October 9, 2005

If you don't trust Bush, trust Rove...

NixGuy makes a good point:

...Rove however...does not stand for elections, but let’s assume that he wishes to remain a voice of power and influence within Republican circles. It would be suicide for him to be seen as the one who sold out the conservatives in the one matter that they cared about.

It is hard to believe that Rove, the boy genius, the master strategist, did not understand what conservatives wanted from Bush’s nominees and what would happen if they didn’t get it.

It is easy to believe that Rove understands that an overt fight is not a good idea right now with a wishy-washy republican senate that would not face down a filibuster. So he finds a rock-solid conservative, that is immune to criticism and immune to growing in office, and that the Democrats will not fight him over, (because they really don’t want the fight either). So it’s a win-win-win-lose where everyone gets what they want.

Conservative base gets a good judge (highly likely to be more consistently conservative than Roberts).

Bush satisfies the conservative base without spending political capital in the Senate (what little he has). The Republican senate avoids a fight they might lose (if the filibuster was used).

The Democratic senate avoids a fight that they might win, but would’ve been pyrrhic.

The Democratic base loses ultimately as they should.

Bottom line, if you don’t trust Bush, trust Rove, he has a lot more to lose if Miers turns out to be a liberal. Like the death of his career...

One thing you can usually bet on, is that if a person makes a big mistake, they won't make the same mistake again. And probably the second-biggest mistake of the Bushes (and they are a close family, and a mistake by one affects them all) was putting David Souter on the Court. So, whatever mistake Bush might make now, another Souter isn't going to be it. The people who say "We don't know that Miers might not be a Souter" are wasting their oxygen.

It's the way life is, that it's your mistakes that are remembered. But along with Souter one ought always to mention a nominee with far fewer "qualifications" than he (or Miers). Bush 41 also plucked Clarence Thomas from obscurity, and put him on the Court...

Posted by John Weidner at October 9, 2005 9:48 AM
Weblog by John Weidner