Harriet Miers is a Straw Candidate (Vanity )(A different line of thinking)

[pissant]

The machavellian plot is that this woman has assured GWB that she is a strict constructionist and he knows what she thinks about abortion.

[KingKongCobra]

Wow, another vanity that could have been posted on one the the 276 existing threads.

[TomGuy]

But in the end, all the GOP senate will vote for her nomination.

Not necessarily. Those facing reelection in 06 or 08 will pay attention to their voters. Senator Allen yesterday said calls to his office were almost completely against Miers, none favorable.

Too many want/need some substance before they can support Miers. So far, all we've gotten is that she was the first woman to head the Texas bar and she was on the Texas lottery commission.

[B Knotts]

That's no different than most of her supporters. :-P

[SevenMinusOne]

Possible to get a third SCOTUS appointment, however after the disasterous 2006 elections the majority in the Senate will be slimmer or gone - and with it any hope of getting confirmation for a nominee with the demonstrably conservative background as JRB.

Absolutely wrong - The GOP is not going to lose the Senate (or House) in 06 - We will gain 1 to 3 seats in the Senate and 2 to 8 seats in the House (just watch).

This same negative BS was being spread in 2002 and 2004 - That the DEM's would only increase their levels in 2002....and then it 2004 we were going to lose the Senate (and the WH) back to the DEM's -

[CharlesWayneCT]

If the theory was correct, you would assume it was her idea:

"Hey, you know how people keep suggesting we should send Mark Levin up there just to mock the democrats for a while? Well, I see Harry put me on the list. Why don't you send ME up there.

"After I'm nominated, we'll put out a steady stream of information about my conservative religious beliefs, my strong pro-life views, and whatever else we can think of to bait the democrats.

"Then, at the hearings, when they ask the questions we won't answer, I'll answer them. I'll tear them apart for what they did to all our other nominees. What Roberts did indirectly, I'll do directly -- expose their judicial philosophy for the activism it is. When I'm done, I will of course have to withdraw my name for answering all those questions."

Like I said, I don't think this is what happened. But if it did, it wouldn't be a cruel thing he pulled on her, it would be something they worked out.

One argument against it is that if ANYBODY ever found out, I think it would be a very bad thing.

My theory, on the other hand, is that she gets up there, and it turns out that she has a "Robertsesque" grasp of constitutional law. I mean, while she hasn't practiced in that field, it doesn't mean she hasn't studied it. After all, she IS the head of the team to pick out appropriate constitutional scholars. And reports are she IS intelligent.

I think her grasp of the issues would be the big surprise at the hearings, if she DOES have a grasp of the issues.

And if she crashes and burns at the hearings, she'll withdraw or be voted down, and we can move on to the next nominee.

[FreeRep]

Herriet Miers will strictly interpret our Constitution and will not legislate from the bench. She will represented the midwest conservative and knows rural Baptist America.

[Defendingliberty]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...It just happens to be a line of thought I had with my friend on Sunday morning before the candidate was known. I wanted some feedback. Thanks to all..

[Mike Darancette]

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

With a single qualifier.

VERY wrong.