Posted on 07/07/2005 6:31:52 PM PDT by ovrtaxt
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
|
|
|
|
|
For the story behind the story...
|
Thursday, July 7, 2005 2:34 p.m. EDT
Novak: Bush's Gonzales Support Frightening
Charging that President Bush may be an obstacle to appointing a conservative Supreme Court justice, columnist Robert Novak chastised the president for his remarks defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Novak fears Bush's remarks will be seen as a signal that the president intends to name him to fill the vacated seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Noting that Sen. Kennedy has managed to establish in the media's warped minds a new standard for "mainstream conservatism" by citing the liberal O'Connor as a genuine conservative, Novak wrote that by contrast, the president "has put forth 'friendship' as a qualification for being named to the high court."
According to Novak, Both Kennedy's and Bush's statements left conservative Republicans, who he recalls have spent more than a decade planning for this moment to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court, reeling from blows delivered by two dissimilar political leaders.
As a result, Novak wrote, it's not Kennedy who is the bigger obstacle to a conservative court, but the president himself.
"While Kennedy's ploy presents a temporary problem, Bush's stance could be fatal," according to Novak. "The Right's morale was devastated by the president's comments in a USA Today telephone interview published on the newspaper's front page Tuesday: 'Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it.'"
To Novak's politically sensitive ears, that sounded as if Bush, whom he called a stubborn man, might go ahead and nominate Gonzales "in the face of deep and broad opposition from the president's own political base."
Added to the mix is the strong probability that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist is on the verge of announcing his retirement.
Such a scenario may give Bush the idea he has political cover to appoint Gonzalez.
As Novak puts it, Bush could "name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues."
If Bush would do this, Novak says, it would be a massive defeat for conservatives because "the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the Left just fine."
Novak also noted that O'Connor was not considered a conservative when she was nominated 24 years ago, and writes that "the worst fears about her were realized by her consistently liberal positions on social issues. With Democrats now setting a new standard for conservatism, Republican senators could only bite their lips and praise her."
Novak conceded that Gonzales "would not exactly be another O'Connor, but he is still considered a disaster by Republican conservatives."
"Gonzales trial balloons were shot down on the right, but that has not stopped leaks from the White House." If a Rehnquist vacancy now is thrown into the mix, Novak asked, would Bush be tempted to temporize by naming one conservative and one non-conservative?
"Consequently, Bush's USA Today interview has been a source of intense anxiety on the right. Typically, the president did not defend Gonzales on his merits but with outrage that anybody would dare criticize his friend. That reflects a general schoolboy attitude that is losing the president support from fellow Republicans and conservatives."
I hope you're right, but I became very worried when Gonzales went on his high-profile trip to Iraq. Seems like Bush is getting him in the public eye before the SCOTUS nomination.
How do you define the word, "facts?"
Gonzales reaches out to National Council of La Raza
Janet Murguia, NCLR executive director and chief operating officer...
Check out www.redstate.org
They have had, IMO the best SCOTUS coverage. According to their source Gonzalez not even on the short list. They say Garza will get the nod. Novak is just trying to mix the pot
If anything, his trip to Iraq to me signals that he is staying at DOJ.
SCOTUS Judges don't go on high profile foreign trips.
I think Bush's pick will be a woman, IMO.
Janice Brown would be nice.
I think that the President does want to nominate Gonzales to the court....eventually. I see him nominating true conservatives to replace O'Connor and Renquist. If a 3rd spot opens up after the 2006 election (when President Bush is a lame duck)it's quite possible that Gonzales would be the best confirmable judge to replace Ginsburg or Stevens.
I think the confusion is that there is an organization called merely "La Raza" which is extreme extremist. Then, there is the "National Council of La Raza" which is kind of like the NAACP (and still too far to the left for my taste). He is/was a member of one of the state affiliate organizations (the Mexican American something or other) that make up the "national council" part of the "National Council of La Raza". I still don't agree with his affiliation with the NCLR, and I'd have turned down any kind of recognition, endorsement or award from them.
Ditto.
I agree.
Response: Bush is a politician first. Being a politician means that if Gonzalez' selection would gather a slight but sufficient number of Mexican votes in certain key areas then Gonzalez would be selected. WE are the ones that are too divided. Sex, plenty of food, drink, drugs, sports and other diversions mean too much to Demos!
Why don't these politicians try nominating someone that will do America good, instead of their private agendas? I am sick of hearing these politicians putting someone in because they are black, hispanic, or whatever. Why don't they just darn put someone in that will help America?
Novak is a Democrat.
Agree but not entirely. I guarantee that if George Bush wants to name a particular candidate he will do so regardless of any political capital already spent. That being said politicians are always thinking ahead for votes and the party, can't get away from that, ever. In this case the growing Hispanic vote in the R column would help the party but not necessarily classic liberals I.E. Conservatives. The question remains, is Gonzales a Souter waiting to happen, true to his stated opinions or maybe a reverse Souter. If I remember correctly Souter's history gave little indication that he was so extreme in his views and worse, that it was his duty and that of the court to make the law.
All that being said , I really hope it's not Gonzales, who I would take for a Ginsberg or souter replacement but not O'Connor or Rehnquist
It riles me that Gonzalez is/was a member of a "Mexican American" organization in Houston that is affiliated with the National Council of La Raza. That is an extreme organization (albeit not as extreme as Aztlan), that DOES NOT reflect the values of the President I thought I voted for. It sure as hell doesn't reflect MY values (not that any of the Hispanic groups do).You don't get it. This is triangulation rolled up in strategery. If Bush nominates Gonzalez, he automatically wins La Raza for the GOP. No one will even notice the cultural pandering that such a move represents, 'cuz when Republicans do it they're doing it for the right reasons (more GOP voters). It's pretty simple, really.
< /GOP Kool-Aid BS >
Nominating Gonzalez to capture the Hispanic vote is about a half step less insulting than handing out tacos at polling places.
Free margaritas is another story though ....
But seriously, it is insulting. Does the GOP leadership not think that I might base my vote on Pres. Bush's sugar policy or steel policy or energy policy or any other number of issues that I might happen to be involved in when I look up from my frijoles and nopales? That's no better than the democrats for goodness' sake!
In my 1986 Cassell's Spanish English dictionary, the word raza is defined as n.f. ;race ;breed; quality...; de__; thoroughbred.
You are correct in labeling it an extreme organization.
Are the people who defend this extreme terrorist group just stupid, are they actively conspiring to cover up their true motives and anti-American activities?
See ya back here when it's Luttig or Garza or Jones...
I have no idea. You can count on their extremism being covered up for the near future (especially what with Gonzalez's affiliation). I think there are some dunderheads in charge of both parties that honestly think ALL American hispanics believe in these organizations and that all of us base our votes on immigration policy. That's probably because that's a big "la raza" issue, and they tend to be the loudest while the rest of us American hispanics are mainstreaming and getting involved in issues that really affect us (widget regulations and/or trade policy for those of us widget makers, etc.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.