Would anyone argue there are not far better choices for the nomination than Miers? The explanation may be as simple as one proposed by Sean Hannity today; that Bush has no stomach for a fight.
However his choice suggests there are less obvious motives that make Miers more suited to his purposes. If making sucessful challenges less likely to his handling of gitmo or his recent remarks regarding (important detail alert) increasing Federal authority to act in times of crisis are not his real motives, then what do you think they are? Remember Roosevelts New Deal and the way he stacked the court then to get his way.
I don't pay attention to the shiny side out people and what they talk about and why is irrelevant to me. Under the circumstances I think these are fair questions.
When Thurgood Marshall stepped down and created a vacancy, at the time I thought a black conservative nominee would effectively give both the Democrats what they were demanding without letting them have what they really wanted and still accomplish conservative purposes. When Bush 41 made his choice my first thought was "the sob (with respect) did it!"
I nailed it then and while I don't claim to be on the button here, I do think there is something going on behind the curtains. If you don't think my speculations are accurate, I'd be interested to know what you think.
Some folks seem inclined to project all kinds of things into the discussion. The fact is, "evil genius" has a seat at every presidents table of advisors. I am also sure that 41 and 43 had at least a couple of casual conversations about selecting nominees and if the choice of Clarence Thomas does not seem just a little machiavellian to you then I suggest you away from politics more complicated than the local PTA.
And while I'd vote again for Bush, he's no Reagan.
Intelligent discussion is invited.