The Republicans aren't the only ones who have to decide how to play the Miers nomination. Democrats have a dilemma of their own. This nomination really has potentially shuffled the deck and added some Jokers.
Look, if I was President, and I'd been reeling from the post-Katrina/FEMA blame-game and the perception that I appointed marginally qualified cronies to important positions, the last person I would have picked is Harriet Miers, even though she looks like somebody's mother even if she isn't.
On one level, it's certainly easy to sympathize with the conservative Republicans who seem to be saying, "You have the damn votes, man, go for the glory!" Because then, at least we'd all know what we were fighting about. (Hint: starts with an "a"...)
Had Bush done that, of course, the Democrats would have been out en masse with criticism. Let's face it. Bush is the guy on record as saying he doesn't favor a "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees. The Democrats clearly have one: it's abortion and they don't even hide it. If a nominee is not pro-choice, he or she need not apply, and this sanction applies to blacks and Hispanics -- whose race and ethnicity do not earn them a pass on this issue.
So, you can understand Bush's POV. He's stuck with sagging poll numbers, he just got his Supreme Court pick in John Roberts past everybody and he's in no mood for a big fight. The war he wants to win, more than other, is the War on Terrorism and he will need votes from both sides of the aisle to deal with a nuclear Iran. He knows, as does any rational person, that if he picks somebody who's on-the-record as a red-blooded conservative that it's Filibuster City. So he picks a nominee and says "Trust me."
Here's the Democrats' dilemma. If they join with disaffected Republicans and send Harriet Miers back to law practice, then Bush will have to pick somebody with conservative bona fides and street cred. The Republicans, who have the majority, will vote for this nominee. So the Democrats filibuster but they know (at least I assume they do) that such a piece of parliamentary rudeness won't play with the average American. Joe Blow or Joe Six-Pack or Joe Whoever thinks that's just a dumb game and sees essential fairness in letting Bush pick and the Senate giving him an up-or-down vote. Eventually, a filibuster would die. Salon just picked up on this in today's post, "Quag-Miers."
Democrats in the Senate, meanwhile, are patting themselves on the back for their good fortune. Not only did they get a nominee who may turn out to be more moderate than some of the candidates they had feared, but they are now watching the GOP base, which usually marches in lockstep with the party leadership, splinter into acrimonious factions. "I can't find enough popcorn," said one Democratic staffer who works on judicial selection.
So, ironically, the more that conservatives bitch and moan about Harriet Miers, the more the Democrats probably should like her. She's clearly got more chance of buying into at least some parts of their agenda in the future than anybody who comes after her.
What to do? Put this unqualified woman on the Supreme Court because it's possible -- once she has this lifetime gig -- that she'll emerge as pro-choice... OR... do they join with disaffected Republicans to block the nomination and get somebody next who's even more conservative, knowing that trying to stop that one will be a bloody mess that will make Americans have an even lower opinion of Congress than they do now?
If the enemy of my enemy is truly my friend, then they'll go for what's behind Door #2 and the games will begin in earnest.
