BCT Editorial – 7/7/05

This page was last updated on July 7, 2005.

Base move; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 7, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“One thing is certain about President Bush’s nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. On his first chance to fill a vacancy on the nation’s highest court, Bush will placate his base first.

“Why? Because he can’t lose.

“If Bush nominates a candidate who pleases his base and that nominee is appointed to the Supreme Court, the president obviously wins points with his hardcore supporters.

“A rejection wouldn’t hurt him either because it would energize his base. But instead of directing their anger at Bush, they would take out their frustrations on those who opposed his nominee. That applies even if he has to come up with a more moderate replacement nominee.

“That’s why all the talk about Bush nominating someone cut out of O’Connor’s judicial cloth seems almost naive. If we know anything about Bush, it is that he knows the importance of protecting his standing with his base. By nominating their dream candidate the first chance he gets, Bush is in a win-win situation.”

[RWC] What’s amazing is this editorial implicitly criticizes President Bush for fulfilling a promise from both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns even before he makes a nomination.

By using the terms “base” and “hardcore supporters,” the author wants us to believe a minority of the majority of voters who voted for President Bush wants judges who interpret the law, not make it. Another word that deserves note is “moderate.” In this case, the author wanted to say “liberal” but was afraid.

In case the Times missed it, President Bush’s court nominations to date have leaned toward judges who would interpret law, not make law.

Finally, you’ll note the editorial never attempts to describe the so-called base’s “dream candidate.” I believe this is for one or both of two reasons. First, the author doesn’t want us to know what an ideal nominee would be because that would expose his agenda, convincing us that President Bush’s nominees are dangerous. Second, the author didn’t feel he could get away with wrongly depicting an ideal nominee and again didn’t want to be exposed.