The most common theory is that Bush was looking for a stealth candidate who wouldn’t provoke strong Democratic opposition but would get solid Republican backing – after some wink-wink assurances that she would vote the right way on abortion and other core conservative issues.
That indeed may be the answer. Bush may have just miscalculated how disappointed his conservative base would be and how offended other Americans would be at his straight-faced assertion that his White House counsel was “the best person I could find.”
But there is another theory that would fit the facts. It may be that Bush is less concerned about constitutional issues than he is about criminal and political disputes that might reach the court if the troubles surging around his administration get worse.
It goes on from there to trace the Republican desire to stack the Supreme Court; not to legislate as they might wish, but to protect their own asses (and act as their attack dogs). All the way back to Watergate, through Iran-Contra, the Clinton hunt, and Bush v. Gore.
My friend James is right: We are living out the truth of the old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." But to get back to the article, finally, reporter/author Robert Parry suggests another potential reason for Bush's outwardly inexplicable nomination.
For some conservatives, the Miers nomination represented the cronyism-bridge-too-far, but other Bush watchers saw the Miers pick as part of the president’s psychological need for approval from loyal and adoring women, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes.
“W. loves being surrounded by tough women who steadfastly devote their entire lives to doting on him, like the vestal virgins guarding the sacred fire, serving as custodians for his values and watchdogs for his reputation,” wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
Definitely worth a read, but like I say, it'll take a few minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment