What if Harriet Miers is a decoy?

[LynneSin]

Bush knows that the dems held back on Roberts because the dems knew they could go all-out filibustering on one of the two open judicial seats and were saving it for the O'Connors replacement.

I mean, even I am realistic to know that Dems will do the filibuster on a judicial nomination ONCE, but it scares me to think that Miers could be a decoy, dems bring out their big guns and get her shot down and then Bush brings in the real nomination. When the real nomination gets named, the Bush Regime does the push on 'Blocking Justice' and 'Nuclear Filibuster' again thus weakening the democrat's for the second person named for the seat.

It's obvious that Harriet Miers has no qualifications whatsoever except being a Bush crony (and we all know how the get job placement in his administration).

This pick worries me because the democrats know they owe it to all their supporters to fight and keep the O'Connors replacement moderate like O'Connors was (a pro-choice republican).

Please tell me my :tinfoilhat: is too tight!

[tompayne1]

1. interesting idea

I doubt it though personally i think it is just cronyism.

[StellaBlue]

2. Decoy

That's what I was thinking. All day.

[sarcasmo]

3. Your tin foil hat is not to tight. This was my thought exactly when I

heard the choice. The next choice after she gets shot down is the one * really wants.

[hogwyld]

4. Too tight

By the way the freepers and other fascist commentators are reacting, we may have the second coming of either Souter or Kennedy. Why else would Reid recommend her?

[The Doctor.]

10. Really? What is in her record that would make you think so?

Seriously... I know nothing about her.

You are the first person I've asked at all. (There will be more, I'm sure.)

Not that I'm always fond of liberals either, but since balance is a good thing, it would be good to know where she really stands.

[LynneSin]

13. Has Reid recommended her or just being nice?

He did the same thing with Roberts and btw, he didn't vote for Roberts.

And since Reid isn't on the Judiciary committee I'm not worried about what Reid says.

[Missy M]

5. I think he nominated her because of her extreme loyalty to bush and...

Laura Bush wanted Miers because of her 10 year relationship with the bush's and the fact that she is a woman.

[Az]

6. Thought about that at first, but not likely

From *'s point of view the Dems have not stood up on any serious issue. And this is too important a legacy to not play it specifically the way they want to. She is who he wants in there. We do not know for certain the reason (crony, cover, etc). But I do not think he would throw up a decoy that might actually get through. There would be flags all over the decoy designed to make Dems look bad to the right for coming after it. There is a problem with Mier but we don't see it yet (for certain).

[davepc]

7. Why would we fight a candidate the right wing base hates?

They HATE HER. HATE.

Hopefully that hate her so much, and Bush for picking her, they stay home during 2006 on the 1st Tuesday in November.

[H2O Man]

9. I think their "hate"

is the decoy.

[davepc]

12. the right wing is not some monolithic bloc

It isn't. Its a lose coalition of various interests that sometimes come in direct conflict with one another.

The bible thumpers and the corporatist and the no-government-in-anything libertarians get along to go along to win elections, but they're not all on the same page about everything, and right now Bush has been willing to break the bank for the corporatist but has given the bible thumps almost nothing.

Jesus Freaks aren't in it for tax cuts. They've been supporting him all along because they thought he would give them a slam dunk anti Roe person, and instead he found an ex-democrat who comes highly regarded by Harry Reid.

Its NOT the person they were expecting. Neither was Roberts.

[Czolgosz]

21. I agree that Miers is not the judge that the crazy right wing Republicans,

but Roberts was pretty much a dream come true for corporatists (and only a only small step away from a home run for the fundamentalists).

[davepc]

22. The corporatist are the money and the brains of the right

but the Jesus Freaks are the grass roots organization and the votes.

Problem with trying to serve two masters is that sometimes you carry too much favor with one, and not with the other.

The Jesus Freaks were told "go along with us on Roberts, and the next one we'll look after you".

Well they were lied too. They wanted red meat, and they got a ghost candidate.

The midterm election cycle starts NOW. And Bush got it off to a great start by double crossing his base.

It doesn't matter if Miers is the biggest Jesus Freak of them all, perception and first impression is MUCH BIGGER then reality.

If the fundamentalists get dis-enchanted with the Republican machine they'll stay home, or slink off to fractured 3rd parties and a relatively unified Democratic majority can carry the day.

[Czolgosz]

24. From your lips to God's ears. . .

[jaysunb]

23. I think you are right !

Never underestimate these crooks....

[LynneSin]

15. Seriously, I believe in Santa Claus before I believe they 'hate' her

A few right-wing screeds came out soon afterwards and denounced Miers because she doesn't seem 'neo-conservative' enough.

Folks - they are Squealer. They don't hate her - they're just teaching the sheep 'freepers' a new message.

One of those screeds could write/comment on tv how the moon is made of green cheese and within 30 minutes all of free republic would be on board with them.

[Lex]

8. There won't be much of a fight over Meirs' confirmation.

There was NO CHANCE that Bush would put a pro-choice republican in O'Connor's place anyway.

[louis-t]

11. I find it interesting that Reid endorsed her.

I'd like to think he did that to sucker Repubs into hating her. I've heard that some on the right are furious at *. And of course, any Dems who challenge her will be called 'woman haters'.

[LynneSin]

17. Reid 'endorsed' Roberts too

and btw, Reid never voted for Roberts. Reid is the minority leader making all the niceties and isn't on the Judiciary committee. He has voted for every filibuster the dems have done even though he is not pro-choice.

Reid will say all sorts of nice things about Meirs but if the dems fight for this one like I think they will, Reid will be filibustering with the rest of them

[MisterP]

14. of course, they may anticipate this line of thought and get Miers in

without any real dissent; they've really infected us with a MaybeNextTimeitis:
'02--there's a "secret plan" to spin the IWR against Bush
'04--we have to focus on the Pres race for the Supreme Court and ignore Iraq
'05--we have to focus on the next Senate race and ignore the Supreme Court
'06--???

[AlCzervik]

16. I'm thinking Bush is doing a bait and switch, the rw is having a

collective breakdown over her which has got me thinking she's maybe not pro-choice but she's not anti choice, either that or the printed hissy fits by Kristol and some of the others are just bullshit. It's seems awful funny that now the rw is pissed he's picking a non-qualified cronie because up until now they didn't seem to bother them in the least.

[LynneSin]

18. "Squealer" (Kristol) started the rant against Mier

the sheep just learned the new message.

[davepc]

19. whats the point of a new message thats meant to split your base?

How exactly, does that help Bush?

Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005

...

What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?

What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?

...

Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.”

..

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444

yeah...real great message there the right wing is putting out. "The President is afraid to fight for our ideals".

[LynneSin]

25. I don't think it's about splitting their base but instead weakening ours

If the message becomes too confusing and information that the neo-conservatives don't like her is heard too well, then our side might become more lienient in nominating her.

There is no judicial record on her. Only God knows how she'll vote bu I can guarentee that the Bush Regime has questioned her hard to ensure that if she gets on the court she'll vote the way they want her to. They've learned from Daddy's mistakes (Souter).

[Neocondriac]

20. There is always a method ..

to the Neocon madness.If something they do now suprises you, you're foolish. Think like a Neocon and beat them ultimately.This game has no rules, thus it's no longer a game!

[donheld]

26. It doesn't sound to me like dems plan a fight at all

That was they're decoy to get us to believe they'd fight. They don't know how to fight anymore.

[mattomjoe]

27. My problem with this theory is that

if this was just a set-up for who they really want to nominate, why wouldn't they nominate someone who is really off the deep end first? It's like when Tarantino goes over the top with the violence in his first film edit so that when he cuts some of his scenes to appease the ratings board, the film "appears" less violent while he gets to keep the scenes he wanted to keep all along. My point is, if you have an alternate waiting in the wings, why not put out an extremist so that the one you really want appears more reasonable and thus harder to block?