Harriet Miers Mired

[Jacque]

http://www.cagle.com/news/HarrietMiers/images/brookins.gif

What do you think? Honest debate, political show, or an opportunity to abandon ship?

[C.J.Woolf]

Some of all three? I'm unsure myself. Republicans have to be thinking about life after Bush, and Miers' thin resume is a plausible excuse to make a show of independence from Bush.

One thing I am sure of is Bush's motive for appointing Miers. The only qualification that matters to Bush is her loyalty to him, and by extension to his real base, the big corporations. The Bush administration will face some big legal trouble over the next three years (and beyond), and he'll need all the friends on the Court he can get.

The fundies are right to feel betrayed. Miers might or might not be a sincere fundy. A lapsed Catholic joining a fundy church is a suspiciously good career move for a Texas politician. (It worked for Bush, the former Episcopalian.) She might or might not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. (For what it's worth, the corporate elite tend not to be socially conservative.) But that doesn't matter to Bush. He has always looked out for Number One.

[joft]

I'm sure there was a memo that went out saying "Make a big show about not approving of her, that will definitely get us enough of the democrats' votes. Meanwhile the president and a few other people will persist in just vaguely saying 'trust me on this one' and then we can act as though we're hesitantly compromising just in time to vote her in"

[Jacque]

There are so many explanations stemming from a long tradition of incoherent argumentation that I don't think conservatives even know what's going on. As for it being an insidious mix up in the talking points, the RNC hasn't thrown any odd balls.

Anyway, it's not surprising that they're implicating liberals for dividing them on this issue, which kind of says that there can be no honest debate on the right because debate and dissent was something liberals invented to confuse conservatives. :rolleyes:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/
"Here's my theory: the Democrats took a lot of heat from their base for being too soft on Roberts. So, it's likely that Harry Reid played hard ball. He probably went to Bush and said either you take a third rate and/or liberal candidate whom we find acceptable or we filibuster....That's just it: I don't believe George Bush nominated Harriet Miers because he thought he couldn't get his nominee through. To the contrary, I believe George Bush nominated Harriet Miers because he feared the consequences of winning with a better nominee. The Democrats have openly threatened to shut down the Senate if the nuclear option is used." :lol:

[geniusndisguise]

I think George Bush nominated Miers because he knows her and he knows how she will vote, ie. straight down the conservative line. That, actually, is ironic because the conservative theory about Supreme Court justices is that they are supposed to check their ideology at the door and rule according to the constitution (a la Roberts). Surely conservative views are not constitutional every single time! This is why I'm upset about Miers.