Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Harriet Miers a smoke-screen?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:49 PM
Original message
Is Harriet Miers a smoke-screen?
Not sure if anyone else has discussed this, but I got the feeling last night that Bush/Rove might WANT Harriet Miers to be rebuked from the Supreme court, and they want the Republican's to do it.

What a perfect way to help out your Congressmen and Senators get re-elected in '06 than by giving them one sure-fire way to "stand up to Bush" and show that their not his personal lap dog. I was racking my brain trying to figure out WHY Bush would nominate her, and this is all I could come up with. Then, when she is left unconfirmed, Bush can nominate a truly evil person, like Alberto Gonzalez or someone similar. Of course this renomination would take place after the '06 elections, and Bush could nominate whomever he pleases. The Republicans in the Senate won't have to worry about re-election for quite some time, so they'd be free to blindly support him.

The only flaw in this theory is the assumption by BushCo that they'll maintain control of the Senate in '06, which seems less likely to happen everyday. But, who knows how things will turn out, they do count the votes. Anyway, someone tell me I'm crazy (or rather, that Bush is for nominating someone SO unqualified) and reassure me that our commander-in-chief is an idiot and not a master politico-strategist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
barbaraann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think it might be Bush trying to get rid of an "entanglement."
I've seen how hard it is for married men to get rid of entanglements several times in my life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's an idiot.
It is possible that there are ulterior motives. But I doubt W could come up with anything so complex.

I'm of the opinion that the WH is in disarray and W is short-circuiting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I wasn't thinking Bush came up with it
so much as Bush/Rove/et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. I don't see how displaying to the country and the world that your
party is one huge, greedy, incompetent, self-interested, lying, stealing, cheating, cluster-fuck is going to help Publicans in '06...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. nor displaying that your party's leader is dumber that a box of rocks
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 02:11 PM by tk2kewl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. There is blowback to that theory
If the monkey is rejected, it makes him look weak and lame. No one will have any sympathy for him, they will just want him to hurry up and finish up his second term, because he will be viewed as having gone past his sell-by date.

I will say, though, now that monkey has picked Miss You are So Cool/Best Ever Harriet, he could be fanning the flames of the controversy to eat up air time--turning a negative into a slightly less negative. If the talking heads are talking about Harriet's mash notes, her childish eighth grader wardrobe and home cut bangs, her ambiguous sex life, and other piddling little details, they are not talking about frog marches.

It is all about the news cycle--the day is a pie being fed to voracious couch potatoes, and there are only so many slices to allocate.

He could be hoping that if the Harriet slice is huge, the Rove/Libby slice will be a sliver. If another young blonde white woman goes missing, he will be in hog heaven....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I was thinking that is a tactic of the GOP in general
GWB doesn't need to get re-elected, and he can't. What he does need, however, is a Republican majority in the Senate through '08 to avoid impeachment, etc.

By giving other Repugs a sure-fire way to stand up to him (without really standing up for him) THEY get brownie points from their constituents. Basically, I feel as if Harriet Miers is damage control to allow for the Republicans to coddle the balls of their constituents until they get re-elected, then they can go batshit crazy again :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Hmmmm, that would suggest they are more worried about 06 than they are
letting on, to go to those lengths!

I like the way you think!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Damn straight!
They SHOULD be worried about '06. With the way things are going now, no amount of "Diebold'ing" the vote will be able to save their asses come election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. No - Bush hates "losing"
Never admit a mistake. Never back down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. YES!
She was never intended for the SC - just a stall tactic and diversion.

I'm hearing Viet Dinh is the real go to guy...

Though now that their entire house of cards is falling, they may not have the backing to get anyone confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. There is something to that. Did Rove - give the neocons & the GOP
an out come election 2006 "we didn't support the unqualifed Miers - while the Dems did - we GOP are for competence in all appointments".

We will know come the elections in 2006.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal43110 Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
12. No Way
Like other people have replied, no way Bush intended Miers to be rejected and use the confusion as a smokescreen. Bush is an arrogant, selfish power-monger and is not about to take a fall for the Republican party. Moreover, I don't think rejecting Bush's court nominee strengthens the party in any way: it makes Bush look weak, it makes the party look fractured, it lends credence to charges of cronyism, it could potentially air a lot of dirty laundry that Bush would rather not see the light of day.

Bottom line: not a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. I've wondered if it's to pull attention away from Roberts
who is just as scary, and a friend of BushCo (what more do you really need to know???)

Either of them in office is a disaster of vast proportions.

And good point about Roe vs. Wade not going anytime soon, as someone on DU said; they need it as a rallying point. It would "go" as the cherry on top of a political/ultrachristian victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. I think it's just another bone stupid move from bush.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC