about the supreme court. This MUCH more important then bush.

[LaPera]

56. 3 years and 3 month's...every day is a pain in the fucking ass!

[bowens43]

24. Sorry to burst your bubble

But the supreme court is much more important then defeating Bush or the GOP. Hopefully our Senators are not as short sighted as you seem to be.
If an extremist is confirmed instead of a moderate, we lose. The country loses.

[onenote]

29. what basis do you have to assume Miers would be a moderate

I certainly wouldn't want to bet on it. Far more likely she would've been a Thomas clone -- a unthinking, follow the leader type that essentially would've given Scalia a third vote for whatever position he wanted to take.

Where we've ended up also is unknown. But we know this. The tactics used by the right to attack (and to defend) Miers have given the Dems cover in the debate over the next nominee to raise a lot of questions for which they would've been criticized previously. Demanding the "paper trail." Asking specific questions about the nominees position.

What we got out of this was a loss for Bush. And in Washington, there is no such thing as a good loss. Losing is considered to be contagious. Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place. If he tries to placate the fundies by naming someone who is openly and avowedly anti-choice, the Dems can justifiably filibuster that nominee and the public will not necessarily be giving Bush the same benefit of the doubt that he is entitled to whatever nominee he wants. Indeed, the right wing's claim that the President is entitled to pick the people he wants has been shot down -- by the right wing.

Not a bad result.

onenote

[bowens43]

36. I don't assume that she was a moderate.

We don't know whether or not she was. What we do know is that in the past she supported Democrats and pro-choice candidates. She was an unknown. There was a chance that she would have been another Souter. The next nominee will likely be a known extremist.

You fail to see the importance of this. A win against bush is fun but basically meaningless if the supreme court gets a conservative majority. Bush is gone in 3 years max. The supreme court nominee who gets confirmed is likely to affect our lives for decades to come.

For instance,right now all of our environmental laws are based on a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause. If we get an orginalist supreme court we can expect to see all federal environmental laws overturned. That's just the beginning.

[onenote]

40. I do see the importance of this

And I think we are in a far stronger position because of the Miers screw up than we would be otherwise. The argument that Bush is entitled to extreme deference on his appointees has been punched full of holes, first by the Michael Brown fiasco and then by the Miers nomination. Sure, the republicans will fall in line behind whatever wingnut he names. But because Bush screwed up with Miers, the Dems are on much stronger ground in filibustering a wingnut. The nice thing is that because O'Connor is staying on the court until a replacement is named, the public can't be swayed by the argument that the Dems are leaving the court at less than full strength. If we can successfully filibuster a wingnut nominee, pressure on the pres will mount to find a qualified middle ground nominee. The fundie wing of the party won't like it, but the George Will's etc. who complained about Miers lack of qualifications will be in no position to object.

Its a dangerous strategy, no doubt.And if Miers had made it through, there would've been distinct benefits -- a dispirited right wing in particular. But their disappointment might well have been temporary if, as I believe was likely, she turned out to be a stealth Scalia clone.

onenote

[bowens43]

46. At this point, we don't know.

That was my point. I consider this a win until someone is confirmed. If by some miracle it's a moderate I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong but I don't think that will be the case. I think it just as likely that she would have been a stealth Souter, we just don't know.

I don't think the republicans will allow a filibuster to succeed especially if they are on the ropes once the indictments come down. I'm more worried about the court then anything else. A conservative court will be able to undo much of what the Democrats have accomplished over the last 40 years.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we lost that fight in 2004.

Not enough people agreed that the Supreme Court was that important, or if they did, they wanted Bush's nominee and not Kerry's. We have ZERO power.

[bowens43]

34. I still don't see how we can declare victory in this

without knowing the end result. It may well be a victory or it may be the worst scenario possible but we won't know until someone is confirmed. Too many people look at this as 'beating bush'. We may have won the battle but we may still lose the war.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. That all depends on what you define as "winning the war"

I define "winning the war" as continuing to chip away at the GOP's chances in the 2006 election. If you define winning as stopping any right wing judicial nominees, let me save you the suspense - we lost that battle almost a year ago. We have never, I repeat, NEVER held the power to truly stop any of Bush's nominations. NONE. He will appoint and succeed at confirming every one of his nominees unless the far right butts in and stops it. We have no filibuster, and we never had, as long as they hold the nuclear option (which they do). Therefore, winning for us has to be looking ahead at the future, and quite frankly, I can't see how this is anything BUT a victory for us in that light.

[bowens43]

38. Exactly right.....

We had a chance to possibly get a moderate (we don't know what she was), now we're certain to get an extremist. We might have replaced a right leaning moderate with a right leaning moderate. Instead we will be replacing a right leaning moderate with a hard right extremist and the next opening on the supreme court is likely to be replacing a liberal. If the republicans still control the Senate after 2006 bushes legacy could be 6 to 3 conservative court. Miers may have helped us to maintain the balance.

This was at best a draw but more likely a loss. Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh consider this a win too.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. That's only if you believe Miers was a moderate.

And prior to today, the vast majority of DU did not believe she was a moderate. Hell, minus the far right, no one really considered her a moderate.

Personally, the entire tone of your posts screams "woe is me/sky is falling". For one, you're making it a total given that Bush is going to nominate an extremist, which is faulty thinking for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he's had two opportunities and STILL hasn't done that. Add in the fact that he's severely politically damaged and not ready for a fight, and I in no way, shape, or form think it's anywhere near guaranteed that he's going to nominate a known extremist. You're already conceding the 2006 elections to the Republicans, despite all momentum shifting entirely in the opposite election. And you're making Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh the authority on who is winning and losing. Quite frankly, your pessimism is overwhelming to the point where I wonder if ANYTHING would please you.

[bowens43]

44. So you admit that Miers wasn't an extremist?

Miers was dropped because she wasn't a confirmed originalist.

I'm not making anyone an authority on who is winning or losing , I'm merely pointing out that you, Anne and Rush all feel this is a win.

BTW , I'm very confident about 2006. You seem to be reading a lot into my words that isn't there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. No, I admit no such thing. It doesn't matter either way.

You're forgetting my end game - chipping away at Bush and the GOP. This is an embarassment for them, no matter which way you cut it.

But if you're asking, I did think we were better off with a "maybe" than a known Scalia clone. I'm not convinced we're going to get the Scalia clone this time around either.

And I don't think I'm reading too much into it when you've already tallied a score on how many justices Bush will have been able to nominate. That's not merely posturing, that's flat out handing them a win.

[bowens43]

47. Chipping away at bush isn't as important as the court.

If we get a moderate confirmed , great. I'll admit that I'm wrong. I just don't see that happening. To call this a win now is very premature.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Let me say this one more time...

You're fighting a losing battle. The court was extremely important... in 2004. When Bush won his second term and the Senate stayed in Republican hands, that was it - that battle was over. We lost. We are NOT going to get our choice for the Supreme Court. We have NO power to stop their nominees. NONE. Stop fighting a battle that has been lost for over a year.

Our only chance to avoid further bleeding is to take back the Senate in 2006. THAT is the war we should all be focused on.

[bowens43]

51. You miss the point....oh well.

peace

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. What point am I missing? That the court is important?

Of course it is. I think I've addressed that several times. But just saying that it's important doesn't change our impotence in the matter.

[bowens43]

54. The point was that Miers may have been

a moderate. We have no way of knowing. The next nominee will NOT be a moderate. The next nominee will be confirmed. I don't believe the republicans will accept a loss on that. They will not allow a filibuster. Trading a possible moderate for a definite extremist is not a win in my book. Miers may have been a chance for us to lessen the damage. Bushes base will not allow a moderate. I can't see any way that this is a win. At best it's a draw at worst, it's a disater.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. I've already addressed that several times too.

Listen, maybe Miers would've turned into Souter, maybe not. Dobson didn't seem to think that would be the case, and if ANYONE was going to bitch and moan, it was him. You're right though, we'll never know.

So? We don't know who the next person is going to be at all. It could very well be another Miers or Roberts. I'm betting that it will be. If it's not, we'll fight it, attempt to filibuster it, and use the Miers nomination as proof that not only are the Republicans far outside the mainstream of American values, but that Democrats were more than willing to compromise on both of Bush's previous nominees. Not only do we look good in all of this, THEY look bad. And if they nominate another Miers, we still look good in this light, thanks to Harry Reid.

You're far too quick to put on the moping face, especially given that you're basing it on the remote possibility that Miers MAYBE wasn't a horrible right wing nutjob (despite a lot of evidence suggesting that she is).

[bowens43]

57. We'll see.....

One of us is wrong I hope for all of our sakes that it's me.

[noiretextatique]

60. i agree wtih you...this doesn't pass the smell test to me

especially since freaks like ann coulter came out against miers. i am not so sure her withdrawal wasn't a part of the plan all along.

[noiretextatique]

59. clearly, you haven't read the GAO report

abotu the stolen election today.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. Clearly, you think that matters somehow.

It really doesn't matter anymore, does it? Bush IS president, stolen election or not. And we don't have control of the Senate. None of the suspicions matter.

[cascadiance]

18. I agree that we still need to wait and see what happens now.

I still suspect that the second candidate is the one they plan to be their "ultimate" candidate all along, and that this first one was to get all of us "tired of" partisan approval battles, and soften the resistance to the second, and more strategic, nomination he makes. The Dems HAVE to not be any less willing to battle Bush on this nomination if it is flawed as well, just because we've already "won" keeping out Mieirs. Not being consistent in our opposition when we have a bad candidate would have them win in perhaps the way they wanted to win all along.

[JohnnyCougar]

30. The point is, he CAN'T nominate an extremist now

because an extremist would look EXTRA bad in comparison to Harriet Mires, whom the conservatives shot down. Now it gives the Democrats power to oppose any extremist nomination without the accusation of partisanship and obstructing legitimate government processes.

[bowens43]

35. Sure he can and he will.

Harriet Miers was driven out because too many people thought that she was NOT a confirmed hard core originalist. She wasn't shot down because she was too extreme , she was shot down because she wasn't extreme enough. We didn't make her resign, the right wingers drove her out.

Sure we can oppose the next nominee but if the next nominee is an extremist you can bet the republican base will be energized.

[Justitia]

5. Tee hee. 'tis a thing of beauty. -eom

[Beetwasher]

6. While Reid Plays Chess, Chimpy's Still Trying to Color Within The Lines

n/t

[VolcanoJen]

7. CNN's White House Correspondent, John King, just said exactly that.

He said that the President is boxed in on every one of these issues. To summarize, here's what he told Wolf Blitzer, while Candy Crowley just simmered silently:

* Bush can't blame the Democrats for Meirs' failed nomination, because the Democrats held their fire and let the Republicans doom Bush's pick.

* Bush can't blame God for the hurricanes he was slow to respond to.

* Bush can't blame anyone but himself for the Iraq War. It's his war, his alone, and he has to take responsibility for it.

* Bush can't blame Democrats for the imminent indictments of his senior staff, since Patrick Fitzgerald is not a partisan "Independent Counsel" as Ken Starr clearly was, and since the CIA pursued the investigation, not the Democrats.

* Bush can't blame Patrick Fitzgerald, since he's on the record having praised him, and since he was appointed by Bush loyalist John Ashcroft.

John King summarized by saying, "The President is on his own on almost every political level now, and he has nobody to blame but himself."

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. That is a "must read'" article

[FreedomAngel82]

23. Very good!!

I really like those points and they're all true anyways.

[rucky]

8. nominated. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Hells yes Reid played it brilliantly.

Now he can expose the right as the extremists that they really are. You, me, and everyone else on DU might already know this and take it for granted, but the rest of the country is just catching on. More fuel for the fire, boys!

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Chimpy screwed himself. Now he's got to nominate a 2nd best candidate

This will be interesting.

[tritsofme]

12. I think we will spend 30 years wishing for Miers

When Bush caves to the right and nominates a total wackjob.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. Nominating is one thing - getting it through is another.

And his people have little trust in him anymore.

[bowens43]

26. The next nominee, no matter how vile

will be confirmed.

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. But not without a good fight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I guarantee we get Roberts part 2.

He is far too weak to win a nuclear fight right now. He's even weaker now than when he nominated Roberts and Miers in the first place, there's no reason to believe he is dumb enough to completely change course and pick a fight now.

[bowens43]

28. I disagree.

A fight will energize his base. A fight with Dems will boost his poll numbers.

[onenote]

42. If we do our job, it won't boost his numbers

If he picks a Roberts clone -- someone with intellectual credentials, constitutional law experience, etc., but without a "smoking gun" on abortion, he'll get that person through, no doubt. But if he picks a bomb thrower -- it will be up to the Democrats to mount a vigorous campaign to demonstrate to the public that this is another screw up by Bush -- the selection of someone who is far outside the mainstream. The public's patience with Bush is wearing thin -- as reflected by his poll numbers. If we can do a good job painting the nominee as a kook, his poll numbers aren't going to go up. A principled stand by the Dems on a filibuster may energize the fundies, but its going to make the middle yearn for Bush to look for a compromise, not a fight.

onenote

[bowens43]

49. I hope you're right.

[helderheid]

15. yes

[crankybubba]

17. I'm afraid he might go postal

and sominate someone like <shudder> ashcroft <shudder>

[jsamuel]

20. Yeah, I have to apologize to Reid.

Sorry, I didn't understand what was going on.


I didn't accuse him of anything, but I definitely questioned his actions. I did have good reason to question them, as we now see. :)

[Arkana]

32. This is going to sound cliched, but I had faith in Reid from the beginning

and I'm so glad that I was validated.

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. I have to give him credit

He did a very good job leading the charge..

Now onto the next ass whoopin!

[onenote]

43. He did good by doing nothing

Fortunately, Reid didn't lead a "charge" against Meirs. He did an even smarter thing. He got the Dems to shut up, grab their popcorn, and let the right wing flip out. Some of the divisions that the Miers nomination opened up will not be that easily closed. When RW commentators wrote articles critical of the Miers nomination, they tended not to focus only on Miers, but to raise other issues about Bush's performance -- some went pretty far in suggesting the Emperor has no clothes. At very least, they chastised the president for being insufficiently devoted to conservative othodoxy -- in particular they criticized the fact that the size of the federal govt has grown under Bush. Now Bush is being backed into a corner -- he's being forced to push for permanent tax cuts for the rich and a shredding of the safety net for the middle class and the poor. Politically, he's heading for Social Security round two. If we do our job, we can hand him his nuts, cut significantly into the repub majority (or even regain control) in the House and/or Senate, and basically freeze Bush from carrying out his agenda.

Or at least that's what I hope.

onenote

[insane_cratic_gal]

48. I meant

Leading the charge in.. not charging? I should of just said Leading

His wait and see approach was perfect.

more then that Coulter those critical of Bush actually split the support. Her sheep sided with her and dissed on Georgie.. of course those die hards stayed with him.

Splitting the herd, it was brilliant

[Rosco T.]

52. Game. Set. Match. Now, when Shrub tries a real hardliner...

.. it's ROADBLOCKING time.

that is assuming that they are not knee-deep in indictments by then.

[ScreamingMeemie]

58. It remains to be seen if we end up with an Uber Conservative justice

or not. :hi: