As we noted earlier, the Washington Times reported that Rove played the leading role in the selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Now we learn that Rove met secretly with the powerful fundamentalist leader James Dobson, who initially voiced support for Miers but now appears to harbor a few doubts:
For more than 30 years, Dobson has waged a crusade to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion. He said he believes Miers is against abortion, based on talks with her longtime friends and other information.Quite a few members of Congress now want to know what Dobson knows. Whatever Rove said is not protected by the seal of the confessional.
He also confirmed reports that he received a special briefing from Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove, but still will not discuss the talks in detail.
"When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know - that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation (that) I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said in a broadcast with co-host John Fuller.
The wording troubles me: "When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know..." Would Dobson use such dramatic phrasing if Rove had merely said "Miers opposes abortion" and left it at that?
3 comments:
Doesn't the Miers nomination look an awful lot like a blind? Isn't she probably a stalking horse for a real candidate?
Seems to me she hasn't a prayer of confirmation (unless the Senate is all on drugs), based on her zero experience, regardless of her political views.
I predict it'll play out this way. (I'll be glad to be proven wrong.):
Miers will fail to be confirmed. Bush will then open the Jack-in-the-Box and put up the real candidate he had in mind the whole time, and that candidate will be a dependable right wing extremist on social issues and a determined foreign policy neocon imperialist.
It could even be Rove. That would slide the Mastermind neatly out of the soup and onto the dessert plate.
Chances are, though, that it will be someone we haven't seen on the horizon yet: a fierce right-winger of the Rehnquist stamp, who will cement the court into a right-wing corner for twenty years.
And Congress, having junked one Bush nominee, will be perfectly set up to more or less be embarrassed into accepting his second one.
Checkmate.
The other possibility -- even more devious --
Since Harriet is such a gaga loyalist, ready to fall on any sword for Bush, maybe the current rightwing criticism of her nomination is itself a blind.
Serves to make the rest of Congress think she must be OK, if the conservatives are rejecting her.
Then when push comes to shove and the vote is taken, rightwings vote for her in a bloc, so do centrists if any remain (there are no leftists left in Congress, not even Bernie Sanders -- just Shades of Right, Rightest and Rightest).
Big surprise! "Uh, gee, we didn't know they were gonna crap on her, then vote for her... " AND...
Harriet wins in a walk.
Re: Comment #1 above - I agree. I've never really thought Miers was the real choice. They needed some chum to throw in the water, and being the ever loyal faghag that she is, Harriet volunteered for the job. She will either withdraw or will not be confirmed. Bush then gets to nominate their real choice, who I think will be A. Gonzalez, King of Pain.
The question is, will the dems AND moderate republicans fall for this silly bait & switch or stand up for the interests of the nation?
That's the really scary question.
Kim in PA
Post a Comment