Miers nomination thoughts

I don't have any better explanation that anyone else for the Miers nomination.  In my too-clever-by-half moments I think that something like this is going on: that Miers is an intentionally disappointing nominee; that a republican strategist has no intention of seeing Roe overturning -- so that it can be continuously used in future elections to push the republican party even further to the right ('we need politicians who are even more socially conservative!').

It's also possible, I suppose, that the right really does want her, and is trying to dupe Dems into not opposing her.  That this intra-republican party war a smoke screen. 

But I think it's more likely that movement conservatism wants a fight while the White House wants someone to seem inoffensive.  And that an unexpected consequence of the Miers nomination is that some on the right are realizing that Bush is actually not very competent, i.e., he doesn't do the job of being president very well.  Some of them are just now realizing that his judgment is bad, his decisions arbitrary, his governing philosophy non-existent.  Of course, it would have been nice if they had figured this out before they all went and voted for him last year, but one can you expect from the modern republican party?

The good news for Dems, I suppose, is that this nomination could be bad for the long-term health of the republican party.  Really makes one wonder how a republican nominee in 2008 will handle the Bush legacy.  Unless things turn around dramatically, it seems like Bush is headed for a unusually unsuccessful two-term presidency, unsatisfactory to the left and the right, and that the lack of success will be obvious all but the most blind partisans.  How does a party run on such a legacy?

-- Michael

Comments

[Cheryl]

Welcome back. I was missing your posts.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is this:

Miers is a dark horse just like Roberts, with little record to pin her down. what is known of her is that she has publicly opposed abortion and that she has acted as Bush's personal legal counsel, just as Roberts helped Bush pressure the state of Florida to drop the recount. Both Miers and Roberts are also solidly corporate, the darlings of the rich.

Having spent much time with her, it is obvious that Bush is well versed in Miers' personal judicial philosphy and he is very well convinced that she will be an extremist or else he would not have nominated her.

She is a 'Bushwoman'.

...the "up by the bootstraps" reputation of the Bushwomen obscures the Bush administration's record of selling out the interests of environmental, health, labor, and security issues in favor of well-moneyed corporate interests...

Flanders turns her outrage to the "con job" that the women in Bush's inner circle foster. Her densely documented and important thesis is that female figureheads of the Bush administration, such as as Lynn Cheney (an IWF founder), Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes and Elaine Chao, rose to power as beneficiaries of the civil rights and women's movements, then cynically pulled the ladder up behind them. Now, she charges, these women eagerly provide cover and spin for extremist domestic and foreign policies that mock Bush's persona as a compassionate conservative.

The Bush formula is so consistent and transparent that I am surprised that you are still having trouble figuring it out.

Her own statements that Bush is the most brilliant man she ever met is indicative not of her stupidity but rather of her loyalty to the chief. With the announcement of the pending Plame indictments, there is one patently obvious reason why Bush would want a crony on the Supreme Court.

He wants someone who, when push comes to shove, will overturn criminal convictions for him, Rove and Cheney, or at the very least run interference to keep criminal scandals from ever surfacing.

As far a the right wing protests go, no it is not a recognition that Bush is incompetent. The right wing does not care if its people are competent. the only thing the right wing cares about is enacting its agenda. the right wing is just now beginning to realize that, despite all the anti-abortion and anti-gay rhetoric coming from the GOP, the party really represents the interests of the corporate rich, not the religious fanatics.

This is similar to the disaffecton of the left with Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Both sides of the aisle are now starting to resent the fact that their own core interests are not represented by the wealthy aristocrats in power, regardless of whether it is new money or old money in power. Both parties are beholden to the corporate trough and business interests are dominating the agenda, not philosophical concerns. The right wing is finally getting tired of lip service too.

By the way, there is another reason why Bush might want a crony on the court. There has been another likely criminal assault on the US by our own intelligence services, this time tularemia during a planned massive anti-war protest. With this level of criminality going on, the GOP leadership must be getting nervous that they may get hauled up by the short hairs eventually, particularly if they fail to rig the vote in 2006 and 2008.

[moebius]

A man’s mistress knows he cheats on his wife, but is still somehow convinced that she is special. He would not lie to her, he would not mistreat *her* because he truly loves her. Then this mistress comes to the heartbreaking realization that he always was a liar - and a cheater - who only truly cares about his own self. I think that’s where the Right is right now with Bush.

[Bob Vargas]

Miers, I don't know anything about her. But I think that Bush should turn over "all" documents to the Democrats and Republicans for they can vote wisely for this very high important lifetime position. How can President Brush believe in a free democracy when he denies them certain documents?

[cold sores on lips]

Democrats, including state party Chairman Bobby Kahn, criticized the move.