It isn’t so much that the goalposts for “what is partisan?” have changed. But a certain George W. Bush moved the goalposts for himself by setting higher expectations for acting in a bipartisan manner.
He was the one who campaigned on the basis of being “a uniter, not a divider” and pledging to move the country away from the partisanship of that era if elected.
Oh, spare me. Unless by “that era” you mean the US since its founding, you’re full of it.
This type of maneuvering has been part of presidential politics since John Adams started doling out commissions during the last five days of his presidency (including, most notably, a judicial commission to one William Marbury, delivery of which was delayed until after Jefferson’s inagural). Indeed, President Clinton’s recess appointment of Roger Gregory a scant three weeks prior to George Bush’s taking office echoes the last days of the Adams presidency.
I know you guys aren’t naive enough to believe that any particular White House will be free of political maneuvering, or that you seriously believe that George Bush on the campaign trail was promising a politics-free Washington. So I’m gonna chalk this one up to routine empty Bush-bashing. There are party hacks in this thread, but it ain’t on my side of the aisle.
From the Washington Post (no direct link to quote since you need registration):
Bush Bypasses Senate On Judge
Pickering Named To Appeals Court During Recess
January 17, 2004; Page A01
There is a difference I noticed: even Bush acknowledged Roger Gregory and congress confirmed him later. Back then, Bush showed some bipartisanship indeed.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/08/bush.judges/
Well Dewey Cheatem Undhow, I guess Bush was the naive one then, but let us keep that thought about presidents doing the “partisanship tango” on their last days…
Bush was on record of doing the right thing, you may point that the Democrats then failed when they opposed Pickering, not so, Bush choosing obvious partisan picks, (with either controversial pasts or no past –essentially inexperienced-) was the first one to drop bipartisanship.
This last Pickering move does away with any bipartisan fig leafs (added by Bush) left, on that, I do agree with the OP.
That GOP concession in the Post article shows that the Pickering confirmation, at a later date, is unlikely! And that does point to a more than business than usual move: it pictures Bush now as an spiteful president, or I should say: as one not sure of being reelected.
That appointment, on that specific holiday weekend, was either done IMO as a reaction to his booing at the MLK memorial, or he had it planned for a while. If it is the former: he is petty; if the later: he is a politically tone-deaf idiot.
Oh, come now. You should still do us the courtesy of providing a link.
And a fat lot of good that peace offering did him, eh?
What exactly do you mean by “obvious partisan picks?” Pickering is hardly inexperienced, so I take you you’d characterize him as having a “controversial past,” but having a “controversial past” hardly means the same thing as “partisan.” Is it just because Pickering is a Republican? What is it exactly about Pickering that makes him so much more obviously partisan than other nominees? Roger Gregory was a Democrat; why wasn’t it an “obvious partisan pick” when Clinton put him up for nomination?
One would think that, in exchange for getting the last few of their own Dear Leader’s nominees permanently appointed, Democrats would give Bush a bit more room to shape the judiciary by his own appointments. Guess not. But let’s not kid ourselves over who first rejected bipartisanship here. Bipartisanship implies give and take, not an all-Democrat judiciary.
Unlikely != impossible. Recall that Pickering was approved by the Judiciary Comittee and would have been confirmed by the full Senate but for a Democratic filibuster that held by six votes. Republicans can hope to pick up a few Senate seats in November, weakening the filibuster (a filibuster-proof 60 seats is but a fantasy, though). They can use the year Gregory sits on the bench to try to sway some Dems into supporting him, and of course with a year “trial run” it will be more difficult for Democrats to tar the nominee as unfit for office. Difficult, yes, but not impossible. And at worst, Bush will have gotten a year of service out of the guy he most wants in that spot. That’s nothing to sneer at.
Your analysis only works by dishonestly ignoring my last paragraph: It is Pickering’s problematic past, together with his appointing in the MLK holiday, that makes this unusual.
You said it: Wishful thinking. Being an election year, I still see Bush’s move as dumb.
Mebbe so. But’s that’s a far different thing from the main thrust of this argument. Besides, Bush hasn’t exactly been unknown to do some dumb things.
And I note our man of integrity, Elvis, has not returned to admit his errors and mischaracterizations. Or even attempt to back up his assertions. The very thing he accused me of doing. He appears to have turned tail and run away yet again afraid to own up to his errors. Or maybe he’s just nursing a hangover after a 36 hour bender.
Not true. Please see the second sentence of the third paragraph of my last reply to you. I didn’t “dishonestly ignore” a goddamned thing.
And the notion that this was just a stab in the eye at a handful of idiots protesting Bush’s wreath-laying is absurd. I’m fairly sure that it would take more than 24 hours to make the decision to make a recess appointment – heck, if nothing else, you’d have to call up Pickering and find out if he’d be willing to take a temporary gig – and older guy like him might not be willing to pick up and move his family to New Orleans for just a year of service. And for the recess appointment to stick, it has to be done before Congress reconvenes – which they did on January 20. That’s where the “recess” in “recess appointment” comes from. Bush essentially could have made the appointment on Friday (as he did) or on Monday. Your “petty or tone-deaf” dichotomy just doesn’t fly.
I said no such thing. I said the odds were long but not impossible. I’m sure at least some of the Democrats maintaining the filibuster are genuinely concerned about Pickering’s fitness, and if a trial run can show them he is fit, it is possible the filibuster will no longer hold. While I’m sure Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy would filibuster until their last breath, it is conceivable that not all of the 43 Democrats voting against cloture are equally dug in on the issue.
And like UncaBeer, I’m interested to know what has happened to our moronic whipping boy Elvis.
Political tone deaf it is then, you may insist that Bush did the appointment one day before the holiday; problem was: the news hit everybody later, still dumb. Remember: I am talking politics here.
As the GOP acknowledged, it is unlikely Pickering will be confirmed later. There is also another item that shows that this once again is wishful thinking, and a political crumb to the red states: Judge Pickering is 66 years old. His legal career is, in all probability, in its last years. So he is willing to accept a recess appointment. Younger nominees are less likely to do so when the odds of eventual confirmation are bad. AFAICR Miguel Estrada turned down such an appointment. Having to work for only a year in the federal judiciary can be a pain for your law practice, when in all likelihood, you will go back to it.
Anyhow, the deal breaker to me regarding Pickering is his blundering attempts to influence Justice Department lawyers in a previous case.
I’ve lost track of this silly argument, so refresh my memory: are you saying it was politically tone deaf to make the appointment the day after the wreath-laying ceremony on Thursday, or that it was tone deaf to make the appointment the Friday before the MLK, Jr holiday on Monday?
If the former, that’s absurd for the reasons I pointed out earlier: it’s fairly certain that this wasn’t a 24 hour decision, and Bush could hardly be expected to foresee the chuckleheads at the wreath-laying. (Who the hell outside of Fred Phelps protests at such a ceremony, anyway? Is Bush supposed to not lay a wreath?)
If the latter, well, as noted, there are reasons why the appointment could not be delayed, and frankly I don’t think those willing to abuse the memory of Dr. King in order to make unfounded race-based cheap shots at Bush will get very far. I’d wager the White House figures about the same. I don’t see much political damage from the timing of the appointment.
Of course, you can argue, as others have here, that the appointment itself carries political baggage, allowing charges that Bush is end-running the Senate. But that argument has nothing to do with the timing of the appointment. That charge could be made regardless of when Bush elected to make the recess appointment.
The political reality remains: picking other judge, instead of Pickering, would have not raised much of a peep from the opposition, the timing matters not because of the date, but because of the specific judge selected.
I do agree that, regarding racist accusations, he is not the same man as before. OTOH a good number of people remain unconvinced, and politically speaking, this doesn’t help changing their minds. Again, for me and many others, it is his behavior in court procedures that makes him unfit.
And I do agree that for Bush, it had nothing to do with laying the wreath; but the juxtaposition of Pickering, among all the other choices available, shows to me that someone else is being naïve in this discussion.
Now that Saddam Hussein is in U.S. custody, Elvis may find the checks coming a little less frequently. Maybe he fell behind in his bandwidth bill.
What would you have Bush do? Assuming the recess appointment itself is appropriate, Bush had little choice on the date – if he had waited any longer, Congress would have reconvened. Should he just abandon Pickering entirely? Why? Why should Bush abandon a candidate he thinks is appropriate for the position just because some hucksters in the opposition are willing to play the race card?
One does wonder why Bush’s selection of a date near MLK, Jr. weekend would have any impact on these people’s assessment of Pickering’s racial views.
Gawdamighty, Dewey, you truly don’t understand what has been so patiently explained to you, do you? This thread is not about the propriety of the recess appointment process, but about Bush’s attitude towards partisanship. See the thread title? “Bush just gives up on bipartisanship”. Pickering isn’t the real topic, but Bush and his reasons for appointing him. Got it? Now, please keep to the topic, or at least quit pretending you are - you’re not fooling anyone but yourself. That “moronic whipping boy” is an effigy you’ve filled with straw and put over in some corner - but it has nothing to do with anything anyone has actually said to you. This insistence of yours to the contrary is, if not simple argumentativeness, proof of the very partisan hackery you also deny despite all evidence.
Manny and Unc, not that it’s any of your damned business despite your claims, but in between reading all those charming notes saying “There seems to be a problem with the database”, there has been something called Real Life going on. You know, that thing with jobs and families and responsibilities that you all might have read about online, while sitting in front of the used PC in your mother’s basement wearing stained underwear, snarfing Cheetos, and downing Buds. If you actually had arguments to make about the goddamned thread topic, instead of snickering at each other’s repeated bullshit (looks like you too, John), then you’d no doubt have made them. But you haven’t, therefore you don’t. Instead, all you’ve shown is that you’re not only wrong but awfully childish about having it shown to you.
Your ignorance being of the malignant, metastatic kind that refuses to be fought, there is no reason for anyone to continue trying. G’day, wankers. Have fun whipping that straw man.
What exactly are you trying to suggest here, Manny? I want to be quite sure I entirely understand. Perhaps your wording is unfortunate, and, upon reflection, you will realize that you did not intend to scurrilously impugn the patriotism and loyalty of friend Elvis. I should not wish to regard you as a loathsome pustule willing to stoop to anything in order to degrade a political opponent.
Are you really saying what that vile and squamous post seems to imply? Or are you misunderstood?
Please clarify.
The Pickering recess appointment is the evidence the OP pointed to in order to prove his assertions about bipartisanship (or the lack thereof). If this sort of recess appointment is within the ordinary bounds of political manuevering, it is not unduly partisan. Thus, the recess appointment process is, in a very real way, central to the thesis of this thread – we can’t intelligently call this particular appointment overtly partisan unless we’re prepared to call the many similar appoinments in the past overtly partisan, too.
I wouldn’t call you our moronic whipping-boy if the name wasn’t so apt. You continue to call me a partisan hack, even after I linked to a wealth of prior discussions where I ardently defended Democratic action in the appointment process. Do tell: what kind of “partisan hack” rushes to the defense of his political opponents?
A crafty one? Or perhaps one occaisionally conscience-stricken at placing ones wit and intelligence in the service of the Forces of Darkness? I accept your take on it, being a generous and benevolent person by nature, but there are other explanations.
As to your declarations of utter victory of the dreaded Elvis, I fear you are premature. True, you have amply demonstrated that these sorts of things are frequently done, but that buggers the question. Partisan demogogeury does not improve with repitition, it remains what it is. I cannot see how you have demonstrated that this appointment, one of the most fiercely contested of recent times, can be viewed as anything other than a poke in the eye for GeeDubya’s opponents. Certainly, by no stretch of the imagination, can it be considered conciliatory, nor remotely “bi-partisan” unless “bi” means “extremely”! Flipping the bird is not “reaching out”.
Again: I don’t think general promises of bipartisanship are tantamount to promising the end of politics. Political maneuvering of the ordinary sort is perfectly acceptable. It’s partisan, but not unduly so.
Not “unduly” partisan. I see. You are a generous and forgiving person, friend Dewey, remind me to borrow money some time.
But you are willing to stipulate that this gesture, measured on the scale of partisan/bi-partisan, clearly leans to the “partisan”? Not “unduly partisan”, but partisan Lite.
Since that is as much of an admission as we are likely to get from you, without the application of physical torture or ABBA, I am inclined to accept your plea of “sorta guilty, but so what”.