Bush on the Nomination
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 6 July 2005 | 19 responses
During a press conference with Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen, President Bush had the following exchange with a reporter:
Q What do you think of the criticism of Attorney General Gonzales as a potential nominee? And will there be a litmus test on abortion and gay marriage when you consider your choice?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thanks. First of all, as I said during both of my campaigns, there will be no litmus test. I’ll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright, and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from. That’s what I campaigned on and that’s what I want to do.
She’s referring to the fact that my Attorney General, longtime friend, a guy who was my — close when I was the governor of Texas, came up to Washington with me as part of the movement of Texans south to north during the government. He’s been my lawyer in the White House; he’s now the Attorney General; he’s under — he’s being criticized. I don’t like it when a friend gets criticized. I’m loyal to my friends. And all of a sudden this fellow, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire. And so, do I like it? No, I don’t like it, at all.
I look forward to making the pick. And I look forward to doing what I said I was going to do when it comes to making that pick. This is a very important selection and I understand its importance. I will take my time. I will be thorough in my investigation. My staff has already done a lot of work; they continue to work today not only in reaching out to the Senate, but also spending time making sure that all the candidates will be put forward in a proper way.
The other thing about this debate is, I hope the United States Senate conducts themselves in a way that brings dignity to the process, and that the senators don’t listen to the special interest groups, particularly those on the extremes that are trying to exploit this opportunity for not only their — what they may think is right, but also for their own fundraising capabilities. The Senate needs to conduct themselves in a dignified way and have a good, honest debate about the credentials of the person I have put forward, no matter who he or she is, and then give the person an up or down vote. That’s how the process ought to work.
And so this is an opportunity for good public servants to exhibit a civil discourse on a very important matter, and not let these groups, these money raising groups, these special interest groups, these groups outside the process dictate the rhetoric, the tone. And I’m confident the senators, most senators want to conduct themselves this way.
It will be a really interesting moment and I’m sure you’re interested in watching the process, for those of you in the Danish press. It’s going to be quite an interesting exercise in democracy. I just hope that the people responsible for hearing — holding the hearings and voting up or down are able to have a civil discourse. It would be good for the country, it would be good for people’s understanding of how democracy works.
19 Responses to “Bush on the Nomination”
This excerpt reminds of something I just cannot fathom. The obvious sincerity and willingness of Gerge W. Bush to work with his opponents is completely ignored by those on the left. If people like Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy could work in good faith with this president instead of calling him a loser, the nation would be much better off. I am amazed by those who think that the George Bush speaking with such calm maturity to the Danish reporters is some wild eyed fundamentalist.
If Bush consults with Reid and Leahy somewhat before picking his nominee, this process would go very smoothly. Not to say Bush has to pick a favorite of those guys, just someone they can live with. Apparently Clinton went through a similar process with Hatch when he nominated Ginsburg.
Doug…Breyer too. Hatch’s autobiography includes this phrase…
” [It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing. President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt….I told him that confirmation would not be easy.
….Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals….I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.”
Balta, do you think that any of the leading domocratic senators are capable of being as reasonable and compromising as Hatch was toward Clinton? I mean when you compare a man to Hitler and foam at the mouth about everything he does is there room to be moderate?
Finlay…honestly, I really do doubt it, because I feel pretty confident that no matter who Bush nominates, the fight will end up in a filibuster over the fact that Bush’s nominee will be anti-abortion.
But to be fair, do you honestly expect that I won’t turn the “Calling my side Nazis” argument around and point at Santorum, who called the Democrats all Nazis with much less press about 1 month before Durbin’s remarks? Or point out that we probably shouldn’t expect a guy who’s vice president tells the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judicial Committee to “F*** Off” to work well with us either?
The abortion thing is such a waste of time and energy. It’s a made up rhetorical device for the left. Reasonable access to abortion will never be made illegal in this country. Even if Roe is overturned in the supreme court women who wnat abortions will be able to get them.
Balta let’s agree that there is enough nonsense on both sides. In terms of asshole quotient, Kennedy, Dean, Pelosi, etc far outnumber Republicans.
Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy has some more insight on the Hatch consultations:
I suppose the biggest difference between Clinton and Bush II is that the former’s nomination difficulties resulted in embarrassments, whereas the latter’s have stiffened resentment on both sides.
I’ll agree with you that each side has its share of arses, but I’m not going to let you get away with saying they far outnumber the Santorums, Cheneys, and Roves of the other side. I’m more than willing to accept that the sides are close to balanced on that point, but one side far outnumbering the other? No.
I also strongly disagree with your contention that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain accessible. Given that there is a significant minority of this nation strongly devoted to making that procedure totally banned, I fail to see how you can say that it is merely a “made up rhetorical device of the left.”
I guess it depends on your definition of asshole, but people who hate America and disrespect the men and women who serve in the armed forces qualify in my mind. Which side of the political spectrum do these people come from? Who is more likely to be a horrible, horrible human being; someone who aborts babies or someone who values them? Who could be more obnoxious than the sneering, cynical types on the left that count snark as intellectualism?
I’ve seen how Clinton went to the senate, and worked with the senators. This is what was different then and different now. Clinton had to get the selection through a majority Republican senate. We now have a republican senate and white house, while open conversation between the minority party should be listened to, the majority still rules. Elections decide majority and minority claims
No one who falls on either the left or the right is qualified to judge which party has a greater “asshole quotient”–it’s far too easy to give a pass to those you agree with ideologically (in fact it probably happens subconsciously). I’d be willing to bet that a truly unbiased observer would conclude that the Democrats display more anger/crankiness these days, but that is assignable to the fact that they’ve been out of power for awhile now.
Also, I have to agree with Balta that if Roe were overturned, abortion would be significantly restricted in many states, and perhaps even banned completely in one or two. Of course, I think that’s a good thing.
Quick question:
Would you oppose a law that requires all men to be placed on a list as potential bone marrow donors or kidney donors and when someone needs a transplant, the person who is the best match is informed that he must donate that tissue or organ to save a life?
I only ask the above mentioned question because it is similar to the abotion argument. You can’t force someone to help you by donating organs or tissues, no matter how simple the procedure. Does reason not suggest you cannot force a mother to carry a fetus to term since the fetus will not be able to survive without the mother’s willingness to donate her life support?
Anon,
I think this thread might be the wrong forum for your question as phrased, interesting though it is in sparking discussion. Since we’re talking more about the constitutionality of banning abortion (and even that is something of a tangential issue), the more appropriate question would be first whether a general forced transplant law would be constutional, second whether it would still be constitutional if it were limited to a single gender, and third whether there is enough of a parallel to abortion to make the analogy workable. Personally, my answers to those questions are maybe, no, and no; as a result, it’s an interesting thought experiment but I don’t think it moves this particular discussion forward.
Here’s one i didna see coming…Harry Reid today on Gonzalez…
“Alberto Gonzales is qualified. He’s attorney general of the United States and a former Texas judge,” Reid said. “But having said that he’s qualified, I don’t know if he’d have an easy way through.”
That is an interesting quote, Balta. Reid may have several reasons for saying this. He may actually think that Gonzalez is one of the more moderate potential nominees. On the other hand, he may be thinking that the religious right’s dislike for Gonzalez is perhaps just as strong as the left’s. His comments about Gonzalez make Democrats look less obstructionist, and if the conversation stays on Gonzalez, it may deepen rifts within the GOP, whether or not he is nominated. Bush is already getting annoyed at the attacked on Gonzalez by Dobson, et al.
“I guess it depends on your definition of asshole, but people who hate America and disrespect the men and women who serve in the armed forces qualify in my mind. Which side of the political spectrum do these people come from? Who is more likely to be a horrible, horrible human being; someone who aborts babies or someone who values them? Who could be more obnoxious than the sneering, cynical types on the left that count snark as intellectualism?”
get a life, you’re a moron
“Who’s more foolish…the fool or the fool who follows him?”
Finlay,
Pretty much everything you’ve posted in this thread is 100% bias. Bush’s idea of reaching out to the Democrats to work with them is giving them a call to tell them what he wants and telling them they’d better go along with it. Rove’s comments about liberals (Which in the Republican lexicon means everyone to the left of Bush.) are just as bad if not worse than what any officeholder or official of the Democratic party has said about Bush or the Republicans. And what you said about Roe not resulting in eliminating the availability of abortion is completely wrong. My guess is that it will be completely outlawed in the South, Midwest and probably parts of the West.