Miers backed out? But why?

In a move that shocked no one except maybe the President, Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination.

(Is that the correct way to word that? She didn’t nominate herself, so can she “withdraw” her nomination?)

Anyway, it appears that the only person on the planet who thought she should be a Supreme Court justice was George Bush, who accepted her decision only “reluctantly“. I’m not a follower of this sort of thing, but the choice certainly seemed curious given that nearly everyone was very unhappy with it It makes me wonder if this wasn’t all part of a master plan of some sort.

Remember New Coke? Some think it was a huge gaffe that Coca-Cola spun into a huge win when it reintroduced Coke Classic. Some think that was the plan all along. I’ve long been in the latter camp, though based only on a gut feeling and not on any evidence of any sort. I’m leaning in that direction on the Miers thing, as well.

Only time will tell, of course. But on the surface I have trouble accepting that the same folks who nominated John Roberts and maneuvered him into the top slot would follow up with Miers unless it was a ploy. Opponents of the administration like to think that Bush is on the ropes, struggling to maintain control. And that might, in fact, be true, though I am skeptical that things are really as bad as we’re told.

Based on a gut feeling, much like the one I had as a teenager about New Coke, I suspect that the new nomination is going to be anything but lame.

UPDATE: Okay. A quick Google reveals that the “Harriet Miers is New Coke” thing has been done in one way or another about a bazillion times already. Sorry. I thought I was being snarkily clever.

I don’t believe that I saw any of that previously, though I’m not sure how I overlooked the Malkin post from a couple of weeks ago.

UPDATE 2: See, what I should do is look around a bit before I hit the ‘post’ button. The infallible Snopes claims that the New Coke thing was an honest mistake, not a clever marketing ploy.

That doesn’t fit my personal worldview, so I’m basically going to dismiss it.

Incidentally, I really like new Coke With Lime.

Comments

  1. Bush is basically following the course outlined by Charles Krauthammer in a recent essay – using the excuse of the documentation as reason for not continuing. Face saving is all it is. More over at Perfidy.

  2. I have felt that Meirs was a stalking horse for some time now. George now has all the foes where he can see them and can now pick a nominee who while not pleasing everyone, will at least be confirmed. This nominee will look good in comparison to Meirs, yet will be more conservative than her. Probably will be young, 50’s, with a long term ahead.

  3. Frank, Vanilla Coke is to vanilly. Likewise with the Cherry Coke. Too much delightful flavor syrup does not a delightful drink make. Rich, I don’t think that the Miers nomination was an intentional stalking horse – it may end up being one, but only by accident. Bush seems to have been genuinely surprised by the reaction to Miers, and shocked that the conservative base didn’t trust him on Miers credentials. It’s of a piece with similar misteps. We may end up with a better nominee, but I don’t believe it was a cunning plan. (After all, Rove apparently wasn’t directly involved.) One of Bush’s strengths is that generally speaking, he says what he means. Of course, in a case like this one, it can become a liability.

  4. Open the window…I guess the argument that the Presidents choices deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the senate, just got tossed out.

  5. Errr, 11Echo? It didn’t get to the point of voting. Nomination…Confirmation Hearings…Vote. It died in step one. Just because a nominee died in step one doesn’t mean that an up or down vote shouldn’t be expected when step two is completed.

  6. Errr…I am sure that is how some would like to remember it, but….many stressed that Bush, as the President, at the least deserved an up or down vote for his nominee. A filibuster would also keep it from getting to a vote… 1.Kay Bailey Hutchison: ‘we must take action to ensure President Bush’s nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve’ 2. Sen. John Cornyn: ”And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents’ nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat.’ 3. Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo ‘We are pleased that three of the President’s judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes – it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case.’

  7. 11Echo…Maybe I’m missing your point. I took it to be that since Miers withdrew before she got an up-or-down vote, those claiming that nominees deserve up-or-down votes are hypocrites. That’s obviously ridiculous, and it’s why I replied the way I did. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at. Just what *is* it that you’re getting at?