Miers and the Golden Parachute

October 21, 2005 10:40 AM

Harriet Miers, Ben Barnes, and an "eye-popping amount of money."Harriet Miers may have given "Bush skipped out on the TexANG"-accuser Ben Barnes a golden parachute in an effort to keep him close...and quiet.
posted by Sticherbeast (73 comments total)

Not to mention, of course, that Miers was paid by the Bush campaign to nail down the details surrounding Bush's service. Add the Lotto Commission scandal to the mix, involving many of the same people, and these hearings could be very interesting.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:45 AM on October 21, 2005

Wow, and that was compiled on a pro-Bush blog, no less. Egads.
posted by mathowie at 10:47 AM on October 21, 2005

Miers is shaping up to be the one Bush associate to actually get impeached.
posted by Mr T at 10:48 AM on October 21, 2005

mathowie writes "Wow, and that was compiled on a pro-Bush blog, no less. Egads."

Pro-Bush but anti-Meirs, right? It's an intense set of conflicting allegiences. I'm fascinated with how it's going to come down.
posted by OmieWise at 10:53 AM on October 21, 2005

From Monju_b's link, which has some good analysis at the bottom: "But another possibility is that both political parties' desire not to turn up old scandals--whether they be the Lottery Commission or who exactly did fake those Air National Guard memos that appeared in the same "60 Minutes" segment as Ben Barnes--prompts senators to suggest privately to Mr. Bush that Ms. Miers withdraw. It's a cliché, but doubly true in this case, that politics makes strange bedfellows."
posted by OmieWise at 10:56 AM on October 21, 2005

OmieWise: "Pro-Bush but anti-Meirs, right?"

It's odd how quickly the Republican monolith has splintered. Six months ago I couldn't have visualized the current state of affairs in the GOP.
posted by Plutor at 10:59 AM on October 21, 2005

Pro-Bush but anti-Meirs, right? It's an intense set of conflicting allegiences. I'm fascinated with how it's going to come down.

It is fascinating, yeah. This one I found especially fascinating because, unlike, say, the conservative anti-Miers sentiment of Ann Coulter, who feels that Miers is an inexperienced crony, or of a number of socially conservative organizations, who feel that Miers is too unknown a quantity with regard to abortion and other issues, this is an allegation of actual factual corruption.

This is getting even more nasty than I thought it would.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:00 AM on October 21, 2005

these hearings could be very interesting.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:45 PM CST on October 21

I have said and hoped this nomination would be withdrawn from the first day. The more news that comes out, the more I am inclined to believe that this will never make it to hearings. It will be damaging all around if it does: Bush loses support from conservatives, Republicans are divided in an internal ideological struggle, Democrats are forced to decide how to spend political capital, and whether to fight this nominee, and whether to go too far into the Barnes scandal since it will effect Texas Democrats, and most importantly, the Court will be damaged by the further politicization.

For the good of the Court primarily, and in the best interest of all parties, I think this nominee will be withdrawn.
posted by dios at 11:00 AM on October 21, 2005

For the good of the Court primarily, and in the best interest of all parties, I think this nominee will be withdrawn.

I agree that the nomination will probably be withdrawn at some point, but it won't be for the good of the Court. If Bush was at all concerned about the Court as an institution, rather than simply sticking a crony up there that will let the executive branch roll over anyone it wants, he wouldn't have nominated Miers in the first place. No, first and foremost, the reason for a withdrawal will be politics--on both sides.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:06 AM on October 21, 2005

I agree completely, monju.

But, as we so often learn, though something is done for a particular reason, we can still cheer the postive (not specifically intended) consquences.

Here, hopefully the political morass will produce a positive benefit for the Court wherein we demand quality candidates to be on the Court and reject political ones.
posted by dios at 11:10 AM on October 21, 2005

It's so Bush to have the gall to nominate his cover-up artiste to the Supreme Court. Future historians -- you know, in their escape pod fleeing the flooded Earth -- are going to have a lot of hearty laughs at his expense.
posted by digaman at 11:11 AM on October 21, 2005

This may turn out to be an interesting barometer of how out of touch and deluded W really is. Every passing day in which he does not withdraw her nomination is another notch on the wakko-meter. If I were betting, I would say he ends up scoring pretty high and hold out until the second week of November before he finally gives in.
posted by JeffK at 11:13 AM on October 21, 2005

> reject political ones

As if politics aren't going to play the decisive role in the next nomination after Hurricane Harriet blows over. This time, it'll be an out-and-out Roe-overturnin' gay-marriage-bannin' Kristol-vetted scumbag who's actually cracked a few lawbooks over the years.
posted by digaman at 11:14 AM on October 21, 2005

JeffK, the wakko-meter has long since been made obsolete by this administration, specifically by the president himself. We need new wakko-meters.
posted by odinsdream at 11:17 AM on October 21, 2005

Democrats are forced to decide how to spend political capital,

On a side note, I'd like to remark how interesting I find this. We're all aware of the damage the Miers nomination does to this administration, as well as the GOP itself, but it's also doing the Dems no favors. I get the sense that many of the Dems in charge are still looking at their foot over this.

Worse for them, the anti-Miers Republicans are playing it smart in their quite vocal opposition. It heads the Democratic moral superiority off at the pass - already it doesn't seem like a red versus blue issue. At this point, the Dems just seem like yet another voice in the anti-Miers chorus, in the way this is playing itself out, and that only neuters them further.

Either way, I agree with dios and monju. Yikesamillion.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:18 AM on October 21, 2005

foot

Feet. Feet, I mean.

Although, it would be funny if the Democratic Party had one sacred foot at which they'd look in times of need.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:19 AM on October 21, 2005

I've almost concluded that the whole Harriet Miers thing must be intentional. She is such a bad nominee, the only possible rationale must have been to distract from the politics of privacy and focus on qualifications. After they withdraw her nomination, Bush can nominate someone well-qualified, but far to the right, and say, "You're worried about qualifications? Here, here is a nominee with qualifications." And nominate someone like Edith Jones.

Although, it would be funny if the Democratic Party had one sacred foot at which they'd look in times of need.

Like, in a reliquary? That would be awesome.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:21 AM on October 21, 2005

monju; wouldn't that require that Bush be politically clever?
posted by odinsdream at 11:23 AM on October 21, 2005

I really hope I'm wrong about this, but I'm skeptical that Meirs will be withdrawn. To do so would require the administration to do the one thing they have steadfastly refused to do until now - admit that they've made a mistake. I don't see President Bush putting the possibility of his own fallibility on the table for this, or any other reason. No - I suspect he will "stay the course." He's not a "flip-flopper." Keep in mind - his highest praise for her is that she'll never change.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2005

odinsdream - Nope, it'd just require that Bush have clever people working for him.

Do you really think the man's prattle about knowing these people for 'more than a decade' actually means anything to him at all? I suspect he'd happily shitcan a good buddy if it meant his ass politically - that's what politicians do, and Bush may be a moron but he's a politican too (within his means).

He obviously knows enough to let smart people make decisions for him. This might have been a stupid mistake on his part, but equally likely is that it's a long bet by his political advisors. They sailed by on the Roberts gig, and now they're taking a step in a long process (riddling the courts with conservative hacks).

I feel bad making these 'Rove is an evil genius' speculations, but I'd rather overestimate than underestimate the bastards in the White House.
posted by waxbanks at 11:35 AM on October 21, 2005

Bush has gone batshitinsane. Expect nothing sensible to happen.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2005

Withdraw? No way; I want some hearings now. I lived in Texas when these slimeballs were pulling this shit and I want to watch it unravel.

"I think this nominee will be withdrawn"
I'll bet you do. For the good of the court, of course. *snicker*
posted by 2sheets at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2005

I believe this was intended to be a politically clever nomination. I think it was unnecessary as a tool to get somebody qualified but conservative on the court. Agree with his political views or not (and I fall into the "not" category), John Roberts was eminently qualified for the job and he was confirmed with barely an objection. A decent conservative judge with a strong track record would most likely have been confirmed just as easily. I predict that anyone who replaces her will breeze through with nary a whimper of objection from the increasingly irrelevant Dems.

What Miers nomination does is give many Republican lawmakers the opportunity to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular president right before midterm elections. Watch for the "I am a Republican and I don't agree with Bush so if you elect me you don't have to worry that I'm always going to vote for what that chimp wants" meme a lot in the upcoming elections. It may be the only way to reach out to the center.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:39 AM on October 21, 2005

Republicans are divided in an internal ideological struggle

I don't think divided is the proper term. Fractured is more appropriate.

For the good of the Court primarily, and in the best interest of all parties, I think this nominee will be withdrawn.

It doesn't matter if the nomination is withdrawn. The damage is already done. Democrats will put whatever eventual nominee under a fricken' microscope, and Bush looks bad either way. I'm just amused that after 6 years of screaming myself horse that this guy is incompetent, he has finally proven it to his supporters. Sadly, that won't help the country.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:39 AM on October 21, 2005

A little levity: Harriet Miers Indeed Has a Paper Trail.
posted by billysumday at 11:42 AM on October 21, 2005

That was a beautiful thing, billysumday. *sniff*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:47 AM on October 21, 2005

So I was just listening to Lyle Lovett on the CD player, and this just sort of popped into my head:

If I had a court
I'd throw out all abortions
And if I had a crony
I'd want it on my court
And we could all together
Throw out all abortions
Me and my old crony on my court
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:59 AM on October 21, 2005

Wow. Lyle's gotten kinda scary since the movie star ditched him.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:01 PM on October 21, 2005

Reading that, I imagine him as that baker in "Short Cuts," calling Andie McDowell and singing creepy little verses about politics into her voice mail.
posted by billysumday at 12:04 PM on October 21, 2005

I feel a little Browning coming on:


....And out of the houses the rats came tumbling.
Great rats, small rats, lean rats, brawny rats,
Brown rats, black rats, grey rats, tawny rats,
Grave old plodders, gay young friskers,
Fathers, mothers, uncles, cousins,
Cocking tails and pricking whiskers,
Families by tens and dozens....

Keep 'em coming. It's like somebody turned over a garbage pail in Washington. Look at them scurry! Of course, you never catch every rat. But it's certainly educational to see how many there were...

And of course out of all this I keep wishing for the following:

At last the people in a body
To the Town Hall came flocking:
"Tis clear,' cried they, "our Mayor's a noddy;
And as for our Corporation -- shocking
To think we buy gowns lined with ermine
For dolts that can't or won't determine
What's best to rid us of our vermin!
You hope, because you're old and obese,
To find in the furry civic robe ease?
Rouse up, sirs! Give your brains a racking
To find the remedy we're lacking,
Or, sure as fate, we'll send you packing!'
At this the Mayor and Corporation
Quaked with a mighty consternation.
posted by emjaybee at 12:08 PM on October 21, 2005

It's very odd that she would engage in these shady dealings in order to make other people rich. Apparently, she isn't very wealthy herself.
posted by mullacc at 12:12 PM on October 21, 2005

Miers will withdraw herself. Probably call a quick press conference on her front porch. No White House people present. Make it look like a personal decision "for the good of the country". That way BushCo can save face.

I think the Dems have actually been playing this quite well. Stay quiet. Let the Republicans yell at each other. That way they have no one to accuse of "politicising" the nomination" Though, there is no real advantage to be had by staying quiet. Of course, there's no advantage for the Dems to speak up either. They are, for the most part, inconsequential entities these days.

In the end, though, I think the Dems will wish they had Miers to confirm. At least the Republicans are split over her. Digiman is correct in his assertion that the one who comes after Meirs will be an "out-and-out Roe-overturnin' gay-marriage-bannin' Kristol-vetted scumbag who's actually cracked a few lawbooks over the years." Republicans will then all lock arms, give each other deep soul kisses and goose-step into the bright sunrise, confident in victory.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:14 PM on October 21, 2005

monju; wouldn't that require that Bush be politically clever?

Yeah, or least his advisors, as others have suggested. I think the more likely answer is what It's Raining Florence Henderson said: Bush only nominates those he really trusts, and he is stubborn. Qualifications? Who needs qualifications? Miers is loyal. What Bush doesn't understand is that movement conservatives don't give a shit about personal loyalty; they want someone who will forward their cause. Miers will have to withdraw herself if she wants to avoid a real bloodbath, and her extreme loyalty to Bush over the last decade makes that seem unlikely.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:23 PM on October 21, 2005

Sticherbeast: ...this is an allegation of actual factual corruption.

And from the Right? Doesn't that sound familiar to anyone who ever stood up against these guys? It may well be true, but it may also be a smear.

Now I have a mental image of sharks turning on one-another in bloody waters. And right before my commute home, too. Troubling.
posted by mmahaffie at 12:24 PM on October 21, 2005

You're all wrong. Miers won't be withdrawn, but she won't be appointed. I am more and more convinced that the play here is for Senate Republicans to vote against her on the floor.

Look the GOP is the unholy alliance of the Christian right and fiscal conservatives. Bush has so alienated the fiscal conservatives with his spending and massive growth of the federal government that fiscal conservatives have to distance themselves from him. Meirs is the cannon fodder for this political battle.

She gets defeated on the floor. Bush appoints a pro-big-business, anti-choice icon. The women haters in the GOP wet their pants in joy. Fiscal conservatives campaign in 2008 at arm's length from GWB. Everyone wins.

And the country and freedom and liberty looses again.

Of course that is the GOP dream. My dream is that scandal and corruption will bring them down like a house of cards on a Florida beach and the GOP will be swept out of power for a generation.
posted by three blind mice at 12:26 PM on October 21, 2005

"At least the Republicans are split over her."
I tend to agree, but this could very well be the end of the Bush era as far as political power is concerned. There are a lot of republican lawmakers who are going to have to work a lot harder to stay in office than they thought about 6 months ago, and they know it. And I think that kills the notion of the "fuck you" nomination that the wingnuts have been slobbering over since Bush got elected.
posted by 2sheets at 12:27 PM on October 21, 2005

In the grand tradition of Bush administration cronies failing up (or at least sideways) I'm putting forward the theory that Cheney steps down as VP (due to health reasons) and GWB gets to pull Miers nomination to save face and appoint her as VP because "she'll do the country more good in that position". Bush gets to have the first female VP and he gets a do-over at picking a second supreme court justice.
posted by afflatus at 12:55 PM on October 21, 2005

three blind mice, I think you make a good point for a savvy president who frankly doesn't exist. If it does play out that way, it would happen by accident. Bush has a messiah complex, and he's determined to push Miers through come hell or rapture. I think the Senate is waking up though, and as others have said, it would behoove them to distance themselves from Bush in 2006 and 2008. It will be typically unctuous, the endless "War on Terror" will still be the major trope, as will the newly rediscovered idea of being an independent, small government Republican. Just my 2 pennies. This will save them some bacon for 2006 locally, but won't be enough to prevent a party meltdown for 2008 re: fundies vs. small government Repubs. Just imagine primary debates between guys like Santorum and Brownback and guys like Giuliani and McCain. They practically don't speak the same language.

Here's Krauthammer today on Miers--it gets even wierder. The K-dog has been against her since the beginning, so here he proposes a solution. Since Miers is a disaster, both intellectually and sartorially, but the Right needs to remain unified for 2006, let's just stage an honest disagreement over Presidential privacy re: documents she wrote and signed. I guess it makes sense from beyond the looking glass--let's just admit Miers is dumb, Bush is dumber, and put this behind us over an "honest" agreement regarding Executive branch right to hide documents.

Weird. Delightfully weird.

Sticherbeast--how have the Dems played this wrong? As Krauthammer points out, it's one of the few correct things they've done as of late, i.e., let Bushco hoist itself on its own petard, over and over again?
posted by bardic at 12:58 PM on October 21, 2005

Two more nibbles from The American Spectator:

Arlen Specter may trade Miers for his stem cell legislation.

Miers' nomination seems doomed.

...

As for Miers being a canny political trick from the Republicans, I sort of doubt it. Sort of. It makes some sense that she could be an underqualified suckerpunch for a more qualified but also more radical follow-up nomination, but she's too embarrassing to really succeed on that level. Besides, John Roberts got through without any help, and while no radical he, it's not like there aren't other well-qualified conservative lawyers Bush could have picked without major incident.

Even if the leaking of this latest little scandal seems is an inside job from the right, the fact that Bush's party fellows would resort to such tricks does not speak well of the situation, and if a weakened Bush is being thrown to the wolves in order to give Republicans a boost for later on, that speaks even worse of even more situations.

Those are both escape routes from very dire political realities, and I don't even mean the dire reality of the world around us. I mean, if the GOP even has so little faith in Bush, then we are in even worse trouble than previously thought.

I'm not saying it's not possible that this entire debacle isn't completely organized from page one, but it seems like, if the GOP has all these resources and plans, they would put them to work on a smarter plan that doesn't make the party appear in disarray.
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:04 PM on October 21, 2005

bardic -

IMHO, letting Bush hoist himself on his own petard is a safe, reliable, and not-stupid way to handle this, but it still frames the Dems as a neutered party. It leaves the door open for Republicans to take up the anti-Bush mantle, framing once again the Republicans as the party of action and power.

I mean, what would the Dems be left with if the right even took over the anti-Bush banner?

The Dems need to get organized and on point. Maybe yelling in unison about Miers isn't the right place to start, but it's better late than never. At the very least, the Dems need to start uniting NOW to prevent the Republicans from regrouping.

That's my two cents, at least!
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:09 PM on October 21, 2005

Hahah. I totaly remember hearing about this story during the run-up to the election. Of course, they didn't mention Miers by name, but the whole thing of the lotto paying of Ben Barns was all over the web.
posted by delmoi at 1:17 PM on October 21, 2005

Bush can't withdraw Miers now - for the same reason he can't pull out of Iraq. He'd lose face. I'd be remarkably surprised if Miers was withdrawn before the hearing.

More likely, they're going to cut her to pieces, and I suspect that the fallout may involve an investigation.
posted by FormlessOne at 1:23 PM on October 21, 2005

I guess I disagree. 2006 is the game right now, and while Dems certainly have a lot of work to do, I think they should stay clear from anything SC related--Repubs have managed to play the "obstructionist" card before. They don't necessarily have to go anti-Bush, at least overtly--how about just asking some simple questions: Are you happy with the direction this country is going in? (easy answer with regards to recent polls, especially among independents). Are you comfortable with American troops being in Iraq for at least another 10 years? (Condi admitted as much yesterday before the Senate). Are you feeling financially secure, especially with regards to health care, rising poverty levels, the providing of local services, and the date at which you'll be able to retire?

Our goals are the same, but in terms of political jujitsu, the Repubs aren't even close to a recovery yet--let them continue to do as much damage to themselves as they can. Delay's legal saga is going to last through 2006 (not to mention Abramoff and company's), as will the investigation into Frist. And with possible indictments in the White House, I say "Stay the course" of watching the other side burst into self-generated flames of discontent. This will only work for so long, I agree. But right now, it's easy peasy. As you say, a good time for Dems to prepare for the real fights, and to develop a solid message.
posted by bardic at 1:42 PM on October 21, 2005

Worse for them, the anti-Miers Republicans are playing it smart in their quite vocal opposition. It heads the Democratic moral superiority off at the pass - already it doesn't seem like a red versus blue issue. At this point, the Dems just seem like yet another voice in the anti-Miers chorus, in the way this is playing itself out, and that only neuters them further.

Wow, so you're saying the Miers appointment is bad for the democrats? That's a pretty big leap.

Maybe the democrats aren't doing anything because they don't have to? Sitting around watching your enemies destroy themselves isn't a bad strategy. And plus, Miers isn't exactly a conservative hardliner. There's no reason for democrats to attack her until she does something un-democratic.

In fact, conservatives demanding to know where Miers stands on the issues helps them out, because it means we might actually get to find out where she stands on the issues, and the right loses credibility if they try to claim that the next nominee doesn't need to answer questions.
posted by delmoi at 1:46 PM on October 21, 2005

According to this bush is threatening not to fund-rise for senators who don't vote for Miers. That could end up costing a few senate seats. The republicans only have a five seat advantage.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on October 21, 2005

Bush has face?
posted by wah at 2:00 PM on October 21, 2005

For those of you who say that Bush isn't savvy - can you name one thing that has been on his agenda that he hasn't gotten?
posted by swerdloff at 2:22 PM on October 21, 2005

For those of you who say that Bush isn't savvy - can you name one thing that has been on his agenda that he hasn't gotten?

Well, I think that he (or his team) is fairly savvy, but I don't see any private Social Security accounts. And I seem to remember him opposing the creation of DHS until in became apparent which way the wind was blowing.
posted by COBRA! at 2:27 PM on October 21, 2005

what Florence Henderson said here

Bush will never admit he's made a mistake. he doesn't acknowledge mistakes in Iraq, for God's sake, why should he admit Miers sucks?


one thing that has been on his agenda that he hasn't gotten?

you're kidding, right?
posted by matteo at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2005

An end to terror? ObL? A democratic Iraq? Being a "uniter, not a divider"? Cutting Social Security? Forging ahead on the "Roadmap" in Israel/Palestine?

I think NASA is planning on sending someone to Mars, I'll grant you that.
posted by bardic at 2:33 PM on October 21, 2005

*But swerdloff, you're correct that people under Bush have been effective. I didn't intend for my previous comment to be overly snarky towards you.
posted by bardic at 2:36 PM on October 21, 2005

waxbanks wrote:

He obviously knows enough to let smart people make decisions for him.

Smart people? I think the last five years have been a lesson in how little the people with the right information get heard, let alone the smart ones.

It used to be that we (his detractors) underestimated him. I think now that we've been beaten twice, it's easy to overestimate him, because that's easier that admitting we blew it.
posted by robla at 2:37 PM on October 21, 2005

Bush never admits mistakes, he will never withdraw the nomination -- whether or not she withdraws is another matter.

I think she got nominated to buy her perpetual silence -- I suspect she has a good idea where all Bush's skeletons are buried (and it seems obvious there are skeletons of some sort); boost her onto the SC and you ensure her silence forever.

Given that the Bush White House is used to getting its own way and add the "gut feeling" stuff and the fact that no one can tell the guy he might be wrong and you get where we are now. The fact that Rove and DeLay may be a little distracted currently, and that there is more apparent infighting in the White House and the GOP right now, means that the grand Machiavellian plan need not be the only reason for this shit.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 2:59 PM on October 21, 2005

I have no doubt at all that Bush is being "helped" (I prefer the word "controlled") by very smart people. I think there is no doubt that Rove is a very smart cookie.

Smart is not the same as wise.

I think we need more wise politicians. I have a niggling suspicion that wise people avoid becoming politicians.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:19 PM on October 21, 2005

Agreed fff.
posted by bardic at 3:41 PM on October 21, 2005

Since this is more or less a prognostication thread, I'll see you'se all and raise you'se:

Bush will not withdraw the nomination under any circumstance. Nothing he has done since taking office indicates he will reverse himself--especially if it brings his loyalty into question. Furthermore, I think he will put strong pressure on her not to withdraw on her own as it will be seen that he asked her to do it. She, being a sycophant, will obey him and not withdraw. While it's an interesting theory, I don't believe that this is some sort of political Jujitsu to allow Repubs to distance themselves from Bush in 2006. There is way too much risk to the party to play it that way.

What will happen at the confirmation hearing is anybody's guess but I it should be fun and for the amount of crap we have gotten from this administration, let's at least get some theater out of it.

Oh, it would be insane for the Dems to do anything at this point other than sit back and watch. What would be the upside of getting involved?

In other related news, I just saw Bush give a short speech and he really looks like he is losing his grip on things. I could swear he was slurring his words.
posted by a_day_late at 5:44 PM on October 21, 2005

It's too bad Kerik wasn't tighter with Bush. That battle, if it had been fought like this one, would have been even more surreal.
posted by Aknaton at 5:59 PM on October 21, 2005

idle speculation: shit, what if Bush were to suicide. That'd certainly be something new.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:30 PM on October 21, 2005

anybody else tired of dating liberals?
posted by es_de_bah at 6:45 PM on October 21, 2005

What would be the upside of getting involved?

The trick, you see, when you enemy is drowing, is to offer them comforting words of advice, assure them that help is, in fact, on the way, and at just the right moment, toss them an anvil.
posted by eriko at 6:52 PM on October 21, 2005

No, make that two anvils. You might miss with the first.
posted by eriko at 6:52 PM on October 21, 2005

Perhaps like this? (Reid suggesting Miers).

(Is that a shit-eating grin I detect?)
posted by bardic at 7:00 PM on October 21, 2005

This is certainly proving to be the distraction they planned.

Miers 3.0: Grassroots-- ...In less public conversations and through pressure from the base, they hope to convince the Senators of one of several propositions:

(a) that voting against Miers would be parlous for the Republican Party

(b) that voting against Miers conflates conservative elite anger with conservative voter anger, in part because the real GOP base doesn't dislike Miers and would view a "nay" as a slap in the face to the president

(c) that voting against Miers would be parlous for their presidential ambitions, in that the Bush political and fundraising team would not forget such a blatant departure from the president's wishes now -- and certainly not forget after 2006, when these presidential aspirants begin to staff up and raise money. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:07 PM on October 21, 2005

Perhaps by introducing a candidate he had to know wouldn't get strong support from anyone the White House is merely paving the way for the ratification of a more religiously-extreme, but qualified candidate -- as in "ok, you voted against my last candidate, so now you pretty much have to vote for the new one" kind of deal. The fact that, well, *anyone else* would be so much more qualified than the current candidate would be publicized as proof that the President "gets it".

It would be laughably transparent to any even remotely informed observer, but then again it might play with the same crowd that voted for him last November.
posted by clevershark at 7:15 PM on October 21, 2005

Frankly, I don't see what the anti-Miers Republicans are complaining about. They voted for Bush, after knowing full well what his policies were, how he's failed to deliver entirely for either fiscal conservatives or for social conservatives, and they certainly should've known about his penchant for "yes men" (and women...)

Bush is what you guys wanted. Reap the rewards!
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:39 PM on October 21, 2005

I just saw Bush give a short speech and he really looks like he is losing his grip on things. I could swear he was slurring his words.

The National Enquirer has been right before.
posted by mrgrimm at 7:43 PM on October 21, 2005

I should point out that if you're a multimillionaire, odds are that you've done quite well over the past five years. They seem to be the only ones lately who still fully appreciate the whole reward-reaping process.

Some say that investing in real estate is what makes rich people even richer, but if there's anything the last few years has shown, investing in the Republican Party and in lobbyists has a far better return on investment.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:47 PM on October 21, 2005

"The National Enquirer has been right before."

The National Equirer were certainly right about Paula Jones, and about Schwarzenegger's affair. It's actually surprising at times to see that they actually do some pretty good -- if tawdry -- investigative reporting at times.

If they say that family friends of Bush indicate that Bush is drinking, then chances are pretty damn good that a family friend of the Bush family told them that Bush is drinking.

That means one of two things:
1> They're telling the truth, and have soured on Bush so much that they're willing to share their story with the National Enquirer.

2> They've grown to hate Bush so much that they're willing to lie about it in order to hurt him.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:59 PM on October 21, 2005

I'm with Joey Michaels. I think this is intentional, brilliantly planned, and it's working.
posted by dejah420 at 9:06 PM on October 21, 2005

Perhaps by introducing a candidate he had to know wouldn't get strong support from anyone the White House is merely paving the way for the ratification of a more religiously-extreme, but qualified candidate

While the White House has lied before (over and over), their machinations have always been pretty transparent. In this case, they're "I want to reward my toady". There's just no way that Bush has knowingly set up his good and faithful servant to take the public abuse she's presently taking, with the plan aforethought being to dump her at just the right time.

Take it at face value. Bush does what he feels like, and everybody else is supposed to fall in line.
posted by Aknaton at 12:02 AM on October 22, 2005

DALLAS - The Roman Catholic diocese of Dallas is setting the record straight: Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has never been a Catholic.

A review of records for such sacraments as baptism, first Eucharist and confirmation found no evidence that Miers or anyone in her immediate family was Catholic, Bronson Havard, a spokesman for the diocese, said Friday.

"We don't normally check records for things like this," said Havard, who also is editor of Texas Catholic newspaper and a deacon, "but this was a prominent situation, we wanted the record to be set straight

So much for the "Miers was born Catholic" story.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:26 AM on October 22, 2005

I'm tempted to use AskMe for this but I'll put it here because it's at least somewhat related to this thread. Cheney was on the search committee for a vice presidential candidate. Miers was part of the group looking for Supreme Court nominees. What type of organization lets people pick themselves?
posted by rdr at 7:02 PM on October 22, 2005

I loved that ad on the right: "Are you tired of dating liberals?"

I immediately wanted to answer "Kind of, but they're so darned CUTE!"
posted by davejay at 12:44 PM on October 23, 2005