By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 24, 2005
9:47 AM
Well, Bill Kristol has either got the scoop of the year or he's just blathering about the Supreme Court like everyone else.
It's an interesting calm-before-the-storm moment in Washington right now. Most seasoned observers (anyone who's been here more than two weeks) believe that next week we'll be in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out battle over the next high court justice. The media are gearing up with inside-dope pieces, even though no one knows the inside dope right now, the advocacy groups are tuning up their machines, and the legal analysts are gaming the impact of different lineups.
The expectation is that the ailing William Rehnquist will make the announcement after the court's term ends next week, but no one really knows that, either. So a story that would dominate the political landscape all summer, and perhaps even compete with the latest missing white woman story (though Aruba's weather is nicer than D.C.'s), is on the verge of happening or not happening.
Along comes the editor of the Weekly Standard, a former Dan Quayle chief of staff, a very well-connected fellow, to stir the pot with this piece. There will be a vacancy, he says, but not the one you think. And he prefaces his posting with a caveat that many columnists and bloggers should probably emulate:
"Warning: THIS IS SPECULATION. Obviously, I think it's somewhat well-informed speculation, or else I wouldn't be writing this. But it is speculation.
"(1) There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist. There are several tea-leaf-like suggestions that O'Connor may be stepping down, including the fact that she has apparently arranged to spend much more time in Arizona beginning this fall. There are also recent intimations that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not resign. This would be consistent with Justice O'Connor having confided her plan to step down to the chief awhile ago. Rehnquist probably believes that it wouldn't be good for the Court to have two resignations at once, so he would presumably stay on for as long as his health permits, and/or until after Justice O'Connor's replacement is confirmed.
"(2) President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.
"And his aides will have an argument to make to conservatives (like me) who would be unhappy with a Gonzales pick: Bush would not, after all, be replacing a conservative stalwart like Rehnquist with Gonzales. Gonzales would be taking O'Connor's seat, and Gonzales is likely to be as conservative as, or even more conservative than, O'Connor . . .
"A Gonzales nomination would, in my view, virtually forfeit any chance in the near term for a fundamental reversal in the downward drift of American constitutional jurisprudence. But I now think it is more likely than not to happen."
Conservative bloggers are appalled at the prospect, including John Hawkins at RightWing News:
"Whether Bush likes him or not, it would be a huge mistake to nominate someone like Alberto Gonzales who's so moderate that a Gonzales for O'Connor swap would be considered by the base to be a wash.
"Not only would a Gonzales appointment so soon after the 'deal of 7' debacle unleash a flood of conservative anger at Bush unlike anything he has seen in his presidency, it could create some very sticky situations for Republican Senators running in 2006 because it's entirely possible a Gonzales nomination could be defeated. The Democrats would likely vote en masse against Gonzales and Republicans would likely face a huge lobbying effort by conservative groups opposed to a Gonzales nomination."
I'm not positive the Dems would go to the mat against the less-than-hard-line Gonzales.
The Spoons Experience hopes the Standard piece is wrong:
"Fortunately, Kristol is notoriously bad at predicting . . . well . . . anything. Unfortunately, I think he could be right about this one.
"Obviously, anything that gets O'Connor -- Reagan's most catastrophic mistake -- off the Court is a good thing. Actually, that's an understatement. If O'Connor goes, the sky will be bluer, beer will taste colder, angels will weep tears of joy, and a chorus of leprechauns will dance a jaunty jig on the infield grass at Wrigley Field. Or something like that.
"Just about the only thing that that could ruin the gift from God that an O'Connor retirement would represent would be the appointment of liberal Alberto Gonzales ('Gonzales is Spanish for Souter') as her replacement. If that happens, conservatives will once again get to watch as the elected Republican leadership manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
The Wall Street Journal has this horse-race piece:
"If Mr. Bush is willing to take on an ideological battle reminiscent of those over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, he may turn to Judge Michael McConnell, whom he placed on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver; Judge McConnell has been the most outspoken on the hot-button issue of abortion, making clear he thinks Roe v. Wade, the 1973 opinion that recognized abortion rights, should be overturned. The White House might expect a less-contentious conflict with another of Mr. Bush's appellate-court nominees, District of Columbia Circuit Judge John Roberts, whose even demeanor and dearth of controversial rulings could make it tougher for Democrats to characterize him as an extremist candidate.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be the first Hispanic nominated to the high court and would fit well into Mr. Bush's long-term political strategy of winning Latinos to the Republican Party. Mr. Gonzales also could appeal to centrists, because he would likely be criticized by conservatives for not being tough enough on abortion and by liberals for being too lax in protecting military prisoners."
By the way, The Washington Post seems a little overexcited about Rehnquist stepping down. Bloglines has some headlines that the Web site sent out, including "Chief Justice Rehnquist Retires/Dies" and "Rehnquist: A Justice's Journey." D'oh! Having poked other news outlets for prematurely announcing the death of people from Bob Hope to the Pope, I hereby announce that whoever hit the wrong button should receive 50 lashes.
Rove has really angered liberals and Democrats with his remarks about 9/11, reported by the NYT here, and they're giving him the Durbin treatment.
Rove told a fundraiser: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
He also said: "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
Chuck Schumer told reporters that Rove's remarks "turned my stomach" and were "beyond the pale." Lots of papers have react stories, including the Los Angeles Times:
"A new partisan firestorm erupted today as Democrats assailed President Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, for criticizing liberals for what he deemed their tepid response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
"The White House said it would 'of course not' heed Democratic demands for an apology from Rove or a presidential condemnation of the adviser's remarks, and it rejected Democratic charges that Rove's words amounted to a Bush administration attempt to exploit the war on terrorism for political gain . . .
"During his unusually contentious daily briefing today at the White House, Press Secretary Scott McClellan defended Rove to the hilt, saying repeatedly that Rove was "simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
The New York Times: "Leading Democrats reacted furiously on Thursday to remarks by Karl Rove that liberals had responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by wanting to 'offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,' with some Democrats calling for him to apologize or resign as a White House adviser."
Local angle: the governor vs. Hillary. "Mr. Pataki, who refused to criticize Mr. Rove, responded angrily, taking direct aim at Mrs. Clinton, who has maintained a wary truce with him since taking office. 'I think it's a little hypocritical for Senator Clinton to call on me to repudiate a political figure's comments when she never asked Senator Durbin to repudiate his comments,' he said."
The liberal blogosphere is pouncing the way the conservatives did against Durbin. Kos is smoking over this:
"Rove is trying to divide Americans, using the tired canard of the fringe Right that 'liberals hate America.' Fact is, we demand results. And Republicans are showing, again, that they can't govern.
"So as their fortunes circle the drain, they resort to outrageous attacks in an attempt to distract from their own incompetence. And their sycophants in their media machine will dutifully salute their superiors and parrot the charges.
"And they will cross their fingers and hope that dragging the political discourse even deeper into the mud will distract people from their own incompetence. Standard operating procedure for these guys."
Joe Gandelman of the Moderate Voice sounds less than moderate in likening Rove-ism to McCarthyism:
"Let me get this straight: Republicans who were upset over the over-the-top remarks of Senator Richard Durbin and the pungent comments of Senator Harry Reid are now defending Karl Rove accusing liberals and Democrats of not wanting to fight terrorism -- and in effect wanting to see American troops die ?
"Can there be any doubt that this White House and administration have no desire to work for national unity, even on issue of terrorism? It's MO seems to be division and polarization -- whipping up rage against defined enemies . . . which now apparently include those who compete with it at the ballot box."
But Ankle Biting Pundits calls the Democratic assault "a fairly obvious and lame attempt to retaliate for the Durbin drubbing" that "threatens to overshadow the original story. The Rove speech was reported, sure enough. But it was a minor one day news item. Senate Democrats have now turned it into the controversy of the week. That was stupid. Do they really want to spend a week talking about which party is tougher on terrorists? We just got done having a fight about whether or not Republicans and the U.S. military are too tough on terrorists detainees (and, based on recent polls, the good guys won that debate.)
"This makes no sense to me. It's like the Republicans talking about which party is better at spending money on education programs. It's not in their circle of credibility." What's more, Democrats "are guilty of the same thing. People will abide aggressive partisan rancor, but they won't abide hypocrisy. And for the Democrats to squeal like stuck pigs about this non-issue is the height of hypocrisy."
Add Peggy Noonan to the list of conservative columnists who don't like Ed Klein's book on Hillary:
"Mr. Klein's problem is that he assumes the market is conservative and conservatives are stupid. They're not, actually. They want solid sourcing and new information that is true . . .
"The real problem with Hillary biographies is that the picture they paint, if it is true, is difficult for a normal person to believe. No one could be that bad. No one who has risen so high in American politics could possibly be that bad. To believe is to go to a dark place.
"And the charges seem so at odds--so utterly at odds--with the nice, smiling woman who calls abortion a tragedy and enjoys speaking of how much she prays. This is the problem all Hillary biographers have: It's too grim to believe. To believe that her story as presented by the books so far is true is to believe that she has clung to a premeditated plan for 40 years, that she is ruthless in the pursuit both of her own ambitions and of a deep and intractable leftist political agenda. And that she found her equal in a partner sufficiently hardhearted to stick with the plan, and the secrecy, and the weirdness. It's too over the top. It seems hard to believe, not because it isn't true but because it isn't likely, usual, expected. It isn't the kind of biography we are used to in our leaders. That is her great advantage.
"What is needed is a big and serious book by respected reporters who can dig, think and type, and whose sourcing standards are high and unimpeachable."
Patt Morrison of the LAT scoffs at the flag-burning amendment at the Huffington Post:
"I wonder how this would play in Iraq, where they're still waiting for the constitutional amendment to ban sending soldiers to war with armored equipment not much stronger than a Lurex tank top. GI Joe was better kitted out than some of these folks.
"What delights me about this amendment is that it always arrives just about the same time as the catalogues selling everything you need to celebrate the Fourth of July and the rest of the patriotic summer.
"Check the catalogues, sign on to eBay --- what isn't being hawked with a flag on it? Doormats, handkerchiefs, cocktail napkins, pocket knives, sheets, wastebaskets, dog shirts, chip-and-dip sets, bras, toilet seat covers. You can blow your nose on the flag, sop up your booze with it, sleep on it, stab someone with it, dress your dog in it, dump your trash in it, flush away under it and wipe your feet on it -- but don't even think about setting fire to it."
For a radio commentator to rip off this Slate piece, virtually word for word, can be hazardous to one's career health. The gory details here.
Finally, being a celebrity involves so many trials and tribulations, as the Chicago Tribune reports:
"Hermes has apologized to Oprah Winfrey for turning her away from one of its Paris boutiques last week, saying it was closed for a public relations event when she came knocking.
"The talk show host and an entourage tried to enter a Hermes boutique on Paris' posh Rue du Faubourg St. Honore at 6:45 p.m. on June 14, Hermes said in a statement.
" 'People were in the store and they were shopping. Oprah was at the door and she was not allowed into the store,' Gayle King, a friend of Winfrey's who witnessed the incident, told 'Entertainment Tonight.' 'Oprah describes it herself as one of the most humiliating moments of her life.' "
She must have led a pretty charmed life until now.