January 3, 2003 PERMALINK
Hispanic Panic?
A Wrench In Bush's Supreme Court Strategy
(posted Jan. 3 12:30 AM ET)
The knives are out for White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, making it much harder for Bush to name a Latino in his first Supreme Court appointment expected later this year.
And as Bush's Hispanic outreach plan consists mostly of high-profile appointments and photo ops, to not name a Latino would be major political setback.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, in discussing the affirmative action case before the Supreme Court, fired a stern warning shot:
We're told that...Gonzales is afraid that if the Administration comes down against racial quotas, he won't get the smooth Senate passage he wants if he is nominated to the Supreme Court...
...this is precisely a test of whether he is worthy...if Mr. Gonzales can't resist this liberal pressure...what will happen if he gets to the Supreme Court?
As the NY Times reported last week, the "No More Souters" crew was already concerned about Gonzales.
The uneasiness was centered on a Texas Supreme Court case regarding abortion, when then-judge Gonzales lashed out at colleague Priscilla Owen.
Texas' parental notification law allows for exemptions. In one case, a 6-3 majority granted such a bypass, with Gonzales in the majority.
Gonzales, in a concurring opinion, said of Owen's dissent:
To construe the [law] so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.
Not the way to endear yourself to The Federalist Society.
And now that WSJ added affirmative action to the outrage pile, it is highly doubtful that the Right will stay silent if Gonzales is picked.
That does not mean Gonzales has no chance.
If the resignation is Chief Justice Rehnquist, they could try to pacify the Right by appointing Justice Anton Scalia to the chief slot, and Gonzales to Scalia's old seat.
Based on the NY Times report, that's clearly being considered.
You may be thinking that elevating a hard-core pro-lifer like Scalia could alienate the political center.
It may well, but it seems like the Bushies are banking that only Left and Right ideologues and academics care about judicial fights.
Still, it's a hell of a political risk -- possibly pissing off everybody -- liberals and moderates over Scalia, and conservatives over Gonzales.
We can thank Senate Dems for making this upcoming decision even more difficult for Dubya.
Bush's other favorite Latino, Miguel Estrada, is his ideal candidate, a party-line conservative who lacks a paper trail.
But he has no paper trail because he has no bench experience.
When the White House tried to give him some last year, naming him to a federal appeals court -- the old Clarence Thomas strategy -- the Dems bottled up the nomination.
He'll get it this year, but it will probably be too late to beef up his resume in time.
Therefore, what are the chances of a superficial Latino appointment, designed to benefit Bush far more than actual Latinos?
It will heavily hinge on Dubya's approval ratings at the time.
60 and above, they'll be far more willing to shoot for a Scalia-Gonzales combo. Below that, their Latino dream is more likely to be set aside for the time being.
(UPDATE Jan. 3 2:30 PM ET -- Washingtonian (via Political Wire) says that Clarence Thomas has the edge over Scalia for the Chief Justice nod.
US News published a similar Thomas rumor last month (no link). LiberalOasis wasn't buying then, and is still quite skeptical now.
Surely, the Bushies can be stupid and crazy when it comes to placating the Right.
And they do, at times, go out of their way to rile liberals. Ergo, Henry Kissinger, an unnecessary move that backfired.
But elevating Scalia is a pretty combative move in its own right. Elevating Thomas is flat out nuts.
If they think picking a fight with the entire civil rights establishment is going to help them get past Trent Lott, they are far far gone.
Washingtonian also floats another crazy, implausible choice, Ken Starr.
Of course, both of these trial balloons could simply be a way to make the pick of Scalia or a lesser-known conservative like Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III seem more reasonable.)
FROM THE MAILBAG
The New Republic's Ryan Lizza writes in to take issue with Sen. Joe Lieberman's comments on North Korea.
Earlier this week, LiberalOasis posted Lieberman's assertion that North Korea did not technically violate the Agreed Framework, only "in spirit."
In response, Lizza writes:
...Lieberman is wrong. [North Korea] did of course violate the agreed framework [AF] -- and not just in "spirit."
Part III of the AF commits NK to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. Their uranium-enrichment program as well as their two nuclear weapons obviously violates the section of the AF that states:
"The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the the Korean Peninsula."
The AF wasn't just about Yongbyon.
Lizza's TNR piece from October about how North Korea's uranium program came to light is worth a second look, especially since it's fairly prescient on the Administration's lack of a policy.
And there's more on the question of what nukes North Korea already possesses in yesterday's W. Post (via Talking Points Memo).
January 2, 2003 PERMALINK
Look Away From The Peninsula, Nothing To See Here
(posted Jan. 2 1 AM ET)
(edited Jan. 2 10 AM ET)
Al Gore's former National Security Adviser Leon Fuerth eviscerated the Bushies on the NY Times op-ed page yesterday.
...it is certain that the Bush administration now faces an immediate loss of credibility...
The...special addendum to its National Security Strategy...states on its opening page that: "We will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
But there is no sign that this new unconditional doctrine will be directed against North Korea...
...When using words as weapons, a leader must be prepared to back up his rhetoric with force. The president's nomination of North Korea as a member of the "Axis of Evil...now looks like a bluff that is being called.
(Perhaps Fuerth is showcasing his wares for presidential candidates in need of a foreign policy hired hand? A smart candidate will snap him up quick, or Josh Marshall if he's not available.)
The day prior to Fuerth's takedown, Dubya gamely (or is it, lamely?) tried to continue the Administration's strategy -- shrugging North Korea off:
I believe this is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown. And we can resolve this peacefully.
But Fuerth reminded him, and us, what's really at stake:
...North Korea is on course to becoming a nuclear power. The consequences of their success are severe.
North Korea already is in a position to provide nuclear technology to other states or to terrorist groups. ...we should expect that it will continue to develop the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by ballistic missile...[eventually] giving the country true intercontinental ballistic-missile capability.
Yet strangely, Secretary Colin Powell, on Sunday's Meet The Press, basically said we don't care if they get more nukes:
We now believe they have a couple of nuclear weapons and have had them for years...
...and if they have a few more, they have a few more.
Yes, America. That's your all-star foreign policy team.
To be fair, sometimes it is difficult to fully understand a foreign policy strategy as it is in motion, in part because public comments might be just misdirection and mind games.
But you can't find many people arguing that the Administration is brilliantly crafty.
That's because it looks like Bush is essentially ignoring the Korean peninsula for the time being, because it's not on his pre-cooked 2003-4 agenda.
A Dubya trademark is picking a limited set issues early on and relentlessly sticking to it.
That's easier to do when you're Governor than when you're President. International affairs is a bit more complicated.
Dubya already had to reshuffle his deck once, after 9/11. And it was to his political benefit.
Now with Iraq in the offing, Bush is unwilling to reshuffle. As one "senior Bush Administration official" put it to CNN last week:
We are not going to do anything which interferes with Iraq.
Even if it means standing idly by while North Korea cranks out a bushel of nukes.
QUICK HIT
(edited Jan. 2 10 AM ET)
Dubya's Approval Rating Plummets (Epilogue)
One of the stranger aspects of the buried 55% approval rating for Bush in the latest Time/CNN poll is that even the online clearing house PollingReport.com didn't post the figure.
Meanwhile, the site did post other data from that particular survey.
Skippy and Right Wing Slayer (via Interesting Times) contacted PollingReport, and PollingReport responded with some interesting info.
The Time/CNN pollsters did not provide PollingReport with the 55% figure.
While no reason was given, LiberalOasis' best guess is that the pollsters didn't trust their own number, fearing that all they had was an outlier.
LiberalOasis suggested a similar rationale when the NY Times reported Gore at a 19% favorable rating and its polling partner, CBS, stripped the result from the raw data on its website.
In the Time/CNN case, it's probably not conspiracy, just being wimpy. (If it is conspiracy, it's not much of one since Time was allowed to print it).
Having said that, there are still unanswered questions. Why did Time print it while CNN ignored it? Why wouldn't Time.com post what Time magazine published? Why go to such lengths to excise data before handing it to PollingReport?
All questions that will likely remain unanswered.
Either more polls start pegging Bush in the 50s -- which would surely spark a bigger media story -- or the war starts before that can happen.
December 31, 2002 PERMALINK
Dubya's Approval Rating Plummets
The Third, and Final, Chapter
(posted Dec. 31 12:30 AM ET)
CNN finally talked about Bush's sinking ratings, sort of.
Here's Bill Schneider, on Inside Politics yesterday:
The president's current job approval rating stands at 61 percent.
Not bad, but it is the lowest rating he's gotten since the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Now the president's not in trouble yet, but he's slipping.
Why 61% and not 55%?
Because Schneider chose to talk about the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, taken Dec. 19-22, which yielded the 61% figure, and not the CNN-Time poll conducted by Harris on Dec. 17-18.
However, another CNN analyst, Jeff Greenfield, did get into some aspects of the CNN-Time poll later in the program:
There are apparently, lingering doubts about the president.
In a recent CNN-TIME poll, when asked if Bush's achievements are his or his advisers, Americans say, by a 55-35 margin, they are more due to the president's advisers.
And when asked, "Do you trust Bush as a leader or do you have doubts and reservations?" the country seems split, 50-48.
Those doubts, by the way, are a lot bigger about Bush's vice president. By 51-42, the public says it has doubts and reservations about Vice President Cheney.
Finally: Bush's reelect number, the benchmark for any first-term president, now stands at 49 percent.
Now, that still puts him in good shape. And he runs well ahead of any potential challenger. But it does mean that voters are willing to think about the possibility of a different president.
Overall, could've been better, but certainly could've been worse. LiberalOasis still has some holiday spirit, so we'll take it.
December 30, 2002 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted Dec. 30 1:30 AM ET)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), on CBS' Face The Nation, punched a major hole in the conventional wisdom about North Korea:
In the specific agreement that the North Koreans made as part of the '94 framework agreement with the US, they kept the bargain.
They shut that nuclear plant down. They did not turn out any plutonium in the last eight years.
What they didn't keep their word on was the spirit of the agreement as they started a uranium enrichment program, which incidentally, takes a lot longer to get to creating nuclear weapons than the plutonium program.
This, of course, is not how the story has been sold. The Administration has simply said that the 1994 agreement was violated.
Secretary Colin Powell -- while maintaining that North Korea "violated the agreed framework" -- unintentionally backed up Lieberman's assertion on NBC's "Meet The Press":
I give President Clinton and his administration credit, for having developed the agreed framework with the help of a number of people.
And that agreed framework kept anymore bombs from being developed as a result of what was at Pyongyang.
But the fact of the matter is that while everybody was keeping their eyes on the agreed framework at Pyongyang, the North Koreans were going after nuclear weapons through another means, and that is through developing an enriched uranium capability at a site we haven't determined yet.
And interestingly, the New York Times avoided using the term "violated" in its recap yesterday, instead saying that North Korea, "[i]n essence...circumvented the agreement..."
So what, you might say.
It still shows North Korea to be a slippery, disingenuous negotiating partner. And it still means that North Korea may soon have several nukes.
But, it also means that Dubya could have handled the situation far more gracefully and practically.
Since there was semantic room to define North Korea's action as something besides defiant, the Bushies could have treated the revelation as an opening to hammer out an expanded agreement.
Perhaps North Korea wanted some other concession. Big deal. We could have upped our demands as well.
That's not appeasement, giving away the store from a position of weakness. That's diplomacy. That's how you avoid wars.
Instead, Bush chose to publicly shame North Korea, adding to the worsening of relations following the belligerent "Axis of Evil" speech.
In that vein, Lieberman smartly took Bush on:
...I think the administration made a mistake and escalated this counterchallenge, like two people yelling at each other, and if they don't watch out, they end up getting into a fist fight.
I think it's time to lower the rhetoric, and knowing our strength, to sit down with the North Koreans and say:
"Look, the military option from the United States is on the table. Stop your uranium enrichment program, let the inspectors back into Yongbyon nuclear plant and let's talk about having normal relations and getting you reunified with the South."
He's awful on Iraq, but he's good, and gutsy, on this.
(Also, check out the in-depth analysis on this issue from W. Post's Steven Mufson.)
BEST OF THE BLOG LAST WEEK
Soundbitten takes down Bill O'Reilly and his treatment of hip-hop
Politics In The Zeros stays on top of the mass detentions of Iranians and others by the Los Angeles INS office
South Knox Bubba lists the things Republicans believe marital infidelity and oral sex Are worse than
Roger Ailes offers the Year In Review Quiz
Pandagon unveils the 20 Most Annoying Conservatives in 2002
