I recently decided to try blogging again. While looking over what I had posted the first time around, I was embarrased at how badly I had predicted McCain's prospects, based on his compomise work regarding the Judicial fillibusters problem. That was until I found this unposted draft. Beside making my forecasting skills look slightly less amaturish, the following shows how down on Bush conservatives (taking me as typical) were even two years ago. So, here it is ...
Apparently, I misread the Gang of Fourteen deal. It would appear that the Miers nomination came from the belief that McCain could not be counted on to ride heard on the Compromisers. This, of course changes everything. It seems unlikely that even if McCain gets the nomination, he could hold together a Conservative base sufficient to carry battleground states that he needs to get to 270 electoral votes. The talking points from the White House seem to be blaming the G14 for the stealth nominations, so it would seem that McCain failed to give the assurances which I had predicted earlier.
A competing hypothesis that I have formed says that the Miers was the only one on the "short list" days before the announcement. I consider it very possible that this came as a result of an uncharacteristically brilliant move by the Democrats, Harry Reid in particular. It may have been that when Bush made his pro forma consultations with the Democratic Senators, Reid pointedly named Miers as a candidate acceptable to the Dem leadership. Since Bush already held Ms. Miers in such high regard, this would flatter him in his judgement of people, which he already dangerously overestimates. If the President had already picked Miers prior to the normal selection process, this would explain the reports that Andy Card had strong-armed the nomination throught the vetting committees.
As to hypothesis two above, why did Reid move to secure Miers nomination, and why is he so supportive of it? The first explaination is the "he knows something we don't" theory. Perhaps Miers gave hom some assurance that she isn't as nutty as the rest of the Republicans, but has to go along with the right-wing rhetoric. Tip O'Neill told a similar story of a conversation he had with George H. W. Bush following President Reagan's first State of the Union address, or there abouts. It may also be that he saw Miers as the best he could get from the Bush administration if he wanted to avoid forcing another Judicial fillibuster. The theory that the Democrats plan to ambush Miers in the committee hearings is weakened by the fact that the Liberal groups and Democratic campaigns left hundreds of thousands of dollars in fundraising on the table in holding their fire this long; they have a lot of opportunity cost invested in the Miers appointment. This applies to lesser extent to the "settling" explaination, since they could have milked this for some fundraising by mounting a token opposition.
Apparently, I misread the Gang of Fourteen deal. It would appear that the Miers nomination came from the belief that McCain could not be counted on to ride heard on the Compromisers. This, of course changes everything. It seems unlikely that even if McCain gets the nomination, he could hold together a Conservative base sufficient to carry battleground states that he needs to get to 270 electoral votes. The talking points from the White House seem to be blaming the G14 for the stealth nominations, so it would seem that McCain failed to give the assurances which I had predicted earlier.
A competing hypothesis that I have formed says that the Miers was the only one on the "short list" days before the announcement. I consider it very possible that this came as a result of an uncharacteristically brilliant move by the Democrats, Harry Reid in particular. It may have been that when Bush made his pro forma consultations with the Democratic Senators, Reid pointedly named Miers as a candidate acceptable to the Dem leadership. Since Bush already held Ms. Miers in such high regard, this would flatter him in his judgement of people, which he already dangerously overestimates. If the President had already picked Miers prior to the normal selection process, this would explain the reports that Andy Card had strong-armed the nomination throught the vetting committees.
As to hypothesis two above, why did Reid move to secure Miers nomination, and why is he so supportive of it? The first explaination is the "he knows something we don't" theory. Perhaps Miers gave hom some assurance that she isn't as nutty as the rest of the Republicans, but has to go along with the right-wing rhetoric. Tip O'Neill told a similar story of a conversation he had with George H. W. Bush following President Reagan's first State of the Union address, or there abouts. It may also be that he saw Miers as the best he could get from the Bush administration if he wanted to avoid forcing another Judicial fillibuster. The theory that the Democrats plan to ambush Miers in the committee hearings is weakened by the fact that the Liberal groups and Democratic campaigns left hundreds of thousands of dollars in fundraising on the table in holding their fire this long; they have a lot of opportunity cost invested in the Miers appointment. This applies to lesser extent to the "settling" explaination, since they could have milked this for some fundraising by mounting a token opposition.
posted by Rick Harlan at 12:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home