Tuesday, October 11, 2005

train wreck

The Miers nomination has certainly turned into a political train wreck for the GOP. Erick Erickson has posted the latest rumors about the causes of the fiasco:
I was going to write a juicy piece with lots of good quotes from White House sources, but in the past twenty-four hours I've gotten calls, emails, and instant messages requesting that I please not quote anyone. What's going on?

Here's the story I was going to write: I was going to write about the flurry of White House conservative staffers contacting me to vent. Slowly, but surely, momentum among the conservative staffers shifted from tight lipped Bushies to angry activists and then abruptly stopped. A couple worked under Miers and said they loved her, but could not fathom that she would be considered for the post, given that no one really knows where she stands except potentially on affirmative action and that would be bad for the conservative position.

What all the callers wanted to say, but then decided they should not say, or at least not be quoted saying, was that Andy Card really and truly was the person pushing Miers. The general theme was that Tim Flanigan had moved on in 2002, Gonzales had moved to Justice taking well trained staff with him, and Miers was left to fill a definite void with some lesser experienced staff.

Those who mentioned Roberts praised Miers handling of Roberts and commented that Miers went to bat for Roberts right out of the gate with a game plan in place, but no one was there to do the same for Miers. An independent source tells me that Miers begged for more time, but the White House demanded that Monday be the day. Interestingly, there is a credible rumor out there that the White House insisted on Monday because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor.

Part of the Miers pick seems to be a confused process and a rush job, which adds credibility to the rumor of a last minute back out. But, the White House conservatives and outside parties all indicate that they were ignored. They were heard but not listened to. Several who talked to RedState insist that warning flags were given to Andrew Card and others, but that those warning were ignored and Card pushed the issue all the way to the President's desk.

One outside source who has a good ear to the ground tells me that the White House most likely has nothing else to offer in Miers' favor, but will just recycle previous sound bites. This same source bolsters what a White House staffer tells me, in that the vetting process was so poorly done that much of what is now coming out about Miers was unknown before her nomination.

The remaining questions are whether Republican Senators will force the White House to withdraw the Miers nomination and, if so, will the replacement be less favorable to conservatives.
How much of this is accurate? Beats me. I would very much like to know two things: 1) what process did the White House follow to evaluate Miers as a potential nominee and 2) was Miers a last-minute replacement pick after another candidate declined the nomination?

If Miers wasn't evaluated in the same manner as the other nominees or if the evaluation process was cut short to meet an artificial deadline, Bush either needs to get some better advisers or he needs to start listening to them--this kind of sloppiness isn't acceptable. Another possibility is that Miers was well vetted and Bush knew how intense the opposition to Miers would be, but didn't care. He may be stubborn, but this would a kind of transcendent stubborness that passes into the realms of foolishness. Either way, Bush looks really bad as a result of this.

On the other hand, maybe this is just much ado about nothing, and Miers will turn out to be excellent.

No comments: