Answer the Question!
Of all the infuriating press conference answers of this administration, I think this one from yesterday has to be the craziest:
Q Well, the second part of my question is, if there's no litmus test, regardless of who serves on the Supreme Court, would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I'm not going to interject that kind of issue in the midst of these hearings. Harriet Miers will stand on her own. I made my position very clear in the course of my campaigns, my position, and I'm a pro-life President. Harriet Miers is going to go up to the Senate, and they're going to look at her and determine whether or not she's got the temperament, the intelligence, and the philosophy to be an excellent Supreme Court judge. And she will be. She will be.
It's a striking reminder that despite almost five years in office as President of the United States and over a year before as a candidate for that office, George W. Bush has refused to offer a clear statement of his views on this high-profile issue. It's honestly a bit of a scandal that the press has let Bush get away with dodging this question for so long. He's deployed plenty of code words -- references to a "culture of life," to Dredd Scot, even going so far as to define himself as a "pro-life president" -- but he's consistently refused to say what that means. I understand the rationale for thinking Supreme Court nominees shouldn't offer their opinion on which rulings they'd like to see overturned, but surely the same thing doesn't apply to the President.
Does Bush want to see Roe overturned or doesn't he? If it is overturned, does he think abortion should be banned or doesn't he? Over the past few days it seems to have dawned on conservatives that "trust me" isn't a sufficient presidential commitment to their objectives. Wouldn't they like to see Bush answer the question? It's not an especially complicated one.
And almost equally remarkable is the fact that most of the media seem to see no contradiction between their repeated assertions that Republican abortion policy is popular and the Bush's complete unwillingness to actually endorse these policies in public. Why, if I didn't know better I would think that overturnbign Roe v. Wade would be unpopular, just because the public supports it by a 2-to-1 margin!
October 5, 2005 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are asking for honesty from this bozo. Would ya mind not bogartin' that joint, and pass it on this way? It must be pretty good stuff....;<)
October 5, 2005 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
October 5, 2005 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush keeps telling us he has no 'litmus test' for a Supreme, yet he then goes on to say he wants a 'strict constructionist' judge. Isn't that the very litmus test he has created in selecting a judge? Why doesn't the media simply call him on the whole litmus test b.s. that George himself doesn't seem to understand?
October 5, 2005 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are easy questions. Answer: he doesn't care. When someone goes 5 years without answering repeated questions about a controversy, and doesn't intervene in any way in the controversy, he doesn't really care about it.
October 5, 2005 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to change the topic too much, but my favorite answer from yesterday's press conference was this:
BUSH: And then there was the reaction about: How about getting this debris removed? And there was some bureaucracy, some rules that prevented the debris getting removed right off the bat. And I will explain why if you're interested.
OK. Now that you're interested, I'll tell you.
Because they didn't want to be moving federally paid dozers on private property. Imagine cleaning up a debris and the person shows them, says, Where's my valuable china? or, Where's my valuable art?
Wow . . who knew that the reason the feds were so slow to remove debris after Katrina was because the locals were concerned that the federal bulldozers encroaching on their private property might damage their valuable china and fine art?
Does this man really think most Americans live off trust funds or what?
October 5, 2005 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State:
He is his mother's son.
October 5, 2005 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, Matt, surely you know by now that our exasperation, as well-founded as it is, lacks enough weight with the WH, the WH mouthpieces, and the American public to make a difference.
The American public deserves to hear exactly what the WH thinks it needs to know, and nothing more. Bush had to hold a press conference just so that he can reiterate what he said the day before about Miers. He probably was p.o.'d over the fact that it wasn't good enough the first time.
The WH Press, by default, is the enemy (with an occasional infiltrator like Gannon, but the enemy nonetheless). Any question the press asks is treated like an attack to deflect with knee-jerk precision. Doesn't matter if the press subsequently asked a question that would even help the WH position.
So it's one big game of Pac-Man. The WH Press are the bad guys, and Bush spends all of his energy running away from the bad guys as he eats those little dots of TV air time.
October 5, 2005 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although, if RoeVWade were overturned by the Supremes it would just go to the state level and be allowed to fester continuously there for an extended period of time, but I think they care more about votes at the nat'l than the state level.
dlw
October 5, 2005 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And daddy's too. Remember when George Sr. was so surprised to find scanners and computers in the grocery check out line . . .
Gawd, the underprivelged are sure doing well in America, aren't they . . . must be the tax breaks we've given 'em on their capital gains . . .
October 5, 2005 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Bush hasn't done anything to move public opinion his way (fortunately). So we have a stalemate in which about 33% think abortion should always be legal, 33% want it legal with some restrictions so it isn't done casually, and 33% want it outlawed. Under those circumstances, neither extreme can move the center enough their way to change the status quo except at the margins. And as long as that is tru, politically it is suicidal for the GOP to actually outlaw abortion any more than at the margins. Meanwhile, technology keeps making abortion easier, through things like the morning after pill and other miscarriage-inducing pills. As with gay rights, time is not on the 33% anti-abortion side, and they know it, hence their hysteria on both counts. But Bush? He cares only about his own future, which is getting shorter and shorter, along with his attention span.
October 5, 2005 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
But to his base the overturning of Roe is just the start. There are several ways Roe could be overturned with vastly different consequences. It could be declared a matter for the states; or SCOTUS could declare a blastomer a full citizen with equal protection and strict scrutiny. No one even will understand what "overturning Roe" means until a specific case is granted cert and decided. I think it has been overturned already, with Casey.
The words are meaningless, and the President doesn't need to say them. By saying he is a "pro-life" President, he is sending signals about a whole complex of issues, for example, the assisted suicide case before SCOTUS today.
October 5, 2005 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He has played the social conservatives like a violin."
October 5, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bryan, that is exactly right. They are full of crap when they talk about litmus test. Gonzales doesn't pass some conservative litmus tests, hell neither does Miers. I wish they would stop using that because in the end, there always will be litmus tests, no matter who is doing the nominating.
October 5, 2005 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
the president said he takes responsibility. But what exactly does he mean?
You're right, this is a completely hollow statement. It means nothing.
October 5, 2005 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Although, if RoeVWade were overturned by the Supremes it would just go to the state level"
Where did this come from? Everyone seems to accept this. I see no reason why it wouldn't be a federal issue. Unless the Supreme Court is going to seriously rethink its commerce clause jurisprudence, there could be federal legislation.
October 5, 2005 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a similar fun exercise.
Try finding the words "The president supports the renewal of the assault weapons ban" or "The President opposes the renewal of the assault weapons ban".
Remember folks, he's a man of principle.
October 5, 2005 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
When does life begin? How is conception defined (before or after attaching to uterine wall)? [to get at moring after pill]
When does life end?
Are there variations in what is pro-life? Could a person be pro-life but view life starting at a different point (e.g., viability test, after birth)?
For pro-life person what is the explanation of support for death sentence? Are there other exceptions to pro-life besides death sentence, abortion after rape?
October 5, 2005 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real power in the court will not be displayed in confronting the major social issues. It will be in advocating for corporations. The wisest comments I have read to date are in Brad Plumer's blog: http://plumer.blogspot.com/ "The Business of the Supreme Court Is ..." Reading this reminded me of who really brought GW to power and why Ms Miers provides such major league payback to his real base -- bidness interests. GW has been their hack for 5 years. This is the biggest opportunity for the corporate world to stretch the big inning.
October 5, 2005 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bush Party could still use abortion as a social issue even if Rowe v. Wade is overturned. The RR's focus would then be on a federal law outlawing abortion or state laws to the same effect (where the RR has had considerable success in restricting the abortion right).
October 5, 2005 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is almost assuredly wrong. A politician (a successful one, at least) doesn't just answer a question because it is asked of him, he answers it if it helps him politically.
Let's just say he DOES care about overturning Roe. He then needs to answer a second question: does it help him politically to say publicly he wants to overturn Roe? I think the answer to this is no. He's made the calculation that saying that publicly would hurt more than help (especially if you can signal the same to your supporters in other ways, with other words).
Matt is, of course, right that avoiding the question requires the press to not persist in asking him about it. But the problem, I think, is that so many politicians avoid the question these days that the press doesn't even try any more.
October 5, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. Note that my comment had 2 parts: he doesn’t answer the question and he doesn’t do anything. W cares about terrorism, so he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (he didn’t do it very well, mind you, but that’s another story). He cares about social security, so he tried to reform it (he didn’t do it very well, mind you, but that’s another story). He cares about being reelected, so he cut taxes (he didn’t do it very well, mind you, but that’s another story). What has he actually done about Roe v. Wade? Answer: nothing.
October 5, 2005 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what can he do about Roe v Wade? Answer: nothing, other than appoint Supreme Court justices who he thinks will overturn it. Which is (I infer) what he thinks he's done.
October 5, 2005 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 5, 2005 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again wondering what would happen if he was asked these questions by a religious leader or religious commentator what would he do? For example if the writer for some religious magazine/newsletter was able to get an interview (tough itself) would he answer...Naive perhaps, but curious nonetheless.
October 5, 2005 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, but what infuriates the theocratic right (with considerable reason, from their point of view) is that he probably didn't need to appoint stealth nominees. The balance of power in the Senate is such that he could probably appoint and have confirmed someone who would be willing to testify in his confirmation hearing that he thinks Roe ought to be overruled. So, from the right's point of view, a stealth nominee makes them think that what is being hidden is a willingness to uphold Roe, not overrule it. And you know what? They might be right!
October 5, 2005 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Author suggested that rather than the conventional wisdom of Bush needing the religious right, that in fact it is just the opposite. Bush, read Rove, has hiijacked the religious right for their own purposes of building a solid, dominant Republican party. As we see more and more actions that help the corporate community this noncoventional view could very well be accurate.
October 5, 2005 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
" The balance of power in the Senate is such that he could probably appoint and have confirmed someone who would be willing to testify in his confirmation hearing that he thinks Roe ought to be overruled"
This is very questionable. There are at least four RINOs who would vote no and probably more. The Democrats would certainly filibuster and the nuclear option would have to be used. Would enough Rs go along with that? Would McCain use the opportunity to stick his finger in Bush's eye again?
October 5, 2005 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink