Harriet Miers??? Why???
My earlier post was titled Harriet Miers??? Who??? The "Who???" is now becoming a "Why???" People are going to debate why President Bush selected Miers. All he can accomplish with this selection is to turn off his base.
Many on the right are decrying this selection for various reasons. The majority are mainly upset that Bush did not pick one of the heavy weights they were hoping to see selected. Some are upset because of the apparent cronyism. There is also concern about her past political contributions (DNC, Lloyd Bentson, Al Gore). The biggest hit on her character to me is hearing that Sen Harry Reid (M-NV) suggested that she would be acceptable. Michelle Malkin has a round up of all the negative comments about Miers.
Hugh Hewitt has a more reasonable response and he believes her recent executive branch experience during the GWOT is an important consideration. Moreover, he flatly declares that Miers is no Souter.
The most obvious thing about this pick is there is no doubt that Ann Coulter's next column is going to be caustic and hilarious. Can't wait.
posted by LargeBill at 11:05 AM
3 Comments:
First of all, I think Reid got snookered. Bush has already proven he's one of the best poker players in D.C. and Reid doesn't have a clue what's in Bush's hand.
By now I'm sure you've read Hewitt's stuff. but I think the better posts are Beldar, PoliPundit and the Anchoress. Based on those, I'm content to be patient and wait this one out.
Beldar: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarbl...iers_nomin.html
Beldar says this:
To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. "Another 'stealth' candidate," many will say, "another blank slate about whom we know too little to make confident predictions!" That's already the official party line of the Dems, and it's something being muttered less loudly among puzzled Republicans as well.
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. And the Constitution does, after all, give him the nomination power — not "the White House," not "the Republican Party," nor "conservatives generally," nor even "us'n who put him back into office." And he knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.
PoliPundit:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=10270
The Anchoress:
http://theanchoressonline.com/20...p-this-in-mind/
http://theanchoressonline.com/20...be-derek-jeter/
http://theanchoressonline.com/20...-harriet-miers/
7:13 AM
Greg,
Thanks for the links. I had read the Beldar post but not the other two. In the end I believe she was selected for one reason. David Souter. Bush's father selected Souter based on recommendations of others but he had no first hand knowledge of him. Bush decided this selection was going to be a female and then realized out of the females being discussed he didn't know any of them well enough to be sure he wouldn't be surprised like his father was. He knows Miers well and that is important to him.
7:56 AM
LB: Good call. I'll go with you on why he picked her. He knew it probably had to be a woman and he wanted someone he knew really well. And hell, he's the President. It's his choice, for crying out loud.
Steve: If you want to govern by feelings, go be a Democrat. That's all they do. And as I survey the wreckage of what used to be the Democratic Party, I'd say that's worked really well for them, too.
2:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home