Novak: Bush's Gonzales Support Frightening

Newsmax.com ^ | Thursday, July 7, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

[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."

[Inwoodian]

"Mainstream conservative" = a jurist who can quickly spot penumbras and emanations from thirty paces.

[InterceptPoint]

'Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine. When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it.'"

I have to admit that I reacted very negatively to that statement. Bush is President not King. Friendship is certainly not a qualification for the Supreme Court. If anything it is just the opposite. That last thing we need is cronyism in the selection process.

[af_vet_rr]

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?

Because their number one job is to win the next election, or if they aren't running, to help win the next election. Looking out for the good of America comes in a distant third, behind looking out for the good of the government.

[KC_Conspirator]

I believe this is a feint, like when Bush floated the name of Marc Racicot for Attorney General, all the while knowing full well that he was going to nominate Ashcroft.

[af_vet_rr]

That last thing we need is cronyism in the selection process.

While true, no politician is going to stick their neck out for somebody else, unless they somehow benefit from it (in this case, elevating a friend). I'm being negative, but after the lack of comments coming from the WH after the USSC's recent private property ruling, I don't hold much hope that we (Conservatives) will get a candidate we can support

[SerpentDove]

"Mark my words folks, there is STRATEGERY goin on here..."

I hope it's not like Bush's strategery of signing CFR or of ignoring the borders.

[johnb838]

Hey -- Al Gonzales looks like a really nice guy. I just think he's too liberal and has too many social axes to grind to sit on that court. Or any other federal court for that matter. The temptation of power is too strong for people with axes to grind. It's like being a priest, many are called, few are chosen. And SCJ is like being an American Pope. Unfortunately. I'd like to see the whole institution gutted.

[inquest]

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"...

If there is such an organization that's just called "La Raza", it isn't terribly well known, because it doesn't come up in any Google search. What do come up are a bunch of organizations with that phrase in their names (La Raza Unida, La Raza Lawyers Association, etc.). But I'm pretty sure that when you just hear, "La Raza", what's being referred to almost universally is NCLR.

[mercy]

The Bush clan are not conservative. They are elitists. They believe themselves 'above' such petty concerns as the liberals and conservatives are about. Thus they are constantly sucked into the liberal plans. As they are in fact liberals though they deny it.

[inquest]

I didn't write that -- I found it on a website -- was just putting up the facts.

You also made a "guilt by association" comment. That objection could hold water if Gonzales was truly unaware of or didn't approve of the fact that the group of whom he was a board member was a branch of La Raza. But he was fully aware of it, and is proud of his association with NCLR.

[inquest]

Everybody cool their jets .. Gonzales said today - HE IS "NOT A CANDIDATE"! All this whining and hand wringing is for nothing.

It's the administration that needed to cool its jets. Bush started this trouble by whining about the "attacks" on Gonzales. In any case, though, I'm glad Gonzales announced he wasn't in the running for it, if in fact that's true. Maybe someone finally got the message.

[CyberAnt]

Bush did not START anything .. all sorts of people have been whining about Gonzales - Bush was just sticking up for his friend - as any TRUE friend would do.

[inquest]

Bush did not START anything ..

The criticisms of Gonzales were mostly under the radar screen until Bush complained about them. And his asinine comment got the reaction it deserved.

Bush was just sticking up for his friend

Hardly. He was just complaining. Sticking up for him would involve actually saying how the criticisms are without basis (assuming they are). He didn't even say that the criticisms are without basis.

[nopardons]

Yes, the Dems are overjoyed, that you and the rest of the hysterics, swallowed their bait hook,line, and sinker.

Gonzales was NEVER going to be nominated for SCOTUS.

You revel in misery. You love it so much, that you have to a minor rumor and blow it up to the size of Mount Everest, in order to have something to cavil over.And nobody needs a crystal ball to see that...all they have to do is read your posts. ;^)

[CyberAnt]

Oh you poor thing ... LOL!

[CyberAnt]

"Airing out the past on Gonzalez solidifies opinion against him."


What's the point ..?? Gonzales is not a candidate - get over it.

[inquest]

Keep laughing, because you're the one who's having a pity party over how mean everyone's being to Bush. Despite the fact that he brought it on himself.

[CyberAnt]

LOL!!

[Republican Wildcat]

"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.'"

I'm not sure how that statement is supposed to be "devastating."