[T]he Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.
The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.
He didn't do that. Why didn't he? Old standard answer: In time of war he didn't want to pick a fight with Congress that he didn't have to pick. Obvious reply: So in time of war he picks a fight with his base? Also: The Supreme Court isn't the kind of fight you "don't have to pick." History picks it for you. You fight.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Not So High Noonan
Peggy Noonan is brilliant, as usual:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That thinking is based on everyone that voted Republican last time supporting them in that bench clearing brawl.
I think the President rightly diagnosed that isn't necessarily so and it's quite possible it would have produced a brawl they wouldn't win, or even if they did it would be at a price they wouldn't have been willing to pay had they known (the 2006 and later elections).
I agree with Tommy- there is more here than meets the eye.
Mr Bush has proven himself to be a long term strategist.
Post a Comment