This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« What's a Worldview and Why Should I Care? | Main | Conservatives and Evangelicals »
October 11, 2005
Is Bush Playing the Long Game?
There's a good diary (promoted to "article") on Redstate.org suggesting why Harriet Miers may be the best nominee, given the current climate. The writer, "bamapachyderm", suggests that Bush may be playing the long game with the Miers pick. Via a plethora of linkage, he lays out the idea that this pick may have been made with an eye to the possible retirement of Justice Stevens. In short, if Stevens saw a die-hard conservative pick for the O'Conner seat, he would be less likely to decide to retire under a Bush presidency. However, if Stevens felt that Bush would choose a moderate, he may be more willing to step down sooner over health issues.
In the comments, "Winter Soldier" gives some further analysis, noting that (among a dozen other observations) of the judges that Bush has picked for the federal bench, there's "not a single Souter to date!" He even notes how the Miers pick fits Sun Tzu's methods for dealing with an adversary.
Are Bush and his advisors playing the long game; looking ahead farther that we are? It's quite possible, and these posts make a strong case for it.
Posted by Doug at October 11, 2005 01:01 PM
Trackback Pings
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Bush Playing the Long Game?:
» Quag Miers from UNCoRRELATED
It has been very interesting to take in the commentary on the right concerning the Harriett Miers nomination which rather than mitigate with time, is clearly intensifying. John Fund, nominally a supporter a week ago, is now opposed to the Miers nominat... [Read More]
Tracked on October 11, 2005 01:51 PM
» Quag Miers from Mick Stockinger
It has been very interesting to take in the commentary on the right concerning the Harriett Miers nomination which rather than mitigate with time, is clearly intensifying. John Fund, nominally a supporter a week ago, is now opposed to the... [Read More]
Tracked on October 11, 2005 01:54 PM
Comments
Speculation, high hopes, and a "trust me" sounds great, but call me skeptical, because I just don't feel she is qualified, and her conservatism is arguable. I am sure she is a fine lawyer, but not apt in constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted by: Transcending Sovereignty at October 11, 2005 04:41 PM