I think that Bush never intented to have Meirs confirmed.

[Kber]

He (or more likely Rove) knew that the next nomination after Roberts would be a fight. So he threw in Meirs, knowing she would never have the votes. The next judge named will have a long record, but be more right wing than Cheney. Bush is hoping that, after voting Meirs down, that congress will be reluctant to pass on two confirmations in a row.

However, I think his strategy hinged on Dems being the ones to derail the nomination. With the right wing snipping, Dems can sit back, keep their powder dry, and fight the next one.

If I were one to give Reid more credit than I usually do, I'd think he suggested Meirs just to see if Bush was stupid enough to hang himself with his own rope.

[EST]

1. Bush and rove just ain't that smart.

Rove has a one-two punch that he delivers over and over. I don't think he's nearly as sophisticated a long term planner as the OP is.

[Inland]

2. Nope, that's not their way.

Whenever someone says, "Bush meant to lose this one", disagree.

Bush's success relies on his projection of being a "strong leader", political invincibility, and the ability to marginalize his opponents as weak, whiners and ultmately irrelevant. Any loss diminishes that.

Notice that Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill. Why? Because vetoing a single bill means that he isn't in complete control of congress. It means Congress sent him a bill even after he said he didn't want it. Even winning the veto battle won't cure that problem. So he signs everything.

Bush doesn't even want to be seen lobbying republicans for Miers, much less withdrawing her. It's an admission of weakness in a man who has wrapped his entire presidency in being the Great Leader, the War President, Leader of the Nation.

[patricia92243]

3. I still have not made up my mind on this. You have it absolutely right,

but the OP has a good point of view too. Wonder if we'll ever know?

[MrBenchley]

6. I don' t think Bush meant to lose...

But I think he was counting on a BIG fight with the Democrats to distract the country from all the other fuckups and scandals.

And ha ha! Not only is the BIG fight coming from the "Terri Schiavo Isn't Any More BrainDead Than Us" wing of his own party, but his nominee reminds America more strongly about all those other fuckups and scandals.

[MissMarple]

7. I'm scratching my head here. Why does the right appear so divided?

Michell Malkin for crying out loud, and Sam Brownback. I don't trust any of them to tell the truth, quite frankly. So what is going on with this apparent division? :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

8. Because they ARE divided....

in three camps...

One group is the hardcore crazies who wanted Roy Moore to get the nomination and lead this country into a Christian jihad against unwed mothers, gays, abortionists, and liberals....Harriet is a nice church going lady who appears to honestly try to be impartial in some ways. (Here's a "young Christian" shouting in alarm because when he worked for Harriet she tried to take other people's feelings into account BEFORE there was a public outcry!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5010058&mesg_id=5010058

One group is the country club/old money crowd who want nothing but more tax cuts for the rich...they hate Harriet because they realize what a disastrous pick she is in every way for the GOP, even if she gets on the court. She makes it clear that pResident Shrimp is incompetent to hold the job, and if Harriet gets in she makes it clear that the GOP is a shallow bunch of valueless crooks who hate America. How would YOU like to be a Republican incumbent explaining Harriet to your constituents?

And the third group is the hardcore Chimp supporters, who saw nothing at all wrong with signing personal loyalty oaths to pResident Shrimp. They don't undestand why the other two groups are up in arms, but they're geared up for a fight and don't much care with whom.

[MissMarple]

9. That helps. So which group is Michelle in, the rabid religious one?

I don't read her column at all or listen to her so I don't know. I was guessing she is like Coulter who will scramble your brains if you try to follow her reasoning, or lack of, I should say. She will say anything to promote George and anything to denigrate all who differ with him. So what's with Michelle?

[MrBenchley]

10. Not sure who you mean...Michelle Malkin?

I'd put Malkin in group number three....she's a bigot who wants concentration camps, but I think it's motivated by bigotry, not any sense of "Christian" fervor.

"I was guessing she is like Coulter who will scramble your brains if you try to follow her reasoning, or lack of, I should say. She will say anything to promote George and anything to denigrate all who differ with him."
I would have thought that about Coulter too, but she's running around demanding that Chimpy be impeached for nominating Harriet. (Maybe she thought she should have got the nod?)

[MissMarple]

13. And that's why I'm still wondering about that.

I'd forgotten about Coulter, I try to avoid contact with her "opinions". Anyhow, Coulter and Malkin have the country club conservatives who watch Faux and read their work wondering about what is going on. They want to know where has all the George worship gone, and what IS the matter with Harriet?

Puzzling, indeed.

[MrBenchley]

15. I think the Kountry Klub Konservatives are more George Will

and William Buckley...

I've always wondered how the sort of imbecile who actually believes Faux Noise avoids whiplash from the sudden direction changes....

And in my more cynical moments I think nobody REALLY believes Faux Noise...but its viewers all sit around secretly pleased with themselves because they think that it's fooling everybody else...

[DefenseLawyer]

17. I think it was simpler (and stupider) than that.

Robert was seen as a great pick from their point of view. Insider, but with very little paper trail, very few judicial opinions, and the presumed shield of executive privilege for most of his previous work as a government lawyer and although there was a little hand ringing by the fundies, for the most part the "trust us" mantra would carry the day. So when it was time to pick another, these nitwits just said "we need a female Roberts" and went with their own lawyer and pal who on the surface seemed to fit the profile. I don't at all think he expected a big fight with anyone with her. If he wanted a big fight he would have nominated Brown or Owen or he would have gone even further and chosen Luttig.

[MrBenchley]

4. I think you're right about them wanting Democrats to be up in arms

You'll notice Kloset Kase Kenny Mehlman is sending out fundraising letters claiming the Democrats ARE attacking her.

[NV Whino]

5. Well, if I were doing it

that's what I would do, but I thinkI have to agree with Inland on this one.

[Marr]

11. I disagree. This administration has never been denied *anything*

they wanted by their rubber stamp Congress.

Besides- if they wanted to toss someone out as a sacrificial lamb, why Miers? If she's not confirmed, it'll be because she's a blatant example of cronyism; an unqualified lacky. That doesn't win points with anybody.

They're all about smash and grab. There's nothing subtle or clever about the Bush Administration.

[JoZbean]

14. My Little Crony

[ContraBass Black]

16. That's cold.

:rofl:

[B Calm]

12. I guess she withdrawed...