I think George Bush only nominated Harriet Mairs so Priscilla Owen

or Janice Rodgers Brown could then be substituted in her place and he could claim the position was "politicized."

Watch...this week, Mairs will end up shit canned and one of the others will end up in her stead.

being more worried about his own hide and not being there to hold Chimpy's hand for the past few months.

And even if Brown or Owen gets nominated in Miers' stead, the Humanzee faces a severely weakened GOP Congress. Delay, Frist--hell, even without those two, the GOP has to be getting pretty damn worried about their own re-elections.

That's not saying your suggestion that it was the plan all along doesn't have some merit, but if it was, George the Lesser will have to pull it off in an increasingly hostile environment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1869244

He might have been paying off a lil' debt.

eta: Oh, and here's a nice little Yahoo article to add to the story, which has my favorite quote of the night:

"'If they're spending that kind of money,' said Mauro, now an Austin attorney who estimates he spent less than $20,000 on legal fees during the {1998 Texas Governor} campaign, 'they're spending it to protect themselves from something.'"

:)

:toast:

But now his judgment is in serious question, and so PO will be looked at even more harshly than if she had been first offered.

I can't believe I used the term "honestly" to apply to any of bush's actions.

She knows where all the Bush scandals are hidden. He's got to keep her quiet -- and putting her in the Supremes would seal her heart to him forever. That's his thinking, IMO.

When Bush does something really stupid, it's HIS idea.

she's just WAY too unqualified for her nomination to really be serious.

Man! Do you realise that * has been seriously doing this "No Bid Contract" sh*t for so long that it has become second-nature to him? He is a walking "Cronyism Purveyor" in all aspect and no denying of it.

I think it was bogus, cause it threw many Dems for a loop and some are still questioning whether or not her "stance" and affiliation with the religious right-wing is severe enough to vote her down. And along comes this "outcry" from so many Republicans!

They've already proven ya can't trust 'em as far as you can spit! They'll get who they want into that seat, deciding cases the way THEY want, by hook or by crook! If it takes putting on a show, trying to convince Dems that the briar patch ain't where they really want to be, I haven't a doubt that's what they'd do!

Either way, if her nomination ends up going for a vote, or she's thrown out and Owen or Brown replace her, lots of those Senators still haven't picked their jaws off the floor to make a decent stand. Write to them and let them know how this vacancy could be the most important decision they've ever made, (if they expect to be re-elected!); see what they think of Miers and make sure they know exactly how you feel about her!

"I Say: KEEP Miers"

Regardless of what a tool she is and how wingnut she is likely to be, if she is dropped----ANYBODY Shrub replaces her with will be a hundred times MORE wingnut.

Plus, a simple rule: If something is pissing-off the wingnut yakkers (Dan COULTER, INGRAHAM, the rest)--------it's GOOOOOD!

That said, the links (above) about LITTIG testifying and her Shrub/campaign-work/cover-up -------if our dear Senators deign to pursue the issues in the hearings-----would seem to derail her.

he thought it would be the Democrats that would raise the stink about Miers, rather than the right-wing. I think he was surprised by that. But, Miers will step down, in my opinion, and he will put up the candidate he wanted in the first place...and there will probably be a consensus on DU that the replacement is much worse...

he's a tad distracted with the race to keep his ugly ass outta jail.