George W. Bush is still playing the role of cardiologist.
At his news conference yesterday, he made clear that he's looked into Harriet Miers's heart, liked what he saw, and that others should trust him that she's a woman of character and integrity.
He also said he was intrigued by Democratic suggestions that he pick someone who never served on the bench-- and it certainly doesn't hurt for at least one of the Supremes to have real-life experience.
I can't look into Bush's heart, but I suspect he really believes that because he knows someone well and trusts that person--Miers did, after all, represent him personally in a dispute over a Texas fish shack-- then, ipso facto , that person is qualified for high office. That is why he could tell the Rose Garden reporters, without a trace of embarrassment, that Harriet Miers was the best possible nominee he could find.
The news analyses, of course, are all about political calculation. Bush didn't want a big fight. He acted out of weakness. The lack of a Miers paper trail would ease her path to confirmation. And all that may be true.
What the pundits largely miss, though, is how deeply comfortable Bush is with members of his inner circle-- think Rove and Allbaugh and Condi and Hughes, or giving Tenet a presidential medal-- and how high a premium he places on loyalty. In that sense, picking John Roberts was an exception. After all, Bush also strongly considered his pal Al G. before going with Harriet. The only way he could have reached deeper into his little club was to nominate Laura for the bench.
What Bush misses is that, after a superlawyer like Roberts, Miers seems to many observers to be too small for such a big job. Even if she's smart and diligent and as conservative as the Republicans want-- forget that little 'ol donation to Al Gore-- she does not seem to possess the stature of a Warren or Rehnquist or the intellectual firepower of a Scalia. One term on the Dallas City Council? Several years as White House staff secretary?
Watching the reaction of conservatives has been utterly fascinating. Some are gamely suggesting we should trust Bush's judgment. (Imagine if Bill Clinton had named his longtime crony Webb Hubbell to the high court-- before, of course, he was found to be a crook.) But others admit their deep disappointment-- in a way that, more than any other issue than perhaps the war, suggests a larger disappointment with the course of the Bush presidency.
Some leads off the press conference:
Los Angeles Times : "President Bush asserted today that he retained 'plenty' of political capital to push his agenda through Congress, but he also suggested that some priorities, such as overhauling Social Security, may have to be deferred, largely because of the need to help rebuild New Orleans and other hurricane-damaged regions."
New York Times :
"President Bush on Tuesday defended his latest choice for the Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers, from complaints on the right that she was not conservative enough and from accusations on the left that she was a White House crony unqualified for the job.
