The GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy

National Review Online ^ | March 1, 2002 | Byron York

[xsysmgr]

Will Republicans learn a lesson from the Democratic attack?

ith the nomination of Charles Pickering to a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nearly dead, Senate minority leader Trent Lott held a meeting Thursday afternoon with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to plan a post-Pickering strategy for judicial-confirmation battles. According to a source familiar with the proceedings, there were "a lot of angry feelings" in the room, not only about Democratic attacks on Pickering but about the general treatment of Bush-administration judicial nominees. "This has been a very sobering lesson," the source says.

But the meeting wasn't really about Pickering. "Actually, not much was said about him," says the source. "Most people are resigned to the fact that we are not going to get him." Instead, the focus of the meeting was what to do next. "We need to have a strategy to move forward," the source continues. "We need to be tougher, we need to have White House involvement, we need to find ways to counter the interest groups on the other side."

As improbable as it might seem to veterans of confirmation wars, some in the GOP were surprised by the ferocity of Democratic attacks on Pickering. Some Republicans were apparently lulled into a sense of confidence by Pickering's lack of any obvious vulnerabilities; after all, Pickering had been unanimously confirmed to the U.S. District Court ten years before, with the votes of Democratic senators who now oppose him. Also, the American Bar Association, assessing his decade of work on the bench, gave Pickering its "well qualified" rating. And he had the support of many community leaders, both black and white, in his home state of Mississippi, as well as the support of both home-state senators.

Yet the Democratic attack came, and some Republicans were not ready for it. Now, as they consider what to do next, one of the issues they are grappling with is how involved President Bush should be in appeals-court nomination battles. Should the president enter the public fray on behalf of specific nominees for the federal courts of appeal? Or should the president save his words for the Supreme Court nominations that he might have to make at any time?

By most accounts, the White House has done little to support Pickering, who was nominated at the insistence of his friend Trent Lott. At a White House briefing Tuesday, spokesman Ari Fleischer repeated an earlier assertion that "the president believes in Judge Pickering and will fight for Judge Pickering." But when a reporter asked what, precisely, the president had in mind, Fleischer answered, "I think he'll just make an assessment at the appropriate time about what that means, of what level of activity he will personally engage in. He'll just make that call as it gets closer."

That call apparently was made the next day, on Wednesday morning, when Bush brought the subject up during a White House meeting that included Lott and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. One source familiar with that conversation says Bush made a flat statement that the Senate should confirm Pickering. "The president said Pickering deserves to be confirmed," the source says. "When he said that, Lott jumped in and said he was disappointed in how Pickering was being treated." Daschle, according to the source, was non-committal.

Afterwards, Daschle denied that Bush had made an appeal for Pickering's confirmation. "The president didn't ask for a floor vote," Daschle told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "He asked what the prospects were, and I said I didn't know. There wasn't any request of me to take it to the floor. He made his general views known about the need to move ahead on judges, and expressed the hope that we could confirm as many as possible." Daschle said he told Bush "that's a matter for the Judiciary Committee....I respect the Judiciary Committee's decisions, and we have to accept those."

Daschle's account appears implausible; it seems unlikely that Bush would bring up the Pickering nomination simply to ask what the prospects were, since the president surely knows they are dismal. It's more likely that Bush said just what other witnesses said he said — that Pickering should be confirmed. Republicans in Congress can take some comfort in that, since it is unusual for a president to make a personal appeal on behalf of a nominee to an appeals-court seat. On the other hand, Bush's pro-Pickering pitch was not terribly forceful — Daschle felt free to ignore it completely — and it came very, very late in the game.

Now, Republicans appear to have come to the conclusion that they must do much, much better the next time. Democrats are making no secret of their intention to oppose several of the president's more conservative nominees, and even some of the Senate's less-confrontational Republicans have realized that the Pickering fight was just the first of many to come.

[Wphile]

Daschle is up in 2004. You may be right about Daschle winning by a larger margin than by what Bush carried the state. That doesn't mean anything though. Perhaps the GOP has never run a good candidate against him. Also, Daschle didn't have the national stature he has now.

Many of us call this the Foley phenomenon. Tom Foley was our Congressman for years - like 25 or 30 - but once he became Speaker of the House, he became a 'national' figure and no longer represented his constituents. He was carrying the water for Clinton which infuriated people further. We finally found a good candidate, George Nethercutt, and with a concerted grass roots effort (and it wasn't easy by any means) we managed to defeat the Speaker of the House. Everyone said it couldn't be done but we did it.

It can happen in South Dakota too. Once Democrats become 'national' figures they have to tow the party line, which means adhering to the NE liberals that control the party. This doesn't always bode well with folks back home. And all that nonsense about farm subsidies is silly. Everyone knows that no matter who they send to DC is going to support the farm subsidies, regardless of party affiliation.

I'd say it's time for the SD GOP to start finding a good candidate to go against Daschle in 2004.

[Wphile]

Your feelings are right. That's why it is a mistake for the Dems to select their leadership from outside their natural base. They do it on purpose of course to make them seem less liberal. Daschle is following Foley's path to a tee! Let's just hope the SD GOP can come up with a good candidate in 2004 to run against him.

[vaudine]

Not their heads! They are scratching their brains, located in a posterior section of their anatomy and much the worse for being sat upon. HOW can they not catch on that the Dems are so power hungry they will do anything?

This is one of the main reasons Dole lost--he just could not get it through his head that those across the aisle were not his friends.

vaudine

[OldFriend]

First of all Daschle has no heart. Second, ALL the dems except for Zell Miller read directly from Terry McAwfull's faxes. No deviation no matter how stupid they look. They're counting on the sheeple to be paying no attention to their obstruction. WHERE ARE THE RNC ADS pointing out what is going on. They could be running ads on the radio. Saving the money till later is NOT a good idea.

[hchutch]

Look at the Pressler-Janklow primary this year. The loser will probably get the "consolation prize" of going up against Daschle.

[Theodore R.]

I would bet on Janklow but would probably vote in the primary for Pressler. Tell me, South Dakotans, why I should or should not vote for Pressler. I know that Pressler is one of the few Republicans in modern time who became more conservative the longer he served in the Senate, instead of "growing in office," a la Hatch and D'Amato.

[goldstategop]

"Post-Pickering Strategy"

An oxymoron right there in the conservative vocabulary next to RINO. What strategy indeed? ROFLMAO!!!

[hchutch]

Either one is okay in my book.

Frankly, I'm holding out hope. Orrin Hatch is ticked off. He always was high-threshold. He's also high-yield. He's good when it comes to getting nominees through, and he did keep Bruce Babbitt off the Supreme Court. He's not all that bad.

[vaudine]

IS there a strategy? I wasn't sure the GOP understood the word, strategy. Timid they understand, fear of media they understand, but strategy? Wouldn't that involve thinking, analysis, working together, standing up and verbalizing their version of events? Nah! They don't know strategy. If they did, they would ditch Lott and elect Mitch McConnell.

vaudine

[WOSG]

Lol!!!

[WOSG]

" hatch ... He's also high-yield. "

Do you mean as "high-yield explosive". Gosh I hope so. I'd love to see Hatch go ape-s***t on the Democrats. He has the gravitas and eloquence to shame the Dems.

Frankly, there are those who know how to play the game and those who dont. The repubs should be learning from liberals like Schumer and Conservatives like Helms how play this game. Helms was able to make his mark on the Clinton admin and forced even them to respect him (hated him but still respected him). Helms nows better than anyone how play the nominations game. too bad we are losing him.

Lott ... well, he sure is the whipping boy around here. but it is deserved. ;-/ I agree with nickles or mcconnell as good replacements. Lott is a go-along type, he lacks the partisan fire-in-belly brass-nuts go-tothe-wall mind-set needed for these leftist socialist creeps. he can cheerlead while a real leader takes on the Senate Demon-crats. I guess we have to wait for 2003 to see that.

[WOSG]

SD farmers see the gravy train ... you think SD is so hell bent on making sure the whole Federal Bench suits the likes of ACLU, NOW, and NARAL??? Keep telling those SD farmers that even Repubs vote for farmers, but the Democrats like Daschle insist on only 100% Certified NUTTY ACLU-approved Liberal Judges ... and that STINKS!

[hchutch]

Lott seems angry, too. He just got crossed on this, and I think there is some more payback that what will be reported.

I think that Bush will veto CFR - if only as retaliation against Feingold, who has pushed this issue hard.

[EllaMinnow]

Just saw where Lott is also blocking funding for the Judiciary Committee to investigate 9/11 - he says, correctly, that they are too far behind in nomination hearings to waste time or money on a redundant 9/11 hearing.

A hearing on 9/11 by the Judiciary committee? Gimme a break! Who do these suckling weasels think they are, anyway?

[davidosborne]

FORCE them to vote, knowing that AMERICA is watching.. so often we let them get away with things because they are counting on the fact that so many Americans THINK they are wasting their time...

We MUST not give up on this.... Keep the pressure on YOUR Senators to bring this vote to the FLOOR for a vote by the FULL senate !!!

DO NOT allow Sen. Leheay and his fellow LIBERALS on the Judiciary Committee to prevent this vote from going to the floor!!!

Advise and consent means 100 Senators not 10 !!!

Sign PETITION to SUPPORT Judge Pickering...

[davidosborne]

I have noticed that my petition is UNDER ATTACK by those who would seek to bring discredit upon an HONORABLE man like Judge Pickering because he is a Conservative Christian......

it is a CLEAR indication that our message is getting out..

The BASE of the Democratic Party RELIES on the fact that CONSERVATIVES do not have the means to get their message out, and when we do they get VERY upset... I take it as a compliment, and so should YOU..

I have written to the Pettion webmaster to see if it is possible to have those entries deleted,, IF NOT I guess it just goes to show how SERIOUS of an issue this really is....

NO SENATOR even the most LEFTIST Senators would never approve of such horrible statements and characterizations.. they will seek to convince us that this is what they were trying to AVOID so that is why we should appoint "Moderate" Judges... DO NOT BE FOOLED.. it does however clearly show them WHO their BASE really is !! and their BASE is quickly beginning to see themselves in the mirror.

May God HELP America !!

SIGN PETITION here........

Click here for MAIL BLASTER.......

David C. Osborne