I find this whole thing very confusing. Nominating Alito is a bad idea for two reasons: 1), I'm not sure that Bush has the votes necessary to get such an obvious wing nut confirmed, because *all* the Democrats and some of the Republicans (like the pro-choice ones or the ones who are facing reelection battles in moderate districts) are going to line up in opposition, and 2) if Alito does get confirmed, and Roe v. Wade gets overturned or limited in any major way, the Republicans will have hell to pay in the midterm elections, because no matter how you spin it, the majority of Americans are still pro-choice, and I can't think of a single issue that would mobilize a base better (as
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1)
springbok1 already noted) than abortion rights.
Really, I just don't understand. Has Bush, wounded by his incredibly low approval ratings, retreated into a happy delusional world in which he is immensely popular and can do whatever he wants? Or has having Karl Rove distracted for so long really been that damaging to the presidency?
Comments
Say 'bye bye' to the Rove presidency, say 'haya *hic* howdy y'all' to the Bush presidency.
The question for me was why he would nominate someone like Miers at all, but
(a conspiricy theory worthy of an alaska;))
Then he nominated Miers. And I'm thinking, "Okay, now how the hell did that go down... ?"That's how we got a SCOTUS nominee that Bush's own party gunned down in a dark alley.
But the bit where he nominates freakin' Alito as the "backup" plan after Miers, then demands a Texas two-step from the Senate to hammer the confirmation through on His schedule... um, maybe this is somehow a sign of evil super-genius at work again? Like, he doesn't really care whether Alito gets confirmed, but the fight will re-invigorate his constituency while providing a media distraction BONANZA, and there's no actual risk to SCOTUS since the Dems are gonna filibuster Alito til the cows come home?