More thoughts on Miers; blog round-up

"It's too late now. At this point the only [Supreme Court] nominee I will settle for is Ann Coulter. In stilettos. With a whip."
--Poster at Shot In The Dark

------------------------------------

It's too bad we didn't get the opportunity to see how many Republicans in the Senate were willing to take a principled stand and vote against Harriet Miers despite the White House's arm-twisting, but Miers' withdrawal is the next best thing. She was obviously not qualified for a position on the Supreme Court, and was picked for the position for two reasons and two reasons alone:

1. She was a woman, and 2. She was extremely loyal to Bush (to the point of being a bootlicker, it seems).

After his re-election in 2004, President Bush boasted that he had "political capital" which he intended to spend. I think it's pretty safe to say that between the quagmire in Iraq, the New Olreans/Katrina debacle and the Miers fiasco, he has pretty much spent all his political capital. If he hadn't spent what was remaining with his nomination of Miers, he spent it with his administration's attempts to defend and justify the nomination. His wife helped spend it too: Laura Bush's comment that it was "possible" that criticism of Miers was motivated by "sexism" was about as bad a thing a person could say in that situation, and only caused more mutiny among the Republican Party base. Mrs. Bush's comment was especially nonsensical considering it's an open secret that Miers never would have been picked if she were not a woman--and is that not a form of sexism in itself?

It will be interesting to see who President Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court will be. We already know he is stubborn, as his refusal to withdraw the Miers nomination showed, and we already know his wife is very vocal about her desire for a woman to be nominated. Will Bush go with another woman; try to pick someone who is actually qualified and/or conservative; or perhaps go to the person many people think he wants to pick, Alberto Gonzales?

Bush's next selection will show exactly what he thinks of the conservative base that elected him to office in 2000 and 2004. He knows we are not happy--will he try to calm us down or will he instead thumb his nose at us?

Various thoughts from around the blogosphere:

From The American Princess:

I can't share in the glee this morning over the Miers pullout. Certainly
she was a second-class nominee, and certainly she probably was either
underqualified, or strangely qualified for the position, but whenever a nominee
pulls out of the process, the follow up cannot be a positive one . . . If we
believe that Miers was nominated through cronyism and through some sort of
momentary lapse in wavelength with the voters, then we have no choice but to
expect that the next candidate will not only be worse, but more of a compromise.
Brace yourselves, Republicans, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

From Hugh Hewitt:

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged
fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her
significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better
from his allies.…

(Hewitt is predicting that Judge (Mitchell?) McConnell will be Bush's new choice).

From Don Surber:

Hey, was it worth killing the Bush presidency? Prediction: Democratic Congress
in 2006. That means winning 24 of 33 Senate seats. They will do it.

From Real Clear Politics:

One interpretation of the Miers withdrawal is that the President realized (or
was informed by GOP Senators) that she didn’t have a chance of being confirmed.
A more speculative interpretation of the timing of the withdrawal is that the
President knows there are indictments coming down tomorrow and needs to have his
base support consolidated. He can use news of a new appointment to deflect
attention from any possible bad news from the Fitzgerald investigation…

More updates later in the afternoon . .