Glenn Reynolds asked today:

Whatever Miers brings to the table, there’s no doubt that this nomination was a mistake politically, and that it’s been badly handled. What possible benefit could Bush get from the Miers nomination that makes it worth sowing this much dissension within the ranks of his supporters?

The answer is somewhat obvious, actually. He could get confirmation on a very strict constructionist (some would say originalist) judge that would shape the way the Supreme Court interprets laws and the Constitution for the next twenty or thirty years.

Whether that describes Miers or not, is, of course, the big issue at hand, but that certainly is the possible benefit that would be worth this short term dissension. See Taste of Liberty’s earlier post for some further thoughts on Bush’s potentially genius “rope-a-dope” nomination.

The Miers Saga continues with all sides bobbing and weaving. The scripted players appear to suddenly abandon the script. Conservatives go on the attack, outraged at the disappointment. Liberals go on defense, placing themselves in the position of defending Miers, exhibiting that knee jerk “if the conservatives oppose her she must be good” response. The media, taking its nod from the liberal Democrats, follow blindly along gloating over the chance to pummel conservatives, especially the religious type.

Are some of those conservatives really playing to a script? Is the “misunderestimated” George W. Bush setting up the confirmation of Miers with a stroke of genius? Is fueling the fire of conservative criticism pushing the liberals into an unwitting position of supporting Miers knowing as little about her as everyone else?

Could even Laura Bush’s remarks about sexism be setting the liberals up to support Harriet Miers? “Yeah, sexism… let’s climb on board and get those evil sexist conservatives.”

I’m beginning to think Bush is a genius. He continues to boonswaggle the left, in this case running the risk of upsetting his conservative base for a time to push the Democrats into a position of supporting his candidate. The ‘fight’ and the hearings will be anticlimactic. It has already really played out. Miers will say little of substance in the hearings, declining, as she should, to prejudge issues and cases which may come before the court.

Then there’s the possibility all this is being orchestrated by Someone greater than George W. Bush. Could Bush be God’s man for our time?

So far in this presidency I would be inclined to say ‘yes’. Regarding the Miers nomination only time will tell. One thing for sure, the Democrats will only get someone more conservative if they derail Harriet Miers. And I suspect the liberals are privately concerned about the sudden roaring of the conservative majority out on Main Street. That doesn’t portend well for the left with elections around the corner. It’s pretty clear though; folks on Main Street are getting fed up with politics as usual.

I believe Miers will be confirmed. We should pray that she will be faithful to God who called her, unwavering in her commitment to Him and His principles for righteousness and justice. The One who led the founding fathers in the establishment of this grand country and its constitutional documents is the same God who continues in timeless fashion to direct the affairs of our nation and its leaders today.

May His Grace and Wisdom be with those in leadership and may His might thwart those who would lead us into evil.

Ouch.

Wonkette has the screenshot, if it’s fixed by the time you read this.

Well, the cat’s out of the bag. The transcript of today’s radio show is up at family.org.

What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn’t reveal? Well, it’s what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life. In other words, there is a characterization of her that was given to me before the President had actually made this decision. I could not talk about that on Monday. I couldn’t talk about it on Tuesday. In fact, Brit Hume said, “What church does she go to?” And I said, “I don’t think it’s up to me to reveal that.”

Dr. Dobson probably made a big mistake in saying he had information he “maybe shouldn’t even know.” So what was the information he “shouldn’t even know?”

And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday, the day before the President made his decision, I knew that Harrier Miers was at the top of the short list of names under consideration. And as you know, that information hadn’t been released yet, and everyone in Washington and many people around the country wanted to know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is not something I wanted to reveal.

Basing his support of her nomination on the facts that we all now know, that she’s a pro-life Christian who goes to a pro-life church, whose sometime date - the ubiquitous Nathan Hecht - vouches for her, is to me a bit premature.

If, after watching the hearings, she appears qualified to be Supreme Court Justice, I will wholeheartedly support her. But until then, her personal religious convictions are not enough to convince me. Ardently pro-Life is good, but while abortion is an absolutely critical issue, and Roe’s ridiculous granting of “rights” must be overturned, there are also many, many other issues that of grave importance that will come before her on the court over the next 20-30 years. I also want to know how she interprets the constitution, not just how she views the absolutely sacred and precious life of an unborn person.

After reviewing Dobson’s comments Bayly Blog adds:

So exactly why is it we’re supposed to support Ms. Miers’ nomination? Do we know her position on, say, the use of peyote in Native Indian rites?

Joke.

To state the obvious, 1.3 million unborn children are being murdered across our nation each year and we’re left with another White House “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

And Paul at Info Theory continues to drive his point home this morning.

In other words, there are no assurances from Dobson that Miers is not personally “pro-life” while also judicially pro-Roe in agreement with the President’s pro-Roe judicial philosophy.

Sean McConeghy puts it bluntly.

Miers’s supporters had hoped that when Dobson would speak out, he would tell us something that we did not already know. They hinged their hopes on Dr. Dobson, trusting his judgment. Now we see that in this case, hijudgmentnt is simply wrong. Their desperate, but understandable, attempts to believe that there must be something more that Dobson knows have now been obliterated.

The White House has nothing left. Their greatest ally, their great hope for convincing conservatives, has spoken, and the only thing that it changed is that the rest of the table now knows just how weak the White House’s hand is. Conservative Senators now know that they will have nothing to hang their hats on, nothing to defend a Yea vote. It is time for Ms. Miers to do the right thing and withdraw herself.

UPDATE: Paul Diegnan continues to beat the Laura Bush / Al Gonzales drum this morning, and highlights critically this quote from Al Gonzales.

… how I feel personally may differ with how I feel about it legally…it’s the law of the land.

I think Gonzales would be a bad nominee and the following statement is in now way an endorsement of him, rather it’s a critique of Paul’s concern about this quote. The idea that a judge could rule against his own personal ideology when that conflicts with the law and the Constitution is certainly not a problem. In fact, that is exactly what I want in a judge. I want a judge who interprets the Constitution and laws, not one who determines what is right or wrong. That is a legislator’s job as a representative of the people.

UPDATE 2: I have re-read Dobson’s comments, and they include this:

[W]hat [Karl Rove] said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict constructionist, which is why the President likes her.

If this is correct, then my comment above may have been based on a too-cursory reading of Dobson’s transcript.

Basing his support of her nomination on the facts that we all now know, that she’s a pro-life Christian who goes to a pro-life church, whose sometime date - the ubiquitous Nathan Hecht - vouches for her, is to me a bit premature.

So Dobson believes she is a pro-Life Christian who is a strict Constructionist. That is a much better reason to endorse her than just that she is a pro-Life Christian. I missed that the first time through.

And I still want to wait to see the hearings.

Patterico says today’s Dobson revelations will further erode her support. (Via ConfirmThem)

In light of this, Miers supporters will lose still more credibility if they continue touting Dobson’s endorsement as if it tells us something we didn’t already know.