Will Gordon Smith Be a Leader?
Kari Chisholm
Senator Gordon Smith has gotten lots of great press and public support because of his well-publicized "bipartisan" style and partnership with Senator Ron Wyden.
If Gordon Smith is really a bipartisan consensus-builder, it's time for him to play his cards. It's time for Senator Smith to step up to the plate, walk over to 1600 Pennsylvania, and have a conversation with the President about the Supreme Court.
When he talks to the President, he should be crystal clear: Oregonians want a moderate jurist with mainstream views.
Will Senator Gordon Smith show some leadership? Will he put pressure on the President - or will he take the summer off, and acquiesce to whatever nominee emerges from the White House?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 7, '05
He will do the latter-take the summer off, and acquiesce to whatever nominee emerges from the White House.
9:01 p.m.
Jul 7, '05
In the 90s, as Supreme Court nominations loomed for President Clinton, he did an odd thing: he consulted with the GOP and asked their advice. The ranking minority leader of the judiciary committee at the time was Orrin Hatch (R-UT). One source suggests that the names Ginsberg and Breyer came not from Clinton, but Hatch. Said the source, Hatch asked:
Clinton had been considering his Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit, whom, the source reports, Hatch said would be a difficult confirmation. Instead, the source quotes Hatch continuing:
The source? Orrin Hatch. The above quotes come from his autobiography. Now, do you think Bush will consult Pat Leahy, the ranking minority leader on the committee now, for his opinion? Perhaps we should ask our Senator if he'd encourage Bush to do so.
Jul 7, '05
who's "mainstream"?
Oregon mainstream is no M28, no on M30, no on M34, Yes on M36 and yes on M37.
Are you promoting our mainstream?
Jul 7, '05
Following up on Jeff's comment:
. . . do you think Bush will consult Pat Leahy, the ranking minority leader on the committee now, for his opinion?
On last night's News Hour, Gwen Eiffel interviewed Senators Leahy and Specter about the upcoming nomination. Whether for show or for real, both Specter and Leahy seemed to be advocating for a nominee akin to Sandra Day O'Connor. A sort of "don't rock the boat" kind of candidate. Both men also made it clear that they did not like the idea of political groups running advertisements for or against a particular nominee, saying that their decisions would come from information provided through the official review of any nominee. More interesting still, the two also suggested that a nominee need not come from the ranks of the judiciary. My impression was that neither of the Senators was looking for a fight or an opportunity to score points against opposing parties. It will be interesting to see if the other 98 members of the Senate feel the same way.
BTW, my money is on Bush consulting Leahy. Bush can't afford a contenious nomination - a moderate conservative, with Leahy's nod, would be a cheap and easy win for the Prez.
10:23 p.m.
Jul 7, '05
Oregon's mainstream is also No on 35, yes on assisted suicide, yes on medical marijuana, and definitely pro-choice. It's also Democrats in every statewide office, 4/5 congressionals, a D-dominated Senate, and relatively close House.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you that every single electoral outcome represents the mainstream - sometimes they represent better campaign financing, better campaign strategy, or the particular language on a specific issue. But even if you're right (and especially if you're right), then you don't get to go cherrypicking.
Jul 7, '05
I think that he will stand up and be vocal on the 1st round on names that are released, then fold up under the party pressure after the 1st cut.
Jul 8, '05
The definition of insanity:
Having this conversation about what "drama queen" Gordon Smith is going to do on every critical issue before the US Senate and thinking the result is going to be any different.
Was it post #4 or #5 regarding Smith and the nuclear option before we were finally graced with his "people of faith and the federal bench" speech on the floor of the US Senate?
2:31 a.m.
Jul 8, '05
Gordon's brand of bipartisanship reminds me of a friend of mine who is a vegetarian, sometimes.
Jul 8, '05
Jack:
Wonderful. I will use that line many times before I die.
Jul 8, '05
"BTW, my money is on Bush consulting Leahy. Bush can't afford a contenious nomination - a moderate conservative, with Leahy's nod, would be a cheap and easy win for the Prez."
When did bush ever give a damn about how he appeared, what other people thought, or what he could he could or could not afford to do? There is no history of such behavior in his past to back your contention. If he did consult, it would be for show only . . . which there is historical record to back. As for Smith on this issue . . . he'll go with the President without a second thought, just like the recent nominations to the courts, which as far as I can tell he didn't have a problem with.
Jul 8, '05
I despise the right-wing just as much as the next guy but it's almost laughable to see my side desperately trying to force a twice-elected conservative president to appoint moderates. Was former ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg a moderate when President Clinton put her on the court? Was Stephen Breyer? Nope. Yet they were confirmed by the Senate without any serious opposition whatsoever.
If the various liberal groups want to see a moderate/liberal justice on the court then maybe they should think about actually winning elections for a change.
9:08 a.m.
Jul 8, '05
Aaron, you wrote, "I think that he will stand up and be vocal on the 1st round on names that are released, then fold up under the party pressure after the 1st cut."
Huh? There won't be a round of names... There will be an announcement of a single nominee. (Or two, if Rehnquist goes.)
Jul 8, '05
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result. Bush may consult with the Democrats, but he will do what he intended to do all along. He will nominate a right wing Scalia/Thomas clone. He has never been a "uniter."
For me, Gordon showed his true colors on the filibuster issue, I believe it was. He declared something to the effect that the people are so evenly split that he would have to vote for the nuclear option. making this decision revealed his agenda. If the people are split, the decision ought to be to make no change. He decided to make a change because that was his agenda.
Jul 8, '05
Gordon's brand of Republican reminds me of a friend of mine who is a non-smoker, sometimes.