Thus spake Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) of Harriet Miers today. And Lott’s direct contradiction of what President Bush said yesterday was, apparently, one of the nicer things that conservatives said about her today. Tomorrow’s WaPo will run this article on the front page that recounts two extremely stormy closed-door sessions, one hosted by Grover Norquist and one by Paul Weyrich, that were supposed to calm conservative fears but appear instead to have turned into food fights. The Christian conservatives are furious; Norquistian conservative activists who have waited for this moment for many years are furious; the conservative elites and intellectuals are furious; and there’s no end in sight. Even James Dobson, who has had personal reassurances from Karl Rove on Miers, is hedging his bets, counting on divine intervention to tell him what to do.
And speaking of Karl Rove, Novak-Plame-gate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is reportedly only days away from announcing the results of his investigation. And, tantalizingly, Rove has apparently been conspicuously absent from events over the last several days that he normally would be expected to attend, and Rove’s lawyer, who for months has been insisting that his client is "not a target" of the investigation, today refused to comment. Mustn’t … get … hopes … up …
Oh, what the hell – let’s fantasize. If Karl Rove gets indicted in the same week that three quarters of the conservative movement deserts President Bush over the Miers nomination, the wheel are just going to come flying off this administration. And while we’re fantasizing, could Fitzgerald just go completely nuts and not only indict Rove and Scooter Libby and Ari Fleischer but also name Bush and Cheney as unindicted coconspirators? What would happen then? Remember, this administration still has three years to go. Could a bona fide, ongoing scandal carry Democrats to a majority in the House, and could that lead to impeachment articles against these guys?
When you wish upon a star …
so, not to be a sourpuss on this whole deal, but i think a recent Billmon post should give us all a little pause:http://billmon.org/archives/001969.htmlBillmon suggests, using the “Clean Hands” development in Italy in the early 80’s as an example, that scandals alone do not take down a regime. He is quite pessimistic about the final outcome, but does mention that scandals combined with an aggressively reform-oriented opposition party could lead to lasting regime change.
What makes me a little nervous about all this, is that if the fundies are causing such a fuss about Miers, it’s because they don’t trust her to swing the court to the right, not because they don’t think she’s qualified – I doubt they care about that as long as Roe gets overturned. If Miers is not confirmed, or drops out of the running, who then might we see as a candidate? And to what lengths will the same cabal go to make sure that O’Connor’s replacement is in the Scalia/Thomas tradition? Unfortunately with Bush picking SC nominees it’s lose-lose for progressives.
well, dream on. UNINDICTED means unimpeachable.The Tru-cons are the ones against the neo-con nominaton of Miers – and they will still back the President on virtualy every other issue. Sorry.Bork! What’s HE doing?
Is she qualified?Clearly, the answer, again, is ‘no.’