I don’t know what to make of these comments:
President Bush said Tuesday that his list of candidates to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was “wide open,” and he jokingly but pointedly singled out Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
Mr. Bush’s mention of Mr. Gonzales as a possibility, in comments to reporters at the end of a cabinet meeting, fueled concern among conservatives, who were already mobilizing against the attorney general. Conservatives say that Mr. Gonzales has not shown himself to be sufficiently opposed to abortion rights and that nominating him would miss an opportunity to move the court fundamentally to the right.
Mr. Bush said that he had yet to make up his mind and that he would “take a good, long look at who should replace Justice O’Connor.” But he mentioned only one name, that of Mr. Gonzales, a longtime friend and aide who, if nominated and confirmed, would be the first Hispanic on the court.
“The list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington,” Mr. Bush said to laughter in the Cabinet Room, with the attorney general sitting directly across from him. “And make sure you notice when I said that, I looked right at Al Gonzales, who can really create speculation.”
Alberto Gonzalez is not going to be a nominee, so I am not sure what Bush is doing. Maybe he is just tweaking all involved…
I’m not sure why you think Gonzalez won’t be the nominee.
Bush has a long history of picking one of about 20 people for any post available. The main qualifications must include boot licking Bush supporter, loyalty to the Republican party, and willing to do whatever Republicans want.
Gonzales seems well qualified!
AND, Bush would get to play the “Looky-looky, I pick a non-white guy” game.
But as an adder, Gonzalez was on a list of possible picks that Democrats are not likely to strongly oppose. Perhaps that’s why you think he is DOA?
Now that he’s got Roberts out front and center as a real hardliner, he’s got enough rope to go with someone more moderate if he’s so inclined.
That said, I’d have a hard time signing off on Gonzalez due to the torture thing, even if he’s more likely to
…pursue reasonable policies than someone like Garza or *shudder* Owen.
It was the “jokingly” part that got me. He’s clueless. I wonder who wipes him now that he doesn’t live with his mama.
I gotta agree; of course he might nominate Gonzales. I’d say the odds are better than even.
I think Cole’s right on the “tweaking”; Bush enjoys that.
yet another jeff
Hell, he might nominate Karen Hughes…but I don’t understand the “Alberto Gonzalez is not going to be a nominee” surety. I agree that the odds are about even on that.
Gonzales has serious torture issues, which probably concern Bush as he thinks more of his legacy, plus less than sterling credentials. No federal court experience. Bush would need to find a new AG, go through the AG replacement process – big hassle. Nice guy, but is he up to the challenge of 30 years on the USSCT? Still, probably as strong as any Hispanic that I have seen mentioned. A bit more predictable than Garza.
I still like Edith Clement as the most appealing amongst the names frequently mentioned. Still, not from DC (which seems to make the person more predictable) and probably not someone who would be on a GOP top ten list if not a woman. Clement has good credentials, but she is not in the same credentials league as Roberts (though very few are).
Personally I’m not impressed with Bush’s nominations. A horse lawyer as director of FEMA? A judge of 2 years for Supreme Court Chief Justice?
If he does nominate Roberts and Gonzales, he’d do a decent job of keeping the court centrist, rather than liberal or conservative.
I saw the video.. Bush was definitley tweaking.
Bush loves to give the press a head-fake, so I suspect this is something in that direction.
My money’s on Clement. Conservative, woman, and from New Orleans, too.
Otto Man and I are in agreement on Clement leading the pack. But who the hell knows with this guy?
And is it possible for him to actually maintain a serious demeanor for more than a two-minute stretch? I mean what the hell else needs to go wrong that might snap him to fucking attention?
yet another jeff
Has Clement done anything for Bush? Any favors? Demonstrated loyalty or been the roommate of someone that has? If not, then I can’t see her on the list.
I demand to see a list of these people’s qualifications, specifically any prior experience involving judging horse shows
I think it’s fair to say Bush is not going to be appointing Anthony Romero to the Supreme Court.
But I don’t think you can say he won’t appoint Gonzales.
Honestly, if he did appoint Gonzales, I’d have a fair amount of respect for Bush. Yeah, he’s not liked by some of the wingnuts… and some of the far left liberals don’t care for him. But so far as AG, he’s been more like Reno, Thornburgh or Smith, than Ashcroft or Meese. That’s not a bad thing.
It’s weird, but this makes me uncomfortable for Gonzales. If he has really taken himself out of contention as some allege, George has just guaranteed that his “good friend” is now going to have his name dragged around the right-wing media again and spit on.
Either Gonzales will be the nominee, or George is really not the kind of person you want as a friend.
Wait, I thought he quit snorting cocaine?
Well, he joked about WMDs, and joked about Trent Lott’s porch while people were swimming in shit down the road.
Why wouldn’t he joke about this?
And people really wonder why we hate this horrible little man.
ppGaz – Now come on. We’re not like the Republicans, who hate the individual.
I don’t have GW Bush.
I hate what GW Bush has done to this country.
That’s the difference. Conservatives hate the person, as evidenced by their spewing diatribes. Liberals realize you can hate the sin, but still love the person.
You can, but you don’t have to. I don’t love Charles Manson, and I don’t love George Bush.
I could, if he’d act like a decent human being.