He said: Harriet Miers: I trust the President. If it's not too late.

I'll admit it. My first impression of the Harriet Miers nomination was, "This is a stroke a genius!" With all the media hype over Katrina/New Orleans, (Remember this: All the rape and pillage that happened in New Orleans was Bush's fault for responding too slowly. AND the rape and pillage didn't actually happen. AND it's STILL Bush's fault.), with the price of gas sky high, and with ongoing unrest in Iraq, the president comes into the Sandra Day O'Connor replacement riding on less than a juggernaut. If he chooses, say, Priscilla Owen, the left's response will go from the loud drumbeat of resistance that was the Roberts nomination, to all-out hysterical, fanatical, the-sky-is-falling opposition. Every daily TV talkshow will sound the alarm, every day. Every nightly newshow will pound home the dread every night. 24 hrs/day on NPR you'll hear some variation of the theme that "America as we know it will cease to exist if this extremist idealogue is confirmed" So, in an elegant stroke, W appointed someone whom the right would be proud of, yet has no papertrail, nothing on which the left can get traction.

The genius of the plan, however, leans heavily on the president's credibility with his base. For the plan to work, the conservative base has to be convinced that Harriet Miers is what the President said he would choose, while she is sold to the left as someone who is ostensibly in the mold of Sandra Day. Because Harriet is an unknown quantity, the left has nothing to complain about. At the same time, though, this unknownness put the onus all on W's word: Is she or is she not what he said he would appoint? Unfortunately, the conservatives already feel like they've been burned by a president named Bush nominating a dark horse for supreme court. I, for one, trust the president in the Harriet Miers nomination, because I think that he and I share a lot of idealogical common ground.

You see, "W" is a very different person than "HW". George HW Bush stepped out the the blueblood center-to-left domain and went to the right as far as he must to get elected. He then proceeded to govern and appoint from back where he felt comfortable. So when conservatives feel like they got burned on David Souter: they did! David Souter well represents HW's true philosophical camp. Let's be honest in our memory, though: nobody was under any illusions that HW was a champion in the conservative cause. He was, however, electable, and he was far preferable to the alternative. So you "get what you pay for".

"W", on the other hand has not shown himself to be a fair weather conservative. He has taken stances that are palatable to the center left, i.e. compassionate conservatism, but his true domain, it seems to me, is right about where I am. He has, however, been painted for so long, and so often, as deceitful, that even his base seems to have lost some faith in him. So now he has to prove to the base that Harriet is what he says she is, and thereby do the opposition's work for them. I think Ms. Miers would have been a fine justice, and very difficult to oppose, but it may be too late. I fear that we conservatives may have been too clever by half, because if she is withdrawn, her replacement will undoubtedly look very much like her: the president is not going to choose someone that the left can call "extreme" or "idealogue". He will choose someone to whom the label "center-to-right" can be applied, as opposed to "right wing". With Ms. Miers, we might have gotten a sheep in wolves' clothing. Now we may be stuck with a wolf in wolves' clothing.

Questions, comments, concerns? Please feel free to E-mail me!