Interesting timing

October 27, 2005

This is probably tin-foil hat territory, so forgive a quick flight of fancy, but I’m wondering about the timing of the Harriet Miers withdrawal. The confirmation hearings were still a couple of weeks away and, as recently as yesterday, the White House and some key allies were strategizing about an aggressive new approach to advance Miers’ nomination, including the possibility of a high-profile speech intended to assuage the criticism.

And yet, a day later, Miers’ nomination is no more. Nothing happened yesterday that was so unique that it necessarily doomed her chances, which makes me wonder if perhaps the announcement — at least the timing of the announcement — was driven by a different motivation.

The LA Times noted today that the White House strategy in dealing with the Plame scandal, in the short term, is “try to change the subject to something — anything — else.” Might this include a renewed focus on the Supreme Court vacancy? I don’t see why not.

Am I suggesting that Miers withdrew today simply because we may learn about Plame indictments? I’m suggesting it’s certainly possible. There’s ample evidence that the White House will use Supreme Court announcements to shift attention away from the Plame story; this might just be another example.

The political world has become consumed with the leak scandal and believes indictments are imminent. As of this morning, there’s something new to talk about — Miers is gone, who’ll be her replacement, will the GOP base be satisfied, etc. Depending on when Bush announces his new choice, speculation will be a pretty big story, followed by more coverage of whomever the new nominee is.

To be sure, if indictments are issued, the uproar will be intense, and there’s little Bush can do about it. But the Miers angle, at a minimum, divides attention.

I obviously don’t know for sure if this is what’s driven the Miers withdrawal, but the timing is curious. I’m just throwing this out there.

Tim Russert actually suggested the opposite was true. That the White House wanted to use the Plame indictments to shift attention away from Miers. I think your version makes more sense.

  • OT, but very interesting post by Begala at TPM CAfe: one tidbit: The last thing this President wants is the first thing he needs: someone to slap his spoiled, pampered, trust-funded, plutocratic, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life cheek and make him face the reality of his foul-ups.

  • Russert is an ass.

    I will say that it is interesting to watch this administration caught on the horns of its two greatest strengths: the religious right and the dirty tricks used to gain power.

    I almost feel sorry for ’em…

  • “Create chaos and swim through it.” – Lee Attwater

    Totally intentional or not, it all creates chaff that obscures focus.

    Maybe it’s been Robert Bork in a rubber Harriet Miers suit all along. Back to the drawing board.

  • From the very first I was suspicious of the Miers nomination. Why would Bush nominate her? Sure, he likes to promote from within and his view of her skills is very subjective, lacking view from the outside. Nonetheless, he should have (read: did) known that at minimum, there would have been a fight over her. At maximum – here we are today.

    I am quite sure he knew there would be requests for any information on her past work. To use that as an excuse to accept he resignation is, quite frankly, insulting.

    Why would he do such a thing?

    What purpose does it serve a sitting President to nominate a person that he KNOWS will not get nominated? Breathing room? For what? Delay? Plame? Iraq? Take your pick.

    If that is what it is, it was such a flawed strategy that it is stunning. Unless that ALSO serves a purpose. One could argue that the simple fact that I am asking these questions proves that, in a way, it worked.

    But I have lots of energy to ask many questions on many different subjects, as do others.

    Is it all about column inches? Is it that simple?

    The Miers nomination never really made any sense. Why would Bush do such thing?

  • They may want to shift attention away from Fitz but it will be temporary. Once Fitz says something, anything it will all come rushing out – especially since I doubt this Special Prosecutor goes away indictmentless.

  • I think it’s the threat that W would have to revisit the whole National Guard dodge when the Senate called Littwin to testify about the Texas Lottery payoff to keep Ben Barnes quiet. That story had just begun to gain traction in the last few days.

  • Saw these on MSNBC – the third one was interesting

    — the Senate Judiciary Committee not releasing Miers’ revised questionnaire last night, as planned, apparently because of how late in the evening they received it;
    — Senate Judiciary chair Arlen Specter’s heads-up to Miers yesterday that he planned to ask her during her confirmation hearings about issues surrounding detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, the authority to declare war, and how she would recuse herself on cases if confirmed;
    — a Washington Times report that leading Miers backer Leonard Leo quit the pro-Miers effort yesterday and returned to his job as executive vice president of the Federalist Society;
    — two conservative groups, the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Concerned Women for America, both of which had previously taken a neutral position on Miers, calling on her to withdraw (also reported in the Washington Times);
    — new questions in the Washington Post about her former Texas law firm’s business “helping to promote tax shelters that were subsequently deemed abusive by the Internal Revenue Service;” and,
    — Ann Coulter’s suggestion on NBC’s Today Show that all Bush needs to do is drop Miers and everything with conservatives will be OK.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3626796/

  • the withdrawal, coming first, can’t draw attention away from indictments that have not come yet, but the naming of a new nominee, maybe one that makes the right particularly happy, probably could.

  • If there are indictments, Bush will desperately need the support of the hard right — especially the punditry that has been so vocal against Miers.

  • I agree with Cullen, in part, but I think the real problem was Arlen Specter.

    He probably could’ve been counted on to keep the National Guard coverup out of the Miers hearings, but once she basically accused Specter of being either a liar or a fool (did she or did she not tell him she supported Griswold?) her nomination was doomed. Hell hath no fury like a publicly embarrassed senator. All else may have fallen apart or become hopelessly shredded in the District of Columbia, but the power of Senate committee chairmen endures.

  • I don’t think there’s any doubt that they did this to change the conversation away from Plame, but I also think they used Plame as an excuse (or cover) for throwing Meiers over the side. To find proof of the former, you have only to go back and note how quickly the White House nominated Meiers in the first place: they trotted her out much faster than anyone had predicted – beating most projections by a number of weeks. They’ve been being crushed by Plame for a while now, and this is just another indication that the weight of that issue is killing them.

  • If changing the subject or diluting the impact of Fitz’ actions was the intent, then I think it’s just one more strategem that’s going to misfire.

    Since no indictments came down today, I’m betting the Meiers withdrawal buzz will pick today and subside to a background issue by noon tomorrow — except in the wingnut press who has its own agenda. (Hah! Love that word.)

  • To take the tin hat speculation one step further: I can’t help thinking that Bush has long since decided on his second choice should Miers fall through. What are the odds he’ll make the announcement tomorrow, around the same time as Fitzgerald’s scheduled press conference?

  • Didn’t Bush meet yesterday with Republican members of Congress to discuss Miers? If so, they probably told Bush there wasn’t enough support for Miers to be confirmed. My guess is that the Miers timing is coincidental to the leak investigation. But it’s also a sign of that Bush is weak, and any indictments will weaken him further.

  • One interesting aspect is that with Miers’ withdrawal, there will be no need for Rev. Dobson to testify before the Senate under oath about his conversations with White House staff about the nomination, or at least I would presume not. And it might even encourage the wingnuts to keep their mouths shut a little tighter in future. You never know.

    • Comments are closed.