(NOTE: UPDATE BELOW)
It hasn’t taken long for the big blog boys on the right and left to sound off on Harriet Miers. Not surprisingly, Markos and John Aravosis are already salivating. Apparently a Bush insider is just dandy for them. They seem to think this is a huge GOP blunder. Markos goes so far as to claim that Miers is a moderate — though how he would figure that, given that she has virtually no paper trail, who knows?
Here’s another take:
Karl Rove is no fool, and perhaps John and Markos and gloating Dems are falling for a feint. What happens if there’s enough suspicion and resistance on both sides of the aisle so that she cannot win an up or down vote?
Is Harriet Miers simply a red herring nominee whose rejection would set up nomination of a certified radical? Think about it….
[posted on mediagirl.org….]
After all, while Miers has some questionable episodes in her partisan past, it’s also clear that she’s not quite the right’s cup of tea.
Remember, we’re entering an election season, and the radicals need political cover, and Miers is not it. They push back, and Bush then is “forced” to name a radical wingnut like Owens or Brown or some crazy outsider like Dobson himself (don’t laugh … well, okay, laugh), and the GOP goes into the election reinvigorated with hot excitement in its base, and renewed energy to push back the fiscal conservatives who would spoil the party and end the pig-outs at the taxpayer trough.
In other words, Miers is the attenuated virus to stimulate the white corpuscles in the right wing body, thus strengthening the body against infection. Miers could be rejected and a verifiable wingnut will be called in to unite the right.
Meanwhile, such developments would further alienate the Democratic Party-über-alles folks from progressive voters, who already are rather mistrustful of aspiring flacks, perhaps for good reason. In other words, it could be that Miers was nominated to be rejected by a bipartisan bloc, leading to reactions that will strengthen the Republicans while pitting the Democrat appeasers against their progressive voter base.
Too crazy? Too Machiavellian for Karl Rove? Come on, be honest now.
[Update: Lindsay notes that the set-up theory has been posed elsewhere by Tom Goldstein…
The nomination obviously will be vigorously supported by groups created for the purpose of pressing the President’s nominees, and vigorously opposed by groups on the other side. But within the conservative wing of the Republican party, there is thus far (very early in the process) only great disappointment, not enthusiasm. They would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope – misguided, I think – that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here. On the Democratic side, there will be inevitable – perhaps knee-jerk – opposition. Nor does Miers have a built in “fan base” of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren’t truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President. The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won’t want to, or won’t be able to (because her jobs haven’t called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
and Rick Hansen Interesting….]
[Update 2: FWIW, from the National Review’s site:
Don’t worry, it’s all just a Rovian strategy to pick someone who has little apparent qualifications so the Dems can spend all their capital attacking her. Eventually, Bush will give up and she won’t be confirmed. Then, he announces his TRUE pick, and the public runs out of patience for the dems trying to defeat two in a row. Eh? Eh?
Look at how already, mere hours out of the starting blocks, the Dems are already once again at odds with their progressive base. Reid has come out endorsing Miers, which has won him few friends. And no doubt if Miers is rejected, Kos and company will jump back onto the game of blaming us progressives for our “pet issues,” which does nothing but bring Karl Rove joy.
And the Dems in ’06 will be in total disarray.
Then again, this gambit may not exist at all. Or she may be confirmed anyway. But that’s hardly cause for gloating on the left. Sterling Newberry offers caution:
All it takes to get the left to roll over is a well coordinated right wing campaign that Mier is unacceptable to the right. The right did the same thing with Roberts – screamed that he wasn’t acceptable. This is part of the strategy people – have the right scream so that the muddled middle has to think that she is one of them.
When “US v Rove” comes before the court, you’ll see what this really means – Bush is lawyering up the court, appointing two long time conservative hacks to the bench to block anything that might lead back to him.
(As a sidebar attraction, Ana Marie opts to chase the obviously pertinent question of whether Miers once fought Gang of 14 poster-child Priscilla Owen over a man. Anyway….)
For a good run-down on links around the blogozoid, including the unhappy wingnuts who’ll assist in the potential Rove gambit I posit above, go see The Heretik.
