The Moose muses on the strangeness of politics.
Only a few weeks ago, everyone was expecting Armageddon over Bush's nomination for the O'Connor vacancy. Well, an end of times battle we got, but it is being fought by the right against the Administration. Ralph Neas is not the leader of the opposition, but rather Bill Kristol!
How ironic is it that Chuck Schumer will be carrying the conservatives' water as he attempts to divine Ms. Miers' positions on a range of issues. Pat Leahy is not calling for the withdrawal of the nomination, but rather Charles Krauthammer. One expects a Kennedy-Coburn alliance against Miers on the Senate floor.
Meanwhile the indispensable man, Karl Rove is under threat of indictment - and the Bugman is already fighting the Man. Conservatives are also in rebellion over the LBJ-like spending ways of this Texan President. Casino Jack may bring others down with him. Is the end near for Republican power?
Strangely, smart conservatives should welcome a GOP crack-up before the '08 election. Conservatism has been corrupted by a plutocratic, crony unprincipled crowd. There is a need for a cleansing. If the right can cast-off the Bushie-Delay establishment, there is a chance that it can re-emerge with reform conservative leaders in time for the '08 Presidential election.
Intelligent conservatives will realize that this is not a strange scenario, but rather a tremendous opportunity to save their souls and even retain power. Hope for the worst, and build for a better tomorrow! -- | 
Email
this post
The Moose suggests that the elephant's sleaze alone will not return the donkey to power.
The GOP is increasingly deep trouble with the various scandals that are enveloping the party. Republicans are in a funk fearing the new indictment or betrayal the next day will bring. Democrats are increasingly optimistic about their chances. Time for a reality check.
As the Moose has previously indicated, the '94 Republican Revolution is a useful model. At that time, the Congressional Democrats were perceived as a corrupt, entrenched establishment. However, it was also significant that the Clinton Administration appeared out of touch with the country as the President betrayed his commitment to be a "different kind of Democrat" and lurched to the left.
Republicans were able to run as reformists both against corrupt power and left wing policies. They offered a conservative-independent agenda as an alternative to the Democrats. That is important to remember because some Democrats believe that the Republican's sleaze will be sufficient for the party to return to power.
Republican policies, however, are not exactly that popular these days - slashing taxes does not have the resonance that it once did. And social security privatization was a flop. Immigration is an issue that divides Republicans and the GOP has squandered all its credibility on the fiscal front.
Democrats should not, however, draw from this that they should run a left wing ideological policy campaign for Congress - this is a relatively conservative country - conservatives enjoy more than a 3-2 advantage over liberals. What the Democrats should develop is a progressive agenda that appeals both to the base and independents and moderate Republicans.
Democrats must play against type. That is why fiscal responsibility is so critical for the Democrats - it helps show that the Democrats will not return to their big spending and taxing ways if they return to power. Republicans will tag Democrats as a bunch of liberals who just want the chance to raise taxes and reward their special interest groups. The donkey needs to allay those concerns.
The base alone will not be sufficient - the mighty middle needs to be persuaded. Democratic leaders spend plenty of time with the Hollywood crowd in pursuit of their dollars - hopefully they'll spend some time with the Wal-Mart crowd to see what's on their mind in pursuit of their votes. And most Americans have never read a blog and don't' belong to People for the American Way.
Democrats would be wise to read a new report issued by the Third Way by William Galston and Elaine Kamarck which is an updated version of their seminal work, The Politics of Polarization.
The original version of this work was an instrumental guide for Democrats winning the White House in 1992. In fact, the Galston and Kamarck study echoes exactly what the DLC has been saying for years about the importance of the politics of the vital center rather than merely depending on base mobilization.
Al From wrote in July, 2003,
"Despite the unprecedented progress the country made under a Democratic president in the '90s, no Democrat will take back the White House in 2004 unless he recaptures the trust of ordinary Americans as Bill Clinton did in 1992. We're all for turning out the Democratic faithful, but energizing the liberal base is not enough to win nationally. For a decade, the electorate has been 30% conservative, 20% liberal, and 50% moderate. There's a reason Mr. Clinton was the only Democrat elected and re-elected president in 60 years: he inspired Democrats, but also went after the independents and moderate Republicans he needed to win."
Yes, the Congressional Republicans are corrupt crowd - but if the donkey is going to throw the bums out they have to be engaged on the plane of ideas and policy. -- | Email
this post
Thursday, October 06, 2005
The Moose explains why he would crawl across a field of broken glass for John McCain.
The conclusion of the statement from John McCain on his amendment that passed the Senate last night which establishes new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere,
"Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world - a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies." -- | Email
this post
The Moose observes that the President has finally proven that he is a uniter and not a divider. "Question: Apart from their aversion to Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, what do conservative commentators Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Laura Ingraham and George Will (search) have in common? "The Ivy League, that's what. All except Ingraham and Will went to Harvard. Ingraham went to Dartmouth and Will studied at Princeton, and later, Oxford. Former Justice Department official John Yoo, who wrote in The Washington Post yesterday that President Bush had swung and missed with the Miers nomination, is also a Harvard man. "Law professor Douglas Kmiec (search), who defended Miers in the Post, went to Northwestern. Prominent Democrat Martin Frost, who has praised Miers, went to the University of Missouri. And Miers herself went to Southern Methodist University." Please, Mr. Rove you can do better than this! Is Brit suggesting that there is yet another victim class of aggrieved, persecuted Americans - SMU grads? In truth, the Moose is partial to serious law schools - such as Baylor Law School which graduated such luminaries as Judge Pricilla Owen and Watergate hero Leon Jaworski. Somehow, Mr. Hume, the Moose thinks that Ivy Grads Kristol and Company would not have been disappointed if Baylor Grad Owen (class of '78) would have been nominated for this job. How about it Brit? The Moose reports, you decide.
The President's Supreme Court nomination will likely unite Ted Kennedy and Ann Coulter in the belief that Harriet Miers is not qualified for this job. And there is an emerging bi-partisan and trans-ideological consensus that the White House spin is pathetic.
First, the Bushies have attempted to play the Jesus card. They have trotted out her born again boy friend to establish that she loves the Lord and that she is devout pro-lifer. And if you don't like that line, the Bushies suggest, you are an anti-Christian, secular humanist bigot. As a result of this argument, there is a developing split among the conservatives between the fawning faithful and the reality based conservatives. The latter group, as represented by George Will, is even suggesting that the President is perhaps incapable of serious reflection.
Imagine that!
But perhaps the most ludicrous, if not humorous spin from the Bushies is that Miers is persecuted because she is an alumnus of that illustrious institution - Southern Methodist University - a well known party school for upper-crust kids in Dallas (forgive the Moose's bias). Of course, she likely got the job, because like Laura, Harriet is a Mustang (leading some to label her Mustang Harriet).
The SMU persecution line was peddled by White House Spokesman and Fox News Anchor Brit Hume last night, Email
this post
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The Moose suggests that Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief because the President ducked a fight over judges. Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Moose analyses the divide among the faithful. Monday, October 03, 2005
The Moose urges the donkey to heighten the contradictions among Republicans. The Moose is enjoying himself like a hog in slop. "According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it's a reality, they are stunned. "We passed up Gonzales for this?" was one conservative staffer's reaction. "I don't know much about Gonzales, but I think I know enough that he's more of a conservative than Harriet is." Dr. Moose is a student of human behavior and he is very concerned about his conservative brethren in the aftermath of the Miers betrayal. He is therefore establishing a suicide prevention hotline for right wingers - 1-800- b-e-t-r-a-y-s. The Moose observes that this Administration is at least consistent in its devotion to cronyism.
Harriet Miers may very well out to be a Scalia-Thomas conservative. Who knows? But this is clear - a nuclear war over a unmistakably discernible conservative nominee would not have necessarily helped the Democrats.
To the extent that the issue of the composition of the Court played any significant role in the Bush-Kerry campaign - it was a mobilizing factor for the Republican base. Moreover, judicial over-reach concerning gay marriage might have moved some culturally conservative voters in the key state of Ohio. "Judicial activism" has usually been a winning issue for the Republicans.
While it may have excited the liberal interest groups and filled their coffers, a court smack down over a conservative nominee could have backfired against the Democrats among traditionalist voters - many of whom identify with the party on economic issues. Fortunately, the President avoided a fight because he was either devoted to cronyism or he feared that he could not risk diminishing political capital.
It would be good for Democrats to have a coherent judicial philosophy. They can try to make abortion and Roe the litmus test. But that would be a profound political loser, and a disservice to the political imperative that Democrats define themselves as something more than as a culturally liberal party that is in thrall to its interest groups. Yelling "extremist" in a crowded polity is not a plan.
Alas, the Democrats have the luxury of avoiding coming to grips with their judicial dilemma because President Bush blinked with the Miers nomination. He also potentially deflated his base for the '06 election. While evangelical Christians are kvelling over Miers, most conservatives are kvetching.
It could have gotten ugly. Email
this post
Ironically, the Miers nomination has not resulted in a fissure among Democrats but among the conservative faithful. In fact, Democrats are reveling over the Republican imbroglio over the Miers nomination.
There are two distinct camps among the righties over Harriet - the fawning faithful and the reality based conservatives. The fawning faithful are largely faith-based. The leader of this camp is Dr. Dobson who has given his qualified blessing to the nomination. However, the critical thinker of this faction is Marvin Olasky, a controversial figure who created a brief storm in 2000 suggesting that three Jewish journalists comprised a "religion of Zeus."
Olasky provided the key comment on Miers on his blog,
"Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."
In sum, Olasky is making the point that Miers is kosher because she is an Evangelical Christian. That was also a key factor for W. in receiving that community's blessing in 2000. It is the critical element for Miers now.
The faith based Miers supporters are also comprised of Republicans who will accept anything that W. does merely on... faith. That group is diminishing in numbers as the President increasingly disappoints the faithful.
In contrast to the faith-based righties are the reality based conservatives whose views are represented by Bill Kristol and most of the folks at the National Review. They look at Miers' credentials and pedigree and are repelled by the nomination. Note these comments by Jonah Goldberg,
"If nominating an evangelical pushes Democratic buttons, shame on the Democrats for having their buttons pushable on such a thing.
No, my only real objection is that she doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly qualified for the job. Surely, there are more qualified evangelical judicial conservatives out there, including female ones. The problem with being under-qualified, aside from the obvious points about merit, is that it gives Democrats a good reason not to take the bait the White House is trying to lay out for them."
The Moose delights in this divide. -- | Email
this post
The Democrats must respond wisely and strategically to the Miers nomination. While certainly not embracing the nomination, Democrats should take the opportunity to drive a wedge between the right and the President.
The Miers pick is clearly a reflection of the President's weakness. One can only wonder what other problems the Administration is anticipating. The President clearly feels he cannot risk a fight at the moment. But, he might have over-compensated by selecting someone who is not being received well by his most fervent believers - they have to view it as Souter all over.
Democrats should, at least, indicate that it initially does not appear that Miers is a Scalia/Thomas extremist. They should applaud the President for apparently not bowing to pressures from the right - this will drive the conservatives nuts.
Now is the time to make Bush II appear to the right as feckless as Bush I. Read the Moose's lips.. -- | Email
this post
Already the howls are being heard on the right!
From the American Spectator site,
"Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.
"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."
"There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. Never mind the Al Gore donations or the money that was floated to the DNC when Miers was a managing partner in a law firm, those can be explained away as "good for the business of the firm... Email
this post
The right cannot be happy this morning. The President chose friendship over ideology in his selection of Harriet Miers. There has to be a tremendous let-down among the conservatives who were at least expecting a Scalia or Thomas in a skirt. Instead, they got a buddy of the President who is an establishment Republican - and that is not a complement in right wing circles.
David Frum wrote last week about Miers,
"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect. "
The Miers nomination is good news for Democrats. While Miers may very well be confirmed, the nomination will cause the Administration some obvious headaches. First, the legal community will certainly not be impressed by her qualifications. She appears to be O'Connor without the credentials. And the right will be infuriated that the President let them down with by not appointing a true believer and whose abortion credentials are suspect. The rule on the right is if they can't discern the obvious conservative bona fides of a nominee - it's not good news.
The Moose can't wait to hear the lamentations of the wing-nuts. -- | Email
this post
