Reid on Gonzalez

12Comments

1. 1.

   Brian

   July 6, 2005 at 9:52 pm

   Hmm. I can’t figure out if the whacko fundies really hate Gonzales, or if they are pretending to hate him so that he would appear moderate in comparison. (Carefully coordinating their faux hate and outrage with the White House). Now I can’t figure out if Reid is falling for this, saying, in effect, this is about the best he can hope for given the loons we could be seeing . . . or if he is trying to scuttle his nomination. After all, if Reid likes him the Base will have to hate him. I guess if Hillary says he’d be an awesome Justice we’d know they’re trying to torpedo the SS Gonzo.

2. 2.

   David

   July 6, 2005 at 10:23 pm

   The conservative christians have 2 requirements. They want, no, demand a justice that is, without a doubt, 1) ant-Roe.v.Wade and 2) Pro-10 Commandments in every courtroom. And thing less and FRC et al will be pissed.

   Unfortunately, imho, the cc’s played there hand way too early and called out President Bush by publicly throwing sh!t on his friend. My guess is that President Bush will be pulling out my favorite Tony Montana quote, “F@ck me, no F@ck You.” If President Bush nominate Gonzalez and Reid can rally the dems, the McCain’s 7 and a few other Repubs. to get him through the nomination process, there will be a civil war in the GOP like nothing we have ever witnessed.

3. 3.

   James Emerson

   July 6, 2005 at 10:43 pm

   Senator “kiss of death” Reid has a good point. Mr “torturegate” Gonzales is probably the best we can probably expect from this administration. At least he gets a few points for calling Justice Owen guilty of (in not so many words) being an extreme judicial activist. Good call that…

   But we’ll have to wait until Senator “bury ’em deep” Durbin comes out supporting the AG as well…

   Between the two of them, Big Al would be a certain shoo in…

4. 4.

   MI

   July 6, 2005 at 10:46 pm

   I’m confused about something..the guy at the site you linked to more or less implies this is a pussy move by Democrats. But if Bush nominates Gonzalez he pretty much alienates the last group that still really supports him, so aren’t dems being tactically smart here?

5. 5.

   eileen from OH

   July 6, 2005 at 10:46 pm

   You’ll note that he didn’t say he would vote for him.

   I’m sorry, but Reid is cracking me up. Never play poker with this guy. First, he suggests some Republicans for Bush to nominate. Then he says this. Thing is – Gonzales presented a dilemma for the Dems. He was probably as moderate as we could hope for but the ol’ torture/Geneva Convention thing was gonna be a HUGE stumbling block. And the Dems would have had to play defense the entire time – after all, Gonzales was good enough to be AG, etc., etc.

   You’re right – this kills Gonzales. If it doesn’t, the blood-letting on the far-right will be something to behold. But, now, from a public relations/media standpoint, NO ONE can blame Reid, or the left. THEY aren’t being obstructionist, REID didn’t kill the nom, it was that mean, nasty, rotten far-right.

   So, what will Bush do? If he noms another moderate the Dems may get someone they can tolerate, without the Gonzales baggage. If he goes for a complete RR wingnut, the right will be happy but the Dems can go after him with a vengeance, no holds barred. And they can always say, especially when slapped with the ol’ obstructionist label, “What??? It’s not like we wouldn’t have accepted ANY of your choices. If only you had gone with Gonzales. Sigh.”

   Yeah, that does almost give Gonzales a lock for another spot. But it also forces Bush to put out a RR extremist NOW – one that the RR will accept. Who will then be wholeheartedly fought by the Dems (and maybe even a few Republicans.) Considering Bush’s current polling and the huge media focus that will be on the hearings, a lot of eyes may be opened to the RR agenda. Which, to my mind, is a very good thing.

   eileen from OH

6. 6.

   Mr Furious

   July 6, 2005 at 11:12 pm

   I’m going to have to defer to Reid on this one, he has been one step ahead on all of this stuff. Eileen is right. A master poker-player.

   Kos is on board/in on it as well…

   It’s pretty clear that Bush made the following Faustian promise to the two core constituencies of the Republican Party —

   To the Corporatist wing, he promised legislation. Things like the bankruptcy bill, tort reform, tax cuts, and the gutting of environmental, safety, and other such regulations.

   To the Religious Right, he promised the judges. And even though he has delivered with appelate judge after appelate judge, the big prize is now in sight. Dobson wants his Supreme Court judge, and it better not be that Souter-lite, abortion-lovin’ Gonzales (on the Texas Supreme Court, he ruled in favor of allowing teens to use judicial bypass to get abortions, thus avoiding the state’s parental notification law).

   […] True, we could go ballistic if Gonzales is the nominee, especially given his love of torture, but he’s about as close a shot to another Souter that we’ll get under this administration. Precisely the reason the Far Right hates him is the reason I’d be willing to give him a pass.

   He’s not perfect. He’s a Republican, after all. But given the alternatives, he may be the best of a bad lot. Let’s not forget that Gonzales was once one of Priscilla Owens’ biggest critics.

   […] We won’t get another Ginsburg, so I’ll take the lesser of evils, and that, right now, appears to be Gonzales. Reid agrees, as long as the proper confirmation process is followed through (and there’s no doubt it should).

   Gonzales or Brown were my early picks. The more the far-right tweaks Bush, the more he might want to tab Gonzales. I hope he does, it will be fun to watch what ensues.

7. 7.

   KC

   July 7, 2005 at 12:32 am

   It’ll be funny to see the Dems back Gonzales. I personally don’t like him at all, I’ll bet a lot of Dem Senators don’t either, but if the President nominates him, what are Dems going to do. Get him tossed out for someone even worse? At any rate, it’s the Senates job to confirm the nominee, right? An up or down vote and all that stuff.

8. 8.

   Stormy70

   July 7, 2005 at 5:34 am

   London is blowing up. This has ROP all over it.

9. 9.

   Sojourner

   July 7, 2005 at 7:23 am

   It’ll be funny to see the Dems back Gonzales.

   Yeh, it’s a real riot that the best choice we can expect from Bush is the torture czar.

   Fortunately, America is strong enough to resist Bush’s attempts to destroy its values. It may take a while but we will be able to look back on this time as a temporary period of insanity.

10. 10.

    p.lukasiak

    July 7, 2005 at 7:26 am

    Don’t expect to see the Dems “back” Gonzo. But don’t expect to see them going balls-to-the-wall either to support him, thanks to his support of torture.

    The most interesting question for me is how many Republicans would vote against cloture for a Gonzo— Dems could easily set things up that a “cloture” vote was about the White House’s failure to provide documents while signalling that they would provide the support necessary for Gonzales to be confirmed if it came to a vote…

    So the Dems get 30 or so votes against cloture — and watch as the anti-choice wingnuts are forced to choose between Gonzo on the bench, or supporting judicial filibusters.

    And isn’t it about time that the Dems play the same “race card” that the Christian right has used — the Democrats should be demanding to know what the Christian right is so opposed to a Hispanic on the Supreme Court….

11. 11.

    BinkyBoy

    July 7, 2005 at 9:13 am

    I’ve felt Gonzales would be a good choice for a Supreme Court position mainly because I don’t trust him with the solo power the AG position holds. At least within the Supreme Court he’ll be visible, his actions can be reviewed and he can be held in check by both sides. His torture memo’s were fairly accurate legal works, but show that he may be morally bankrupt.

    Reid, however, is on his best game ever. He’s playing Bush instead of Bush playing him.