Mired in Miers
Oct. 11th, 2005 12:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
topazAs the Harriet Miers nomination marches on I am becomingly increasingly convinced of a grotesque irony: the Republican wing of the Senate is putting up the hue and cry against someone who is probably exactly the person they most want to have on the Supreme Court.
Who is Harriet Miers? While almost none of us know, the inner circle of the Bush administration certainly does. Bush, Rove and crew know who Harriet Miers is and what sort of judge she will make; you can put that in the bank. James Dobson's ominous remark this week, about how he is very satisfied with Harriet Miers but he's not allowed to discuss why, puts the lock on it. The people who have nominated her know exactly who she is and how she will rule. If she's good enough for James Dobson, she's good enough to send shivers down my spine.
Moreover, while Bush himself may lack good judgement, he has unquestionably surrounded himself with smart and politically capable operatives. Everything about this nomination says that Bush's team has learned from 41's "mistake" with David Souter, and that they have taken care to choose someone who will not disappoint the base as Souter did.
And in response, the GOP revolts — because Bush's nominee is not another Scalia or Thomas, someone with a documented track record of eating fire and belching dissents. I wonder just who Tom DeLay was expecting Bush to nominate. Who did he imagine might survive the confirmation process at this point? Was he hoping that, after almost twenty years, Robert Bork would finally have his moment in the sun?
Miers is Bush's perfect stealth candidate. She is exactly the person who his base wants on the court, and the only kind of person who could survive a confirmation hearing at this point. Yet there is a chance that the GOP will scuttle this nomination because, in effect, she is too confirmable for them. If the Republicans succeed in killing this nomination, NARAL should send Tom DeLay a thank-you card.
Who is Harriet Miers? While almost none of us know, the inner circle of the Bush administration certainly does. Bush, Rove and crew know who Harriet Miers is and what sort of judge she will make; you can put that in the bank. James Dobson's ominous remark this week, about how he is very satisfied with Harriet Miers but he's not allowed to discuss why, puts the lock on it. The people who have nominated her know exactly who she is and how she will rule. If she's good enough for James Dobson, she's good enough to send shivers down my spine.
Moreover, while Bush himself may lack good judgement, he has unquestionably surrounded himself with smart and politically capable operatives. Everything about this nomination says that Bush's team has learned from 41's "mistake" with David Souter, and that they have taken care to choose someone who will not disappoint the base as Souter did.
And in response, the GOP revolts — because Bush's nominee is not another Scalia or Thomas, someone with a documented track record of eating fire and belching dissents. I wonder just who Tom DeLay was expecting Bush to nominate. Who did he imagine might survive the confirmation process at this point? Was he hoping that, after almost twenty years, Robert Bork would finally have his moment in the sun?
Miers is Bush's perfect stealth candidate. She is exactly the person who his base wants on the court, and the only kind of person who could survive a confirmation hearing at this point. Yet there is a chance that the GOP will scuttle this nomination because, in effect, she is too confirmable for them. If the Republicans succeed in killing this nomination, NARAL should send Tom DeLay a thank-you card.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-11 12:45 pm (UTC)Bush is against the War on Drugs, the expansion of the federal government's tentacles into nearly every part of daily life, the steady erosion of the rights of the accused in courts, and massive government spending?
Or is it just parts of the political work of the last forty years or so he's against? (In contrast to his base (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm), he's very much in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants and continued mass migration into the country, leading paleoconservatives to wonder if he's trying to elect a new people (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/Myths/brecht.htm) to ensure that permanent Republican majority Karl Rove likes to talk about.)
I personally think Bush isn't for or against anything except the continued political power of himself and his clan.