Who is Harriet Miers?

...and how many milliseconds of difference are there between her point of view and Justice O'Connor's?

If you read my piece below on the Roberts nomination (and preview of this one), you won't be surprised to read that my opinion was that Gonzales was Bush's first choice, but he was convinced not to go with it. Unlike Gonzales, Miers' fingerprints are not all over some of the more controversial White House decisions, like the Guantanamo detainee practices, stretching the Geneva Conventions, etc. These would have caught Gonzales up in a prolonged mess before confirmation--which would not have been assured. Apparently some of the right-wingers were planning to dig in their heels about him, as well--as they have with Miers. (Not that I believe many--or any--Republican Senators will end up voting against her). And, although Hispanic, he's not a woman. (Duh!) So, I think the Bushites decided to go a similar direction with the less well-known Miers, who was intended as a female Gonzales with less well-known views; a sort of Roberts/Gonzales chimera.

I think Bush had to give up on Gonzales, at least for this go-round; anyway, he still gets to be Attorney General. I think that the prevailing impression when the Miers nomination goes to the floor will be that she will resemble O'Connor in her decisions--which I do not agree is the right standard, but I certainly believe it will be the standard that will be applied.

The Tar-Baby Scam

I, for one, am not going to accept that Democrats should not filibuster her appointment because either: 1) right-wingers are disappointed in her selection; or 2) Harry Reid supposedly suggested her name as a possible nominee. There are major unknowns, and there is undoubtedly some dirt related to various Bushite messes she has had to try to clean up. There will be a lot of requests for information for the White House--most of them will not be fulfilled. I think the question of whether to allow a floor vote for her should depend on the relevance of unanswered questions (after the committee hearings, which I think will be like Roberts'--rather unrevealing).

The right-wing lobby did want to provoke a knock-down, drag-out fight on this nomination, and they are disappointed that they may not get it. I think that was the Bushites' intention here, that is, to come up with a woman nominee who has a fairly good chance of getting through without a filibuster. I watched the Pres' news conference quite closely the other day; he seems actually to want Congress to do something (though the likelihood they will, and the value of any legislation they could come up with are two completely different matters) rather than get totally bogged down in partisan warfare. At this time.

I think that's a smart call; right now things are running rather strongly against the Bushites.

The right doesn't have to despair over an opportunity forever lost, though. There's quite a good chance that there will be another nomination to the Court during the 3+ Bushite years remaining. If it were to be a replacement for Stevens or Ginsburg, a war is almost assured. So, don't be upset--it's probably still coming, just not so soon. I don't believe the majority will be stronger after 2006, but it will probably not be radically different, so the game will essentially be the same. The most interesting outcome of the congressional election will be to see whether the voters reward or punish the Gang of 14 members who have to run for re-election. That will have a chilling or encouraging effect (depending) on those who want to deepen the trenches between aisles in Congress.

You know, I'm not one of them. It's not because I'm a "moderate", but because I'm a "radical". Why should they pretend they have such differences when they agree on so much? The answer: It's about power, of course; but I'm only interested in the power to do something. Since neither party has much of a vision of the future, so what? Until we start getting our act together, I'm all in favor of cooperative muddling.

On the Washington Post Politics Talk Forum:

From: DAVIDJEROME
To: chinshihtang
(22 of 23)

5317.22 in reply to 5317.17


what type of nominee do you think Bush will select when Miers goes down?

Reply


From: chinshihtang
To: DAVIDJEROME unread
(23 of 23)

5317.23 in reply to 5317.22

Actually, I don't think she will "go down" (no distasteful sexual allusion intended). I think she'll slip through in a relatively close vote, after a fairly prolonged confirmation process (due to White House stonewalling of Senate information requests). I don't think a filibuster will hold longer than, say, 30 days, and I think the Republican senators will vote in lockstep for her when it comes down to it.
A few of the Gang of 14 members will break ranks and say that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to merit a prolonged filibuster, while reserving the right to vote against her. The threat of Nuklar Option Mofo will be, like a sharp-breaking inside curve ball, enough to bend a couple Dems' knees. They will realize that it would be unchivalrous to filibuster a woman who's going to be doing her best to smile a lot and look gracious.
These are all guesses on my part at this point, trying to "poke the pig" to come out of her hole.