Don't kid yourself on the Meiers withdrawal, true believer coming.

[patcox2]

Bush will not nominate a moderate. Period. There is zero chance of it. First of all, he was weakened and defeated on the Meiers nomination because she wasn't conservative enough, he lost the ultra-conservatives with her nomination, and look what happened to him. Think he wants to alienate the wingers again?

Second, always remember that his entire presidency is a reaction to his father's presidency (and also his twisted little oedipal "Fuck You" to his father, along the lines of "you fucked up, I got it right). His father didn't invade Iraq, Georgie was hellbent on invading Iraq is just one example. He is always trying to not commit what he (or Rove) thinks of as the mistakes of his father. His father committed, in conservative eyes, 4 great mistakes. He didn't invade Iraq; he raised taxes, he alienated the fundie right-wingers, and he nominated Souter, a moderate, to the Court. Bush has lowered taxes and invaded Iraq, he appointed a raving loon fundie attorney general, and you can count on it, he will NOT appoint another Souter.

Bush fears his own right wing far more than us democrats. They can hurt him worse. His father lost because he lost the right wing. Bush is determined at all costs not to repeat his fathers mistakes.

Of course, its a "lose-lose" situation for Bush anyway, but in the end, he will nominate a dyed-in-the-wool movement conservative federalist society type, there is no doubt about it.

[afdip]

1. you're right on target

[beyurslf]

2. I am afraid we will get someone who makes J. Roberts look mainstream.

[Demeter]

3. Bush Isn't Getting a Second Chance

and Sandra Day O'Connor is going to preside over the dismantling of the GOP. Serves her right, the traitor!

[AllyCat]

10. O'Connor wanting to retire in her 70s makes her a traitor?

I'd say she's done her service. I'd rather she presided over the coming storm than anyone * will put up next.

[Demeter]

15. No. O'Connor Enthroning the Boy King Makes Her a Traitor

Now she'll have a chance to fix her earlier error.

[AverageJoe]

20. She's a traitor because she voted to install the beast

in the White House. Nothing she can ever do can get that bloody stain from her hands or her soul.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

4. I think that is pretty clear.

[SheilaT]

5. Yep. Absolutely right.

And I honestly cannot understand what any of the right wing had against her. Did they honestly not think that for one minute Meiers wouldn't be the extreme conservative they wanted? Every single shred of information about her pointed directly to her extreme conservative beliefs.

As has happened before, the next nominee will be even worse.

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. Bingo!

If he doesn't deliver a Scalia/Thomas look-alike this time his base will throw him under a bus.

[AllyCat]

7. Agreed. As soon as I heard this news, I knew we were in for a fight

This next one will be the worst yet. We'd be happier with 9 Thomas/Scalia's on the bench than the next nom.

And I have NO faith in the Dems to filibuster anyone after the lot jumped ship on Roberts who, IMHO, had unproven qualification. He would not actually answer any questions, release any documents, and had a proven track record of supporting corporations, not people.

[adigal]

8. I don't think so...he has to be pissed at the right wing

They just pissed all over his good friend and made him look stupid. He never has to run again. He is a spiteful man. I think he is going to nominate someone very qualified and obviously moderate to stick it to all of those who ran off "Harry."

I don't think he has it in him to give the wingnuts what they want after they defied "King Georgie." I think they are going to wish they had Miers back.

I hope I'm right, or we are all screwed with a Janice Rogers Brown who wrote that the New Deal was socialist.

[calico1]

11. I hope you are right too.

If * had any "honor" or what honor is to the republicans anyway, he'd pick someone for the good of his party and base. But like you say, he doesn't have to run again so why should he care about who does? Is that in his nature? Or is it more like him to do something spiteful and vindictive? We shall see I guess.

[patcox2]

17. I hadn't considered his sociopathy, I hope your right.

My rant was based on the rational analysis of his semi-rational tendencies so far. But, you have made me think, he may truly be getting so twisted mean and rattled, he could be in some kind of meltdown that would throw all bets off.

I have to say, though, that I still think the chance is low that he'll nominate a moderate. I think Meiers was herself a little bit of a rebellion for him (I'm president, I'll do what I want, screw Karl and Cheney) and look where it got him. The fact that he told her to withdraw (and you know he did) means he is capitulating to his right wing, if he wanted to screw the right wing, he'd stick to his guns on her.

I am hoping he loses his shit, mentally. I would not put it past Cheney to seize power, Cheney is truly a far more evil man than Bush, Bush is a small man, a little man, spiteful, petulant, but tiny, his evil is small and insular, he's too self-centered for his evil to venture far afield, it all has to be about him. Cheney is a huge galloping prick with balls and evil enough to want to seize the presidency. I would be happier with an insane Bush in the whitehouse than with Cheney having him declared incompetent and seizing power. Cheney is the antichrist.

[adigal]

21. True - he should have stuck by Miers

Now I'm worried. But the Dems had better stick together and show the American people, who are now firmly in their camp, that they are tough.

[goose4739]

18. It's true

He has a proven unbelievably inflated ego and sense of self-importance, the preening, strutting ass. He might just nominate a moderate to piss off his God-bothering base.

[wellstone_democrat]

9. Right, he needs it in several ways

with legal probs on the horizon he needs a unified party in and out of Congress

he doesn't have to appease anyone---NO moderate needed! He has the votes if he appoints a corporatist/religio-fascist. That would take care of both wings of the party.

BTW, Roberts' credentials weren't exactly stunning Supreme Court calibre and there was little noise made about that---why? He was a created candidate through his career. No surprises there for any wing nut. Miers had a record that could not be "spun" like Roberts making some gov service sound "important" her experience was too mediocre. But, if she had been nominated in 2002? Wins in a walk. 2005? not enough "political capital" or personal capital for that matter.

[AllyCat]

25. He needs a corporatist on the bench to save him from his next

failed business venture out of office. He doesn't have to appease anyone but himself. That's what he'll think of most likely when deciding the next nom. Saving his own sorry a$$.

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. Agreed. He has no choice but to do that

There's still three years left of his reign. On the up side, doing so will hopefully solidify and re-energize the Left for 2006 elections.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Think it's Gonzales. Bush always wanted him & * doesn't like being pushed.

[yellowcanine]

24. I agree. Gonzales would be retribution on the wing nuts and they probably

could not stop him. They can't say he isn't qualified and only one or two pubbie senators would dare to oppose him.

[terrya]

14. I'm guessing it will be Janice Rogers Brown

This nomination would be perfect for Bush to kiss some right wing ass. He still gets to nominate a woman, and an African-American...AND someone who is well respected with the right wing.

[Justitia]

16. Should be interesting...RWer smackdown vs petulance?

Either scenario could occur....

He could nominate some fruitcake his nutbar base will love (Owen, Brown, etc) looking to shore up support...

OR

He could be so pissed over how his cronies/friends have been treated (Miers, Gonzales) by the nutbars, that he's gonna show them!

If he feels weak and vulnerable, he'll go for the fruitcake.
If he is as stupidly arrogant and petulant as we all know he is, he'll go for another crony.

He could do both w/Priscilla Owen (ack!).

[patcox2]

19. One last consideration: Covering his ass.

This weighs towards Gonzalez, someone who will cover his ass and keep him and the cabal out of jail. It would be both petulant and self-serving, and Gonzalez is arguably pro-choice so the dems would probably let the torture-ennabler go.

[PDittie]

22. He'll pick one of these four:

— ALBERTO GONZALES, 50: U.S. attorney general and former White House counsel. Critics contend a memo he wrote on treatment of terrorism detainees helped lead to abuses like those seen at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Conservatives have urged Bush not to nominate him.

— EDITH HOLLAN JONES, 55: Has served on the 5th Circuit since 1985. The first President Bush considered Jones for a vacancy on the Supreme Court in 1990, but nominated David H. Souter.

— PRISCILLA OWEN, 50: Owen was confirmed in May for a seat on the 5th Circuit after a drawn-out Senate battle. Democrats argued that Owen let her political beliefs to color her rulings. They were particularly critical of her decisions in abortion cases involving teenagers.

— EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, 57: On the 5th Circuit since 2001, Clement is known as a no-nonsense judge with a reputation for being tough on crime and meting out stiff sentences. Her 99-0 Senate confirmation vote to the circuit court in November 2001 suggests she has broad appeal. She was touted as a top possibility for the vacancy to which Roberts was nominated.

Other names here.

[Dark]

26. It won't be Gonzales. He's going to nominate a woman. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

23. Interesting post. I wonder what does Poppy Bush think

about Baby Bush's born-again trip? It never crossed my mind before, but I imagine he sees it as unmanly.