by Kagro X
OK, you want to talk about Harriet Miers. I think that's rude, now that she's asked for her life back, though. Why can't you people just leave the White House Counsel alone, to live her life in private? You bastards!
Seriously, though, the withdrawal of the nomination has opened up all sorts of speculation about who's next, with the heavy betting (and heavy breathing) focused on a "wingnut" to satisfy "the base."
But I'm not so sure.
Still unexplained, or at least largely unabsorbed, is the split among "the base" between evangelicals and DC institutional conservatives, including the Catholic right:
Finally, there's this important observation: There's a difference between the religious right and actual conservatives ... :
"Right now, except for the evangelicals, who are excited because they finally have one of their own, I think largely the (conservative) movement is doing nothing" for Miers, said Paul Weyrich, a long-ago Milwaukee newspaper reporter who went on to become a key conservative activist in Washington.
Dobson's falling in line making more sense, now? It seems so clear, in hindsight. Yet most of the liberal blogosphere, I think, was of the opinion that Miers' lack of clearly "conservative" credentials would cost Bush the support of the "wingnuts," typically defined (to the extent that they've ever been defined at all) as the religious right -- the evangelicals Weyrich speaks of. Here, we find that the evangelicals are not only slowly climbing back on board, they may in fact be the only supporters Bush can count on in the early going. Has he made his "balloon payment" after all? And if so, what does that mean for all those wringing their hands over "who comes next?" if Miers goes down to outright defeat?
And as we all know, James Dobson was for Miers.
So, what's this "base" that needs appeasing? Is the White House likely to throw another bone to this "base," after it failed so miserably to deliver? Why is the takeaway from this more likely to be that this "base" needs feeding than what I said back on the ninth: a terse note to evangelicals -- "we sent up one of yours and you couldn't get mainline Republicans on board, so you've still got some learning to do."
The part of George Bush's "base" that didn't show up for Miers is the part that knows when to cut bait. The part of the base that a "fundie wingnut" would be designed to satisfy was the part that clung to the Dear Leader's petticoats no matter how deep the doo-doo got. How hard would you work to appease them, given that wild horses couldn't tear them from th' preznit, and they didn't show when you needed them?
No, the "base" that Bush needs to appease is the one that cost him this ridiculous joke of a nomination. And while they, too, may be very comfortable with a hardline conservative who might be quite acceptable under the "fundie wingnut" test, that probably won't be the primary reason the next contestant has their name called.