Fred Thompson has pulled the plug on his campaign.
Officially that is. His lackluster effort throughout the primary combined by his "will-he-won't-he, time-is-wasting, get-off-the-fence-already!" delay whether he'd run or not foreshadowed this capitulation weeks ago.
Probably the two things that stand out with Thompson's run was his "I'm not doing handshows" response to a yes or no question on global warming in Iowa. And the guy's incessent throat-clearing. A bit of advice. It's called Ricola. Buy some. A bag is not that expensive.
Thompson came in a distant third place during the South Carolina Primary, the "firewall" which would have saved his campaign. He was polling in single-digits, fifth-place, in the winner-take-all Florida sweepstakes.
Although he was charismatically challenged - which is odd given his Hollywood stature - Thompson was seen by some as the great conservative hope. Last spring and summer the GOP was less than enamored by the liberal/moderate positions of the original "Big Three" - McCain, Giuliani and Romney - and were looking for a credible candidate who could steer the debate to the right.
With the "Huckaboom" and Mitt Romney's decision that he is suddenly going to run as a conservative the already crowded field no longer needed the former Tennessee senator.
The nomination was Thompson's to lose and he lost it.
Perhaps his advisors forgot to tell him that this is no longer the 19th Century and presidential candidates are expected to do more than sit on their front porch in a rocking chair, sipping on a mint julep.
With that said, if Fred were wed to the campaign of a certain Arizona politician it might give some street cred with a portion of the conservative base. He was the national co-chair of McCain's 2000 presidential run - a fact some of his McCain-aphobic conservative supporters conveniently forget - and the two were best buds sitting next to each other in the Senate.
With a four-way tie in Florida, all the candidates are polling between 19-22 percent, it will be curious to see where the Florida Fredheads flock.
Press Release: Let the speculation begin. Mitt Romney's campaign released this official announcement regarding Thompson's departure.
"Throughout this campaign, Fred Thompson brought a laudable focus to the challenges confronting our country and the solutions necessary to meet them. He stood for strong conservative ideas and believed strongly in the need to keep our conservative coalition together. Ann and I would like to extend our best wishes to Fred, Jeri and their family and congratulate them on their efforts during this campaign."
Although it should be of note that Romney doesn't substitute onion rings for curly fries without his staffers sending out a press release on the subject...
So far nothing has been released on McCain's website.
Below the Beltway: To show how absolutely nowhere Thompson's campaign was since his announcement you can't even find any obvious parodies with Fred and a certain 1992 song from the U.K. Out of all the folks on Youtube without a life, no one bothered to put something together? A sad lesson for political candidates and their supporters.
Posted by DonWard at January 22, 2008 02:36 PM | Email ThisMaybe that could be his campaign slogan!
Posted by: ScottM on January 22, 2008 03:28 PMNone of the other candidates seem likely to get my active support. McCain and Romney are the two plausible ones -- one is ok on the second amendment and attacks the first and the other one .. well, never mind. blah! Depending on what comes out during the campaign, I'll probably end up voting for one, but doubt I'll speak up for any of them. I hope I can remember to check back here and argue against the people who'll tell me I'm playing "if I can't have my Fred I'm taking my ball home." That's really not it. I want someone positive I can support, not 'whatever I end up with that isn't a democrat.'
I ponder from time to time getting active in the Republican Party, doing my little bit to help drag it in a good direction. The degree of "I like Fred but he's not a politician" I have heard over the last couple months is pretty disheartening. Thought it was a good thing, myself.
This Washington FredHead is flocking back to his personal affairs, for now.
Posted by: Erik Wingren on January 22, 2008 03:44 PMpudge - 1/21/08
LOL!! what a real political expert you have here at SP.
I can't get into the meat of your article until I ask if you'd like to reconsider the particular ugliness of that title in light of today's date: The sad 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade since which >50 million US children have been exterminated in the womb.
DW - Comma added so that it reads according to the Pulp Fiction pun that it's meant to represent. Sheesh. Horse. Water. Drink.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 22, 2008 04:17 PMIt's very simple. Giuliani, Huckabee, and Paul cannot win at convention. It is extremely unlikely any of them can win 50 percent of the delegates. So they are out.
McCain and Romney can both win a majority, but there is also a strong chance neither one will. If that happens, can either one win a majority at convention? We cannot know until we get to that point, because there's far too many unknowns about the views of the specific delegates who will be making the decision.
But if more than half the delegates are disinclined to accept either McCain or Romney, which is very possible, then Fred remains the only real possibility left right now. EVEN THOUGH he has dropped out. It's simple math.
I don't think that is going to happen -- I think McCain would be able to pull together a coalition -- but we can only guess. There's so much McCain hatred out there, and we shouldn't underestimate it (hence my odd construction, "it very well could be that he has the best chance" ... it depends on who the delegates are and what their feelings are about McCain and Romney as potential alternatives to whomever they are delegates for).
No matter how you slice it, Thompson still has a much better chance than RudyHuckaPaul, since Fred has a chance, and each of them has no real chance at all.
Posted by: pudge on January 22, 2008 04:18 PM" We hardly knew yee....because you had a shit campaign manager. Fred Thompson's campaign was painful to watch well hard to watch because it was non-existent. "
" So now I am officially endorsing my dog. Birdy is black, white AND female. So, she stands a chance. "
I emphatically disagree with you on your continuing infatuation with Fred's chances at being the nominee. I think Jeb Bush and Condoleeza Rice have a better shot of winning at the convention than Fred Thompson.
Rudy will win at the convention if he has a third of the delegates and Huckabee stays in it. Huckabee could actually win at convention if he gets through Florida okay, he could win 15 states. Doesn't look like he'll get through Florida though. However, without Thompson hounding him at the debate, he may again win the next debate in Florida, that would really throw things for a loop - I'd love to see Super Tuesday after a Huckabee Florida win, my goodness what a free-for-all that would be.
Erik Wingren, I too was a big fan of Forbes, one of the nice qualities of Rudy Giuliani is that Forbes will play a prominent role in his administration (can anyone say Mr. Chairman?).
What I'd find most interesting is if McCain announces now that Fred would be his VP - would Fredheads vote for McCain? Would anyone here who can't stand McCain but has Fred as their first choice end up voting McCain? Further, what if Rudy and Huckabee pair up? What a battle that would be, if those two did that, what could Romney do to counter that?
Not going to happen, but just a thought.
Posted by: Doug on January 22, 2008 04:41 PMHeard that quite a few times. MSM doesn't care about the fringe candidates. Had Fred actually won something (like Huckabee won Iowa) the media would have been all over him.
I might warn you though, some of our little liberals here in the Seattle area are a bit tender and sensitive.... you may hurt their sacrosanct little feelings.... awww.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 22, 2008 04:52 PMDisagree all you want. Even Newt said it the other day: at convention, the delegates will almost surely pick from the field of candidates that have already announced.
This isn't an infatuation. It's just the way things are. Again, I am not saying Fred will win, or is most likely to. I am saying that if certain things work out in certain ways, he will likely rise to the top, and quickly.
Giuliani and Huckabee and Paul CANNOT win at convention. Period. The party would split if any of them won, and the delegates won't let that happen. It will not happen. None of them stand any chance whatsoever, and Giuliani worst of all: the social conservatives (who will probably hold a majority of delegates, but at least will be very significant) would probably just walk off the floor, in the middle of the convention.
It's similar with Huckabee, although it would be less dramatic, and perhaps happen after convention. The GOP would completely fall apart. The moderate Republicans hate Huckabee's lack of fiscal conservatism, and the conservative Republicans hate his lack of conservatism on everything else. The people he primarily appeals to are evangelicals who are moderate on everything except abortion and gay marriage, and that simply cannot hold the Republican coalition together.
Almost overnight, a new party would spring up, and the GOP would be dead. Either Huckabee or Giuliani as nominee would literally kill the party. The delegates won't let that happen.
Also no, McCain would never pick Fred as his running mate, if for no other reason that ONE old guy on a ticket is bad enough, but TWO just isn't going to happen. Plus, Thompson doesn't bring much to the ticket: his specific strengths are mostly McCain strengths, too. Not that he wouldn't help at all, but there are better choices.
I expect Lindsey Graham is at the very top of McCain's short list: he's strong in the South, he's young, well-liked, extremely bright, a military officer, and very conservative, though -- like McCain -- not considered a partisan. And, like McCain, Graham has been opposite the GOP on a few of the more controversial items over the past few years, like the "torture bill," not to mention the "Gang of 14" and the comprehensive immigration bill. The only reason not to pick Graham is if you really think you need a 100 percent conservative to help bring the base to the polls, but I don't think that's how the math will work out in 2008.
For Romney, OTOH, Fred is a more attractive option, for the same reasons: Fred is many things Romney is not. More experience in Washington, more foreign policy experience, more conservative credentials.
We shall see.
Again as far as fiscal conservatives are concerned Rudy is far and away the best for them - assuming they aren't the deficit hawk conservatives.
At the convention there would be easy marriages to make amongst the McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee supporters, it may leave out that 13% of the Republican electorate that is staunchly anti-immigration, but it won't tear asunder the rest of the party.
Posted by: Doug on January 22, 2008 05:11 PMBut can the Republicans win without that 13%? That is THE question!
Posted by: David on January 22, 2008 05:21 PMChoosing "Lindsey Grahamnesty" (as he is now known in both North and South Carolina) would be sticking a finger in the eye of all of the people that do not trust McCain on immigration. They do not trust Lindsey Grahamnesty either. I haven't seen any recent polls on his approval rating in SC, but last summer according to The Hill: Immigration stance hurts Graham at home, poll finds
"Graham�s approval rating has sunk to 31 percent and he has a 40 percent disapproval rating, according to a poll released Friday by Atlanta-based InsiderAdvantage."
And "His disapproval among Republicans is higher � 46 percent � than among Democrats �30 percent. Both give him an approval rating in the low 30s."
So, to say that he is "strong in the South" is a little iffy. I had heard there might be a primary challenge a few months ago, but haven't heard anything recently. However, I DON'T think adding Lindsey to the ticket would do ANYTHING for McCain's efforts to bring Republicans together.
DW: Take a walk Bill. Those are about what the numbers were being reported by the networks this weekend for what polls are worth. Every poll is different but those are the ballpark numbers on the whole.
It's a four-way tie. Period.
Hell, CNN has Romney (16 percent) behind everyone.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/florida.html
And Huckabee having cash problems? Heard that before in Iowa.
I'm still betting on Mr. Magical Underpants to be the nominee at this point.
Face. Egg. See it now?
Posted by: John Bailo on January 22, 2008 06:12 PMNope. I will never, ever vote for John McCain. Right now I am leaning Romney and praying for someone else to join the race. I wasn't a huge Thompson fan either but he clearly was the best of the bunch and had cross over potential to boot. Right now I am accepting the reality of four years of Hillary. Hopefully 4 years of Hillary will give us another true conservative like Reagan. McCain isn't change, he is the reason we are a minority party. The GOP had control for the first time in decades yet that maverick loose cannon McCain ruined it for us. McCain is scum. I want to support his GOP rival in the Arizona GOP primary so we can get rid of him for good.
GOP folks supporting McCain are supporting Hillary. Supporting a clown like McCain who pisses on core party values is pissing on the base. I have had enough. McCain can't win because the base doesn't support him, and for good reason.
Posted by: AP on January 22, 2008 06:13 PMNo. You are missing a big chunk of the GOP there. Huckebee is a bible thumping democrat, McCain the worst Republican in my lifetime, and Giuliani, a statist big city mayor. Sorry, but this ticket is a loser and misses the bulk of the pissed off GOP base.
We are going to lose in '08 folks, and it is because of the media and our idiotic party leadership that allows Democrats like McCain to ruin the party. Rossi will go down too due to the pathetic GOP nominee. We are a minority party until we become conservative again and conserve those classical liberal traditions our nation was founded upon and are being destroyed by Democrats and the McCain statist wing of the minority party destined GOP.
We need a new party. Let Doug and Chris Vance have their loser statist lite party while we conservatives and classic liberals hunt down the next Reagan.
With Thompson out of the race, there are only two candidates left that I would support--Giuliani and Romney. Prager even makes the case that Giuliani would be better on abortion than McCain--he would appoint better judges.
Posted by: Bill H on January 22, 2008 06:40 PMAnd I don't know what a fiscal conservative who ISN'T a deficit hawk, is. Maybe you mean business conservative, but that's not the same thing, and business conservatives love Romney.
Bill H: no, it won't do much to bring Republicans together to pick Graham (who is far more conservative than any Republican running for President right now, but yes, the immigration stance has hurt him, as I already conceded). But it would most likely help him beat the Democrats.
Mr. Yuck: nice to know you're a bigot. Typical liberal.
John Bailo: how does favoring Thompson -- either then, or now -- mean egg on anyone's face? That doesn't make any logical sense.
AP: your hatred toward McCain is blinding you to the facts. How could he be? The reasons we are a minority party right now is because the Republicans have driven up the deficit and debt, increased social spending, screwed up the war in Iraq, and engaged in all sorts of pork and corruption. Hate McCain all you want, but he is for lowering the deficit, decreasing spending, and he was correct on almost everything about the war and has never gotten any pork. Calling McCain a "statist" is just stupid, frankly. Maybe compared to Ron Paul he is, but not compared to Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich.
He ruined nothing. It was the leadership of the GOP in the House and Bush who ruined it. Blaming McCain makes no sense whatsoever.
Further, how is supporting McCain supporting Hillary? He is the most plausible Republican to beat her. And as to "pissing on core party values," there are several notable ways he breaks from Republicanism, but very few of those are core party values. Calling someone a Democrat whose lifetime career conservative rating is MORE THAN DOUBLE that of any Democrat I can find ... it is nonsense.
McCain is not my candidate for many of the same reasons other Republicans don't favor him: immigration, global warming, campaign finance, and so on. But to blame him for losing the majority? Say he is a worse Republican than Chaffee? Or Snowe? Or Jeffords? Or Craig? Come on.
McCain Derangement Syndrome is almost as bad as Bush Derangement Syndrome. Completely blinded to reality.
It's pretty simple - true supply siders are more apt to be fiscal conservatives that aren't deficit hawks. Hence a Rudy would spend less energy on reducing the debt than McCain would, however Rudy would spend more time than McCain on reducing taxes, especially the double taxation on corporate earnings. Each could be considered fiscally conservative in certain ways but no one would mistake Rudy as a deficit hawk and no one would mistake McCain as a supply-sider.
Posted by: Doug on January 22, 2008 07:01 PMThe degree of "I like Fred but he's not a politician" I have heard over the last couple months is pretty disheartening. Thought it was a good thing, myself.
I couldn't agree more. On the way home from work tonight I heard someone on the Hugh Hewett show say something to the effect that he's heard so often that Fred just didn't have the fire in the belly but what that meant to him was that he didn't have the narcissism that most have convincing him that he was the anointed one.
I always considered that one of his better traits myself.
Posted by: RBW on January 22, 2008 07:55 PMI'm sorry but it wasn't the media or the party leadership that voted in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina. It was voters like us. If we can't recognize a good leader, it's nobody else's fault. Sad as that may be.
Posted by: RBW on January 22, 2008 08:19 PMI am not blind to the facts. McCain and his gang of 14 led to the empowerment of the Dems despite them being the minority party. Other than some pork spending, and he didn't stop it, McCain is a dud. Trent Lott, Linc Chaffee, Ted Stevens, and the other tired, minority party GOPers have killed the party too. Sure McCain isn't the only one but he is the worst one in my book because he empowered the Dems. to run the show my stealing away moderate, maverick, loose cannon votes away. After 8 years of Bush allowing this nonsense to happen as President, I have had enough and will not vote for another softy again. Sorry, I can't vote for McCain. I honestly believe it is better to have the Democrats united against Hillary than have McCain hand the Democrats what they want and have other squishy statists like lapdog Lindsey Graham aid their cause.
I will never vote for John McCain, and it is his own fault. Even if you are for amnesty for law breaking immigrants, you can't like the way McCain handled that situation. I don't like him, I trust him, and I disagree with many of his views.
Nomionate McCain and you elect Hillary, it is that simple. Us sick and tired of the same odl same old will stay home and wait for the next Reagan. I am sick of the statistlite GOP. If they won't change, I'll leave. I respect what you have to say Pudge, but I will never, ever vote for McCain. In fact I have been lobbying to take him out in the Senate primary for years now.
Posted by: AP on January 22, 2008 08:27 PMI guess I need a new party. Anyone want to start the Classic Liberal party and return to Reaganism? The GOP is dead.
Posted by: AP on January 22, 2008 08:32 PMOh, another PSA: If you can't hold your nose tight enough to vote in some particular race, be sure to bubble in the write-in option, because if you just leave all the bubbles blank, your county elections office may just decide to "help" you correct your "oversight."
Posted by: TB on January 22, 2008 09:06 PMIn essence Thompson and Mitt, which most conservative blogs appear to have been behind, are the equivalent of what we want the perception of Reagan to be rather than what Reagan actually accomplished
In effect Reagan was a pragmatic populist closer to Huckabee than Thompson or Romney.
IMO we should be looking at Newt and building off his conservatism, it was far more effective conservative than what Reagan ever did domestically.
Posted by: Doug on January 22, 2008 09:06 PM1) McCain-Lieberman. A bill to enforce Kyoto. End of story, by itself, for me.
2) NAGPRA revision. McCain is pushing for a re-writing of the Native American Graves Repatriation Act. This would prevent to scientific analysis of any artifact or human remains deemed to be older than 1492.
As a researcher on the Kennewick Man project, I find this to be a horrific hi-jacking of one of the most important human purposes. Un-locking our common history.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 22, 2008 09:07 PMReal Clear Politics has a McCain Hillary match at plus 4.0 for McCain
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
Electoral-Vote.com has a McCain Obama matchup 289 electoral votes for McCain, and 242 for Obama.
The real issue here is what candidate can beat the Democrats.
Forget that and you get Hillary
Posted by: GS on January 22, 2008 09:19 PM
Your suggestion about filling in every ballot bubble is the best I've heard in my history of reading this website. I have personal proof of Election Department fraud from 2004. Yet I sometimes leave bubbles blank. Never again.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on January 22, 2008 09:28 PM
Reagan=Huckabee? No way. Reagan actually presided over a -1.4% growth rate in federal spending, if you leave out defense/homeland security and entitlements. Bush had a +4.5 growth rate. Huckabee is to the left of Bush.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 22, 2008 09:53 PMMcCain and his gang of 14 led to the empowerment of the Dems despite them being the minority party.
How so? This makes no sense to me, because it in fact removed any ability the Democrats had to filibuster our judges. BECAUSE OF John McCain, we got ALL of our conservative justices, with no chance that Alito would be filibustered.
Did you forget what actually happened? The Republicans actually gave up NOTHING. McCain and the others simply said they would not vote for the "nuclear option." But the "nuclear option" was only going to be used if the Democrats filibustered, and he got 7 Democrats to agree to not filibuster. And if they did filibuster, then he and the other 6 Republicans would be free to vote for the "nuclear option," and IN ADDITION, the Republicans would get to claim that it was the Democrats who broke their word.
The Republicans lost nothing, and gained all their judges. The clear result of the Gang of 14 is that WE WON. You should be THANKING McCain.
Other than some pork spending, and he didn't stop it
One man can only do so much. In the Senate, anyway.
Sure McCain isn't the only one but he is the worst one in my book because he empowered the Dems. to run the show my stealing away moderate, maverick, loose cannon votes away.
Do you have any examples of this? As demonstrated above, the Gang of 14 is clearly not such an example.
I honestly believe it is better to have the Democrats united against Hillary than have McCain hand the Democrats what they want and have other squishy statists like lapdog Lindsey Graham aid their cause.
Again, McCain is no more statist than Reagan was. I am not sure where you get that from.
I will never vote for John McCain, and it is his own fault. Even if you are for amnesty for law breaking immigrants, you can't like the way McCain handled that situation.
I was against the McCain/Bush plan, however, the fact is that it was not amnesty by the traditional definition. Amnestia means "to forget" (as per the root it shares with the word "amnesia") and having any penalty or special status means it is not amnesty.
What you mean to say is that the penalty is not severe enough, and I agree. However, let's not blame McCain for this: the law is clear, and being in this country illegally is not even a misdemeanor offense. It's jaywalking in the eyes of the law. Saying that the federal government should treat people who have committed an offense no more severe in the eyes of the law as a traffic ticket is nonsense.
You could argue that we should increase the penalty. The Congress tried, do you remember? It made being in this country illegally a felony. And what happened? The Republicans lost potentially millions of votes for their trouble.
(It didn't help that the Republicans tried to take that out of the law, but the DEMOCRATS refused to allow it, because they knew it would hurt the GOP politically.)
Nomionate McCain and you elect Hillary, it is that simple.
Except it's not. McCain will very likely beat Hillary, because even though many Republicans won't vote for him, many more will, and so will many independents and even Democrats.
I have a lot of problems with McCain. But I like him more than most of the Republican field, and would vote for him with no qualms whatsoever if he won the nomination, despite my disagreement. We can't get all we want, but he is a lot closer than our country's last three Presidents to my ideal. McCain would get us going in the right direction on my two most important issues: the size and scope and cost of government, and foreign policy.
AP: I am not going to tell you "you need to support the Republican Party." Many people here will tell you that you need to support the Republican because the Democrat is worse. I believe that for myself, but each of us needs to make up our own mind about that. I respect your right to make that decision, I just disagree with some of your analysis, especially that McCain is any more of a statist than Reagan, or that the Gang of 14 was a bad thing.
Hey Pudge, you call it McCain derangement syndrom but look at your own starry eyed infatuation with the GOP version of Kerry.
I have no infatuation with him. I admire him on many issues, and disagree with him strongly on others. I've been going back and forth as to which candidate I would favor between Romney and McCain if I decided not to vote for Thompson (which I still might do), and right now, it's Romney of McCain.
So let's not pretend that I am here to pump up "my guy." It's not true, and not a logical conclusion.
Not only will he not get the votes, the dems will roll him like a Central Park drunk when it comes to exposure. His war chest will barely have two coins to rub together, let alone be able to keep up with the donkeys.
McCain is one conservative candidate who doesn't need the conservative base to win, because he will still get many conservatives (who either will vote for him just because he is a Republican, or, like me, recognize that he is a strong conservative on some of the most important issues), and he will also get most independents and many Democrats.
Further, many Republican voters who stayed home in 2006 because of corruption and high gov't spending will come out for McCain.
An aside, every real conservative I know doesn't give a rats behind about the torture issue.
You know of McCain, who by any standard, is a real conservative. And you also know of me. I frankly am disturbed that more conservatives do not care about this issue.
Granted, many do not care because they just don't mind when bad people get tortured when it is "necessary" to do so, but there is a much more important, conservative, issue to consider: the rule of law. It is against our law to torture, so every conservative should therefore be against torture. Following the rule of law is fundamental to conservatism.
The only thing that item does is bring in a few from the middle but it won't be enough to offset the "stay at home" vote against McCain.
You're overestimating it, by a lot. Many Republicans hate McCain. By far, most will vote for him, if he is the nominee.
Posted by: pudge on January 22, 2008 10:37 PMI think that leaves only one, true fiscal conservative left in the race.
That one person is the same: Ron Paul.
There are only two candidates left in the race who are consistently pro-life: Huckabee and Ron Paul.
And there is only one candidate who has a credible position on the economy: Ron Paul.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 22, 2008 11:09 PMI'm surprised McCain is where he is now, but there's still more to come. I think Fred meant well. Too bad he didn't run his campaign all that effectively.
It's just now getting interesting.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 22, 2008 11:36 PM. Now, Dog, in order for you to stay on the ticket and share in the booty from suckers who donate on the web, same questions I asked your sister in the cause, Michelle:
a. Do you personally disavow David Duke and individuals like him?
b. Do you personally disavow the KKK and groups like them?
Anyone who can't answer yes to those questions is like Paul and Duke simply a bigot slug.
So, what say you?
Notice has been given.
Posted by: Don Ward on January 22, 2008 11:44 PMMy bad. I got my questions in, so you republicans can duke it out, no pun intended.
The question was addressed to Michelle, not Michele.
Ok, now you can duke it out in peace.
Posted by: WVH on January 22, 2008 11:53 PMLooking at all of the polls at RealClearPolitics, I just don't see it. Here is what they show there for the top four candidates:
Poll Date...... McCain Giuliani Romney Huckabee
RCP Average 01/09 - 01/20 23.3 20.0 19.3 16.0
Rasmussen 01/20 - 01/20 20 19 25 13
SurveyUSA 01/20 - 01/20 25 20 19 14
InsiderAdvantage 01/15 - 01/16 20 21 20 13
Research 2000 01/14 - 01/16 26 22 16 17
Strategic Vision (R) 01/11 - 01/13 27 18 17 20
Quinnipiac 01/09 - 01/13 22 20 19 19
Huckabee was polling at 19-20% almost two weeks ago, but since SC and NV, he is getting 13% (Rasmussen) and 14% (SUSA). As I said, Huckabee's campaign is even discussing pulling out of FL.
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 04:19 AMWhat if Giuliani offered the VP slot to Huckabee? With Huckabee's age* (52) and his affinity with the Evangelicals, along with Giuliani's pledge to nominate strict constructionist judges, don't you think that would shore up Giuliani's support? I do, but we may just have to agree to disagree on this.
If what Don Ward implies might be on the horizon (Romney offers the VP slot to Fred Thompson), then there could be a rush of other candidates naming their VP choices (if Romney got a boost from doing so). It seems to me that Huckabee would be a natural with Giuliani.
*I.E. Huckabee would have the inside track to POTUS in 8 years (when he would be 60) if they won, or in 4 years if they lost.
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 04:35 AMThe issue was pharmacy. Romney opines how to make the system work (because it is unfair that US citizens have to pay more than Canadians for the same drug).
Butthead responded.
Romney says, "you make it sound like the industry is evil".
Butthead chuckles and says , "they are evil".
Totally Democrat and I can't trust the guy. As I know more and more about McCain, I am scared of the guy as president (i.e. I don't want a loose cannon as president).
I sure wish Giuliani didn't screw up so bad so we could have a race.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2008 06:40 AMBill H,
You just don't get it as far as social conservatives and Guiliani (Pat Robertson, aside). You don't see how much an affront it is to have someone with the character who treats his second wife they way he did in their divorce, who moved his mistress into the mayor's mansion, and who we found out in December had the city pay for protection for his mistriss. You add to this his life long liberal positions on the social values most dear to social conservatives, it doesn't matter who is at the top of the ticket. Social Conservatives will not vote for Guiliani in the great mass needed to carry the states where they made the difference. Look at Ohio. Bush won, but only due to the social conservatives, who turned out in mass due to the ban on gay marriage initiative on the Ohio ballot. Without Ohio, Bush would have lost to Kerry. When you stack Guiliani's character up to a women who stuck by her man, despite his affairs and a church-going Methodist, against a church-going black man who speaks out to black man to take responsibility for their actions, or for a smooth-talking, church-going Baptist (I believe) who has had to live through tragedy and speaks elogantly of how God has helped him through these struggles, and how is also concerned for the poor, Guiliani doesn't stand a chance. It comes down to character and Guiliani's end to his second marriage speaks volumes to his character. It is his fatal flaw.
Huckabee is done at the top of the ticket now, but if Giuliani can add him to the bottom of the ticket, he might be able to get most of those defections back.
You mention Hillary and Obama, but this discussion wasn't about the general election, it was about the path to the Republican nomination. Pudge said that Giuliani could not get the nomination because of social conservatives and I said that I thought he could bring them back with Huckabee in the VP slot.
However, as far as the general election goes, I disagree with you strongly that Hillary would benefit based on CHARACTER when compared with Rudy! She is not some woman who "stuck by her man" as you said, she is a power-hungry ambitious woman who stayed with her philandering husband because of her political ambitions--nothing more.
I agree you would see a difference in the comparisons with Obama, but not with Hillary.
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 08:11 AMHow come supporters of the other candidates get to discuss how Thompson's dropping out of the race affects their candidate, but I am to be virtually shunned for mentioning my favorite candidate?
Seems kind of strange to me...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 23, 2008 08:25 AMI suppose if he had a military background as successful as Eisenhower (or MacArthur, for that matter) he would be able to run on that, but leadership in the Hanoi Hilton, however gruelling that was, (and I'm not minimising it) doesn't really count toward the executive experience requirement that history indicates is an important part of what people consider.
Posted by: bfr on January 23, 2008 09:05 AMBill H: What if Giuliani offered the VP slot to Huckabee?
Yes, then we can even MORE deeply offend ALL conservatives!
First, someone who so deeply offends social conservatives, as Giuliani, probably cannot win them back with a running mate. Now, I am not speaking personally: I would likely vote for Giuliani myself, including, in part, because of his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges, even though I am wary of his fulfilling that pledge. But I think far more would not vote for him.
And second, adding Huckabee to the ticket makes it LESS likely that I, a social conservative, would vote for Giuliani. Obviously, many social conservatives would be more likely, but many others, like me, less, because Huckabee is much more liberal on social spending and big government. So while he is pro-life, he IMO worsens the ticket, significantly.
Thompson could help Giuliani (the NYC Prosecutor Ticket! Guess which one is real!), but I just don't think Huckabee could, overall. But since Giuliani won't win the nomination, it doesn't matter. The delegates will not pick him no matter what. Huckabee or Paul either. Thompson still has a better chance than any of them, even after dropping out.
But it is much more likely to be McCain or Romney. And I am torn between the two.
Posted by: pudge on January 23, 2008 09:25 AMThis list alone suggests than not only is it a bad idea to nominate a senator, its an even worse idea to elect one. The four presidents of the last 18 who have come from the Senate have been fairly unsuccessful, each in their own way, and all of them were single term.
I understand that JFK was hardly to blame for his single term status(!), but objectively, polls were trending very badly for him before he was shot, and it would have been a very near thing for him to get reelected, if at all.
The reason you can't answer the questions posed in post #54 is because for you and your homies, the answer to both questions is no. You support Paul for a reason and it is the reason that any sane republican would run 100 miles in the opposite direction from a Paul candidacy. At this point in our history the country is not ready to accept Klan leadership, even though you are.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852, according to The Dictionary of Quotations edited by Bergen Evans
It took Hitler several tries before he was able to take over the government of Germany.
As you republicans discuss your options on this thread, how many tries before Duke is successful in taking over a unit of your party appartus some where.
Yeh, Bruce there is a reason you and your homies won't answer, Sig Heil.
I hope the republican that is nominated to head your presidential campaign can answer the questions, yes.
Posted by: WVH on January 23, 2008 09:37 AMThe GOP does not have a candidate that is a conservative in the way we've come to expect. The bottom line is we're going to have to live with that. The candidates would do themselves a world of good with conservatives by dropping VP names right now. I would love to see Newt's name come up, but it won't happen.
Rick Santorum would be a great choice, as would Michael Steele of Maryland, Ken Blackwell of Ohio and Sarah Palin of Alaska.
All would make any of the presidential candidates more palatable than they are now.
I know Pudge won't want this testimony. I have met liberals and Pudge is no liberal which is a take-off of Senator Lloyd Bentsen's comment to Dan Quayle. I have met JFK and you are no JFK. If Pudge is liberal, is there anyone in your party who can attract indies? I mean, you are further to the right than Pudge. Just asking.
Posted by: WVH on January 23, 2008 11:10 AMI also would love to see Michael Steele for VP--I think he would be terrific...
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 11:47 AMSo, the average of the POST-SC polls in FL are:
Romney 22.67%
McCain 21.00%
Giuliani 19.33%
Huckabee 13.00%
If Reagan was, then yes, McCain is. The word "conservative" is not all-or-nothing. The question of conservatism refers to general outlook, and actual positions.
I am not saying McCain is the epitome of conservatism. Obviously, he is not. But taking the Republican party over my lifetime, he is quite clearly to the right within his own party. Compare him to Nixon and Eisenhower, or even today, to the leadership of the House since Bush was elected.
Is he "more liberal" and "less conservative" than you and me and Fred Thompson? Of course. Is he a liberal, moderate, or conservative? Quite clearly, if you are going to pick one, it is the latter.
I would agree that Huck has dropped. The real test for Huck will be the Southern States on Feb 5. With him dropping media from touring from him, and with Florida likely to give media coverage to the winner, he will be starving for free media coverage, which his campaign has lived by.
Posted by: tc on January 23, 2008 03:30 PMI do think Huckabee has reached his zenith and is now essentially running for VP. He made a couple of statements Monday that are worded a little oddly.
"Huckabee denied that his second-place finish in South Carolina on Saturday significantly robbed his campaign of momentum, although many Republican strategists disagree.
"'I haven't necessarily detected that people are bailing on us at all,' he said."
"Still, he indicated that he knows defeat is possible, but he will not go into debt to avoid it.
'If the campaign doesn't make it all the way we want to be walk away completely in the black,' he said."
I think he is now running for VP...
If the poll you have has a 15 pt. undecided, a Romney may only get 1 or 2 points of that, who will get the rest? It could be 10 points of the undecideds can't pick between McCain and Rudy.
Posted by: Doug on January 23, 2008 04:18 PMThe polls are pretty consistent in showing basically a tie between Giuliani, Romney and McCain, with Huckabee in the second tier. I don't see Huckabee moving up much in the next three days even with a good debate performance, but we will see on Saturday. Huckabee did NOT get any kind of boost from his second place finish in SC and actually got hit a bit.
My only point in referring to all of the polls was to point out that Huckabee was not "tied" with the "Big Three", he was in the next tier below them...
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 05:44 PMMy first question is, "how old are you, 12?"
My second question, if your above comment is indeed correct, is "has our party fallen this far from what we once believed in?"
Posted by: Saltherring on January 23, 2008 05:46 PM
Campaign Finance
Did not back tax cuts
Immigration bill
Global warming issue
Statements trying to put ANWR in the same category as the Grand Canyon and the Everglades
These, along with many other statements and positions dissing the party and its supporters makes me amazed that he is even considered for the nomination (albeit by less than 1/3 of the voting population thus far--and well less in many states)
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 06:08 PMPeople keep saying "he has a lifetime rating of 82.6". However, if you break his ratings out between his first 15 years in office and his last 10 (although I haven't seen his rating for 2007 yet), he had an average rating of 86.7 for the first 15 years--a very conservative rating. However, for the last 9 years the average has been a much more moderate 75.0. His rating for the most recent year (2006) has been a very moderate 65.
Posted by: Bill H on January 23, 2008 07:19 PMBut there has always been a strong non-conservative element of the Republican party. Always. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes are from this wing. We've only had one conservative Republican President since the FDR, and that's Reagan, and McCain is about as conservative overall as Reagan was.
Bill H: so you would have rather NOT gotten all our conservative judges, including probably Alito? Even if somehow we had gotten those conservative judges without the Gang of 14, the cost would have been great: the "nuclear option" would have been a HUGE P.R. mistake. It represented a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Senate's own rules, to take away an established institution (the filibuster) that has been used primarily to protect minority rights. The Republicans would STILL be reeling from that if it had been exercised. We would have lost 2006 even more badly.
The Gang of 14 allowed us to win in every way. We got our judges AND we won the P.R. battle. All conservatives should be thanking McCain for that. WE WON.
I just do not agree with, not accept, your characterization of this being the result. I also don't agree with your characterization of the "Constitutional Option" as the "nuclear option". The Constitution DOES NOT require 60 votes to confirm judges (or administration appointees, for that matter). The Senate is free to set up their own rules, but it is not free to violate the constitution. McCain, in his typical fashion, stuck his finger in the eye of his fellow Republican Senators who were prepared to CONSTITUTIONALLY not allow the Senate to filibuster judicial nominations--they would be allowed to get an up or down vote.
The "gang of 14" BELONGS on McCain list of INFAMY along with all of his other affronts. Bush would have gotten more judges approved without McCain and his "gang". Going along with liberals is not the way to succeed in the Senate--it just makes things worse. Liberals are like Radical Islamists, going along with them just signifies weakness.
"All conservatives should be thanking McCain for that. WE WON." no, I think you are in the minority in wanting to "thank McCain" for this...
So we DIDN'T get our conservative judges and avoid a P.R. war? I don't see how you can disagree with that.
I also don't agree with your characterization of the "Constitutional Option" as the "nuclear option".
Shrug. Complain to Trent Lott, he coined the phrase. It was not meant by him, nor by me, as a characterization of one sort or another.
The Constitution DOES NOT require 60 votes to confirm judges (or administration appointees, for that matter). The Senate is free to set up their own rules, but it is not free to violate the constitution.
I don't disagree with any of that. However, you appear to imply that filibusters are unconstitutional, which is false. The rules do not require 60 votes to confirm anyone, they require 60 votes for cloture, which is not the same thing, and which is absolutely NOT violating the Constitution. You may believe that in effect it violates the SPIRIT of the Constitution -- and I would agree -- but again, that's not the same thing.
Filibusters, and supermajority cloture votes, are not unconstitutional. Frankly, I think ALL filibusters that are used to prevent votes are anti-constitutional, and I would like to do away with them all. But they are not un-constitutional.
Further, that the Senate is free to set up their own rules, and that this is a perfectly valid rule, is the very issue: the Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules, and Frist was trying to do it with only 57 votes. He was attempting to say it wasn't a rule change, but a simple matter of ruling on a point of order and establishing a new precedent. But that's dishonest, frankly. The Senate rules on filibuster are clear, and this would be a rule change. The Republicans would have had to violate Senate rules to execute this option, by claiming that what is clearly a rule change, is not a rule change, so they could reduce the threshold from 67 to 51.
It all comes down to saying whether the Senate rules definition of what a filibuster is, and how it can be used, include judicial nominations, and they are clearly so broad as to include them. Filibusters are allowed for ALL questions, except those specifically excluded by the rules, and judicial nominations are not included in those specific exclusions. Therefore filibusters are allowed, and there is only one way to stop them: changing the rules with 67 votes, or getting cloture with 60.
And EVEN IF you think this point of order procedure to bypass the 67 votes requirement is allowed under Senate rules, it is CLEARLY against the spirit of the rules. So then you are reduced to arguing that following the letter, but violating the spirit, of the rules in order to remove a practice that follows the letter, but violates the spirit, of the Constitution is somehow the moral high ground. Granted, the Constitution is more important than the Senate rules, but both are sets of rules that should be followed to both the letter AND the spirit.
Again, I think all filibusters to prevent votes are wrong. But they are not unconstitutional; changing them requires two-thirds, not simple majority; and the GOP would have gotten killed in the press if they broke the rules to change the rules; and even if you disagree that it would have broken the rules, most voters would have agreed, and it would have been devastating P.R. for the GOP.
McCain said you and I were racist because we were opposed to McCain-Kennedy. He probably can't remember saying it due to his rage.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2008 01:08 PMYou said "So we DIDN'T get our conservative judges and avoid a P.R. war? I don't see how you can disagree with that."
What I SAID was that I didn't agree with your CHARACTERIZATION that we got some judges confirmed BECAUSE of the gang of 14. We would have gotten MORE judges confirmed without them! I don't see Miguel Estrada on the bench (yes, I know he had already withdrawn his nomination, but with the Constitutional Option in place he could have been resubmitted). I don't see Henry Saad or William Myers on the bench. These nominees were thrown under the bus as part of the "oh so wonderful" agreement that McCain engineered.
You also talk about avoiding a PR war, but that is not what you said in the first posting. In that posting you said it "would have been a HUGE P.R. mistake" to institute the Constitutional option. I don't disagree with your SECOND characterization of avoiding a PR war, but that is not the same thing as a PR mistake.
I think that is a "war" that could have been won with forceful defense of the Constitutional option. That is the problem with the squishy Republicans--they always shy away from a fight. Or, as the saying goes, they "bring a knife to a gun fight". However, thanks to McCain and his cronies, these judges never got a vote and the Constitutional Option was not put in place.
The rest of your argument is really not an argument at all, you are just waxing on about the filibuster and Senate rules. Cutting through all of the voluminous wording, you are basically arguing that it is ok to violate the spirit of the constitution since you say "You may believe that in effect it violates the SPIRIT of the Constitution -- and I would agree", but it is NOT OK to "violate the spirit of the filibuster rules" since you also say that "it is CLEARLY against the spirit of the rules". Finally, you disagree with yourself by saying "Granted, the Constitution is more important than the Senate rules, but both are sets of rules that should be followed to both the letter AND the spirit." Huh?
Bottom line: Frist had the votes in place to end the filibuster of judicial nominees. McCain stuck his finger in Frist's eye with his "gang of 14". More judges would have been able to be confirmed under the Constitutional Option than with the gang of 14. The Republicans could have made a strong defense of the Constitutional Option by making the point that the Constitution never intended the need for more than a simple majority to approve judicial nominations (that is obvious since in situations where more than a simple majority is required, the Constitution spells that out). They would have also given reason for the base to cheer since the base has been pissed with the Republicans for being so squishy. I think that would have HELPED them in the 2006 election rather than hurt them.
And you think Conservatives should thank McCain?! You can go ahead, but I prefer NOT to bend down to pick up the soap in a crowded shower...
The foiling of the Constitutional Option isn't even McCain at his worst, in my opinion. McCain-Feingold (free speech violation), McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegals) and McCain-Lieberman (global warming) are bigger issues with him for me...
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 02:02 PMI believe Article II, Section 2 ("he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law") creates an affirmative duty on the part of the Senate to give advice and consent to presidential nominees. Either the filibuster is avoiding that affirmative duty by not bringing the nominee up to a vote, or if you consider the cloture vote as a vote for or against the nominee, then it is adding an additional requirement over and above the simple majority that the Constitution allows.
Here is a good discussion of this clause for those interested in it. Advice and Consent
Posted by: Bill H on January 24, 2008 02:48 PMEach House may determine the rules of its proceedings...
If the Senate wanted to make a cloture vote requiring 95% of it's members, I don't see how even that would be unconstitutional. Heck, they could probably make it a requirement that any bill would need 95% approval before it's considered passed and it still wouldn't be unconstitutional.
Posted by: Doug on January 24, 2008 04:20 PMBill H: Why would you so obviously distort what said in reply to your comments? What I SAID was that I didn't agree with your CHARACTERIZATION that we got some judges confirmed BECAUSE of the gang of 14.
No, you didn't. If that is what you meant, then fine. But it is not what you said. I apologize for assuming that you meant something else.
We would have gotten MORE judges confirmed without them! I don't see Miguel Estrada on the bench (yes, I know he had already withdrawn his nomination, but with the Constitutional Option in place he could have been resubmitted).
That's supposition. I doubt he would have resubmitted. I also would have loved to see Pickering on the bench, but I am fairly certain he wouldn't have. Regardless, nothing in this agreement prevented from resubmitting, as he would have been covered under the agreement.
I don't see Henry Saad or William Myers on the bench. These nominees were thrown under the bus as part of the "oh so wonderful" agreement that McCain engineered.
Granted, those two judges were lost. That is the one downside, though, frankly, I wasn't crazy about either one; but on the other hand, I would have loved to see Reid have to explain what the hell he was talking about in re Saad and national security.
However, those are the ONLY two that were harmed by this agreement.
You also talk about avoiding a PR war, but that is not what you said in the first posting. In that posting you said it "would have been a HUGE P.R. mistake" to institute the Constitutional option. I don't disagree with your SECOND characterization of avoiding a PR war, but that is not the same thing as a PR mistake.
It would have been a PR mistake, because it would have been a PR war we would have lost. IMO, of course.
The rest of your argument is really not an argument at all, you are just waxing on about the filibuster and Senate rules.
In order to demonstrate that the "constitutional option" violates Senate rules, and is therefore Wrong.
Cutting through all of the voluminous wording, you are basically arguing that it is ok to violate the spirit of the constitution
No, Bill. That is utterly false. I did not argue any such thing, any more than you argued that we didn't get the judges or avoid a PR war. :-)
What I argued was that it is wrong to fix the rules on filibusters -- which violate the spirit, but not the letter, of the Constitution -- by violating either the spirit, or the letter, of the Senate rules.
Finally, you disagree with yourself by saying "Granted, the Constitution is more important than the Senate rules, but both are sets of rules that should be followed to both the letter AND the spirit." Huh?
I see no contradiction there. Both should be followed in letter and spirit. I gave no indication that I am in favor for violating the letter or spirit of either one.
The Republicans could have made a strong defense of the Constitutional Option by making the point that the Constitution never intended the need for more than a simple majority to approve judicial nominations
That is insufficient. The ends do not justify the means.
I am 100 percent for making the case that filibusters in EVERY case, to prevent a vote, are wrong, and that Senate rules should be modified to prevent it. But those rules most be modified according to Senate rules, which means a two-thirds vote.
Either the filibuster is avoiding that affirmative duty by not bringing the nominee up to a vote, or if you consider the cloture vote as a vote for or against the nominee, then it is adding an additional requirement over and above the simple majority that the Constitution allows.
I understand the point, but I disagree, for more than one reason, but most important is that if taken as you say, then it seems to me that the Senate has an obligation not just to vote up or down, but to vote up! The Senate shall consent, after all, right? I don't think it was intended to be read as an obligation of any kind. If that were the case, shouldn't it be mentioned in Article I?
If there is some historical evidence from the Federalist or somesuch that addresses this, I'd like to see it. I've studied the issue, though not in a ton of depth, and I remain with this conclusion.
However, I will note that yes, if judicial filibusters ARE unconstitutional, then a change to Senate rules is not necessary. When I say that the "constitutional option" violates Senate rules, it is coming from the position that judicial filibusters are constitutional.
As usual, YMMV.
Posted by: pudge on January 24, 2008 07:48 PMMichael Steele as a VP would be a good start in the right direction for the GOP. Let's start the transition by having him on the ticket in 2008.
Posted by: Rick D on January 24, 2008 09:49 PM"if taken as you say, then it seems to me that the Senate has an obligation not just to vote up or down, but to vote up! The Senate shall consent, after all, right? I don't think it was intended to be read as an obligation of any kind. If that were the case, shouldn't it be mentioned in Article I?"
I think you make a good point about there not being a mention in Article I--I believe that the only place that the Advice and Consent language is located is in Article II.
I don't think a grammatical reading of the advice and consent clause would lead to a REQUIREMENT to consent to nominees since it says "...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...". As I said, I think this creates an affirmative duty, not to consent to nominees, but to either give consent or not. I think the use of the filibuster is avoiding that affirmative duty.
If you took it to an extreme, a minority of 41 Senators could keep a president from appointing any cabinet member, fill any vacancies in the judiciary, or appoint any ambassadors. This would devestate the executive branch and I think any president would appeal to the Supreme Court to rule on whether this use of the filibuster is constitutional. I think the Supreme Court would agree with the president...
The Supreme Court would punt. They wouldn't have jurisdiction.
Posted by: Doug on January 25, 2008 11:03 AMIf the Senate Rules allowed it, yes. Absolutely.
This would devestate the executive branch
But that is how it works now.
and I think any president would appeal to the Supreme Court to rule on whether this use of the filibuster is constitutional. I think the Supreme Court would agree with the president...
I half-agree with Doug. The Supreme Court would rule that this is a nonjusticable political issue. I don't agree that it is, but that is, I think, what the Supreme Court would rule.
However, if they actually did decide the issue, I disagree that the Supreme Court would side with the President. The Supreme Court has shown little but deference to the legislature in regards to how it comes up with its own conclusions on pretty much everything.
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 02:22 PMI said at the start of this discussion that I consider the "gang of 14" to be included in McCain's column of negatives--I still do. I know you disagree...so no change in status...
Posted by: Bill H on January 25, 2008 03:28 PMOf course they would have jurisdiction--it would be a question of interpretation of the constitution. That's what SCOTUS is for. Here's the scenario: The Legislative branch (or at least the minority in the legislative branch) claims that the Constitution allows them to NOT vote on any presidential nominees unless at least 60 votes allow them to. In turn, the Executive branch claims that the Constitution does not give them that right. SCOTUS has no choice but to rule.
I didn't know the term, but Pudge pointed it out...The Supreme court would punt because this issue would be nonjusticiable. That was the term the Court used when Nixon went to the Court on his impeachment hearings, that's how they take up Senate or House rules, by calling it nonjusticiable. I don't think it would be because of being a political issue as so much that the commitment of rules is each House's alone. They wouldn't even have to take it up, that would just be the standard wave off.
Posted by: Doug on January 25, 2008 08:43 PMNo, the Supreme Court declines to rule on such things much of the time. They absolutely could punt, and do punt.
There's another Nixon case here which is perhaps more instructive: the case of Walter Nixon. He was an impeached and convicted federal judge. Nixon thought the process used to convict him in the Senate violated the Constitution. He filed suit. It went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said: "The District Court held that his claim was nonjusticiable, i.e., involved a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed."
Now, again, I am not claiming that the Supreme Court CANNOT decide this case. I agree with you that it CAN. I am saying it is likely, given recent precedents over the last couple of decades, to CHOOSE not to. That it would choose instead to allow this to be played out politically, instead of deciding it on the merits.
SCOTUS certainly does not have to rule on the merits, as it did not for Judge Nixon. The ruled, quite plainly, that "before we reach the merits of such a claim, we must decide whether it is 'justiciable,' that is, whether it is a claim that may be resolved by the courts. We conclude that it is not." There is no obligation to rule on the merits if it is to their minds nonjusticable (at least, no obligation that they recognize).
Posted by: pudge on January 25, 2008 10:26 PMIf you have two branches with differing views of the interpretation of the Constitution, SCOTUS has to resolve that Constitutional Crisis.
Posted by: Bill H on January 26, 2008 04:59 AMIf the executive brings the suit, SCOTUS punts.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 08:11 AMAs I said before, you are simply wrong on this issue. I've told you why you are--I cannot do anything more.
Posted by: Bill H on January 26, 2008 08:29 AMSCOTUS would rather let it work itself out than take up the questions on an ever shrinking Senate recess or rules of the Senate. They would wait and wait and hope the citizens take care of the mess every two years until it's done.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 10:57 AMFirst, the definition of Constitutional Crisis (from Wikipedia for lack of a better source):
"A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the smooth operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).
A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention."
2. So, let's say Hillary Clinton is elected in 2008 and the R's are in the minority in the Senate and say they are not going to allow any of Hillary's nominees (for Cabinet, Ambassadors, judges, etc) to come up for a vote. If Harry Reid did not invoke the Constitutional Option (and if you think the D's would shirk from taking this step, you're nuts--they know about bringing a gun to a gun fight [hell, they'd bring a bazooka]), then Hillary would file suit with SCOTUS as I suggested.
You really think SCOTUS is going to "punt"? Really? Ok, go on with your dreams...
In previous court cases, SCOTUS has punted in similar circumstances and will continue to do so in this case of filibustering. Now recess appointments would be a different matter: If the president decided the Senate's shenanigans of 30 second sessions wasn't constitutional and decided to use recess appointments, the legislative branch would have a case that would be heard by SCOTUS.
Posted by: Doug on January 26, 2008 03:44 PMNot quite. You have to have a majority in the Senate claiming that the Senate does not have to vote. A minority cannot accomplish this, because the majority can simply rule that the attempt by the minority is unconstitutional. So this has to have the majority behind it. And the reason WHY the Senate believes it doesn't have to vote -- whether because 40 Senators are blocking a vote, or just because the whole of the Senate simply doesn't feel like voting -- is irrelevant to the legal aspect of the conflict.
If you have two branches with differing views of the interpretation of the Constitution, SCOTUS has to resolve that Constitutional Crisis.
Again, no, it does not. Just like it didn't in the Nixon case. You may think it SHOULD but it does not HAVE to. And also, just like it didn't in warrantless wiretapping: remember, someone has to actually file suit for the Court to ever hear it in the first place. If neither the President nor Congress files suit, the Court will not even hear it, let alone resolve it.
The worst-case scenario is that we have no new appointees for two years until the people vote 1/3 of the bums out of office, and if that doesn't work, two more years after that. There is no serious liklihood of this happening, and even if it did, it's hard to see how the Court would need to get involved: if the Senate does not vote no any nominees, one of two things would result: either the people will be very angry and toss them out of office, or the people will be supportive. If the former, then it is extremely unlikely the Senate would have done this in the first place, and if the latter, then there's no real crisis, because the people are behind it.
The political realm can take care of this itself. It always has, and almost surely always will.
Again, I said the Court CAN rule on this case, but they simply probably WOULD not. If the extremely unlikely actually did happen, and there was actually a paralyzed executive because of Congress' refusal to appoint, then perhaps the Court would choose to rule on the case at that point. But that isn't the likely scenario. It is nearly impossible. The likely scenario is what has happened over and over, and the Court would almost surely choose to call it nonjusticable.
Which is what I originally said would happen and why it would not actually come to this point. And this is also where it would have ended had Frist had his way. This was the original point of this discussion--the rest is academic as to whether SCOTUS would rule or not. I say they obviously would, you don't think so. In actual fact, it really doesn't matter, because it wouldn't get to that point, as you have agreed...
Posted by: Bill H on January 27, 2008 05:52 AM