Intrade is usually right. So, let’s assume she is going to be beaten. Bush being Bush, he won’t back down. So it will go all the way to a vote and she’ll lose — let’s assume that happens for the sake of the discussion.
Then what? This is a blog, what the Hell, we can speculate all over the place.
Does Bush say, after this humiliating defeat, “yeah, I was wrong, I have learned, I have grown. I will now appoint a person with a long, published record which will appeal to the Conservatives who attacked Miers successfully”? Why would he?
Or does he instead say, “I cannot get someone known to be a Conservative onto the Court, and I cannot get a stealth Conservative onto the Court. I’ll just pick a Hispanic who is known to not be anti-Roe, since that appointment is ‘historic’ and generates some ethnic balance and is an easy confirmation that gets this over with”?
I have to think it something like the latter.
I am assuming that Bush did not pick someone with a proven record that Conservatives like because he does not think he can get such a person confirmed, or has no interest in doing so. What his motives really were, we may never know.
Bush certainly has no reason or incentive to give the Conservative wing of his coalition anything they happen to want after they went to war with him on this. Bush is in many ways a “Nixonian” president, spending lots of money, relatively pro-Government, not particularly popular, polarizing, more interested in foreign policy than in domestic policy. Perhaps his response to this episode will be similarly Nixonian, “f*ck the Conservatives, they are a bunch of kooks.”
I think we will see a much more “centrist” and “compassionate” President Bush hereafter, after having his throat cut by his own side. Why not? He is not running for anything again.
Or am I wrong for some reason.
(Of course, Harriet may blow us away in the Senate hearings, after all. I look forward to all that. I would love for this to be over with, one way or the other.)