I believe Bush's main motive was to get a conservative butt on the Court, and that knowing the realities on the ground in a way we don't, because he knows the 7 Republicans who signed on to the Gang of 14 Nuclear Freeze Treaty very well, he figured the odds and like the good poker player that he is, he bet on a sneaky approach with someone he believed he knew well.
He probably also knew that Owens and Brown had opted out of the fight, and he needed someone with the guts to go the distance no matter what the flak.
Women who entered the legal or medical field back when Miers did and even a few years later like I did have an internal resilence and a "damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead" belief in themselves and an internal motivating force that those who came to the table later when most of the barriers were down don't necessarily have.
The "mistake" Bush may have made was wanting to appoint a woman after having appointed a white male. He is egalitarian to the bone, and it is a fact of life with him that he believes America is better off when everyone is in the game and gets to play.
And he is also a savvy politician who calculated that the middle of the road woman's vote is more important to the future of the Republican party that the immediate happiness of your dark side conservatives.
He was probably surprise (I was) by the depth and vitriol of opposition by you all. He was most likely thinking that you may be unhappy now but will start perking up when you see how she votes, and thus be redeemed before the Party faces the next big election.
Anyway, from what I know about Dubya, that's my take.
He certainly knew wheter or not each person on the short list was willing to serve. Owen and Brown were nixed by Reid. There is no credible evidence that either declined the opportunity.
And if "the story" is true, then Owen and Brown are "out for good." If so, why isn't somebody screaming? Huh? Not them, of course, but that is quite the circumscription on the President's choices, if you ask me.
I believe Bush's main motive was to get a conservative butt on the Court
I have serious suspicions of cronyism. Pains me to say it, but this bonehead move has to have some powerful motivation, 'cause it just isn't making sense as a pick. It's the last reason I want to put forward, and if she was otherwise "qualified" (in the subjective sense), I wouldn't care at all that she was a crony.
The "mistake" Bush may have made was wanting to appoint a woman ...
Puhleeze. I'd go ape-bonkers if it was Owen or Brown. This isn't a gender thing, in the least.
And he is also a savvy politician who calculated that the middle of the road woman's vote is more important to the future of the Republican party that the immediate happiness of your dark side conservatives.
I think he may be using the "trust me" card for political advantage. He's using it with evangelicals too. I have no problem with him limiting his short list to women, but if for whatever reason it get's whittled down to 1, who happens to be his counsel, has been sicen 1994, where she went to SMU a year ahead of Laura? Ahem. There are better -female- picks.
He was probably surprise (I was) by the depth and vitriol of opposition by you all. He was most likely thinking that you may be unhappy now but will start perking up when you see how she votes ...
When she votes is too late. This is a big deal, it is an important deal. You live in the south? You get the house checked for termites before you send the cash over - even if you're buying from your sister.
The dark side folks are most interested in a transparent process, with a person who can be evaluated to see qualities that make for ... well, I won't describe it, I think you know the qualities - everybody pretty nmuch agrees with what we want for performance. The issues are all swirling around the uncertainty inherent in this nominee.
Are you gonna flame me? ;-)