Charles Krauthammer looks like a genius now. He is surely the biggest winner in this whole thing. For more see here.

Yep. Not only did he encourage this, he gave them the script for a way out and Bush is reading directly from it. Of course, that script is quite absurd. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that this has anything to not wanting to release documents? Then again, politics is often the theater of the absurd.

Breaking news: Ed breaks own arm patting self on back. Film at 11.

Ed, my guess is that Bush will still be looking to fill the O'Connor seat with a woman, even with confirmable conservatives like McConnell and Luttig waiting in the wings. Identity politics reigns supreme.

Wagner wrote:

Breaking news: Ed breaks own arm patting self on back. Film at 11.

Ha! Guilty as charged, but you know how those bets with your friends go. What's the fun of winning if you can't talk a little trash afterwards?

David Darlington wrote:

Ed, my guess is that Bush will still be looking to fill the O'Connor seat with a woman, even with confirmable conservatives like McConnell and Luttig waiting in the wings. Identity politics reigns supreme.

I think that would be rather unfortunate, but Laura Bush seems to be adamant about it. And as anyone who's ever been in a relationship knows - if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. If he decides to go with a woman he basically has two choices - go with a fairly solid conservative with a top notch resume (Edith Jones or Edith Clement) or go with a flamethrower to poke his finger in the Senate's eye (Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown). Historically, he has a tendency toward the second but after the Miers debacle you would think his political advisers would be adamant about just getting a win here. Either Jones or Clement is confirmable, assuming there's no smoking gun hiding anywhere, and neither would anger his base much. So those are probably fairly safe choices.

The orchestration on this withdraw is interesting. The best way to get someone to step aside is to give them the appearance (if only to themselves) that they are taking some moral high road in the process. Here, Miers can withdraw citing her desire to maintain the privilege of her representation in the White House, and not for her lack of experience or cronyism. Sure, it's a face, but like my section chief last summer at the prosecutor's office said, "you have to give 'em something to hang their hat on," be it your judge or politician who needs to step aside.

"face" ==> "farce"

Good point, Terry. In general, asking any politician to "admit that he [or she] made a mistake" is asking them to write the next attack ad against themselves. That's an unfortunate reality in politics today. However, in this case an explicit mea culpa also is an unflattering pronouncement about Miers. Hence the polite fiction about the internal documents.

But, but, EVERY NOMINEE DESERVES THE COURTESY OF A FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE!

Or so I've been told.

How about this one for a good general rule? The White House counsel should never be nominated to federal bench at any level that might result in this kind of conflict? Of course Miers just didn't have the experience in dealing with issues of the Constitution from any source, either as a judge or as an officeholder who has had to consider the Constitutional ramifications of their actions. Of course Supreme Court nominees don't have to be sitting judges, but those who have been successful in those circumstances had things going for them that Miers just didn't have.