« Miers Withdrawn! | Main | A Specter Haunts The Senate »
October 27, 2005
Miers' Timing
So, with Miers being withdrawn today, who wants to bet indictments are arriving this afternoon? And that the White House is hoping one crowds the other out? And the next nominee will be times to distract attention when the legal troubles are lighting a media firestorm? Funny how that works out.
October 27, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345d989953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Miers' Timing:
Comments
Nobody cares about Miers. Anything Bush does that would be big enough to distract would be seen as wagging the dog.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 27, 2005 10:03:17 AM
Brilliant timing I would say. Fitzgerald will either indict someone or he won't. Whichever it is will overshadow this news.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Oct 27, 2005 10:13:18 AM
Nothing is going to crowd out Indictment Watch 2005 on the news. They may have thought this would but it won't. I think it's more realistic that even Bush is smart enough to realize that Harriet was going to be grilled like Swordfish by the Judiciary Committee and chose the lesser of two painful ends to her Nomination.
Posted by: Andrew | Oct 27, 2005 10:13:33 AM
I don't know if indictment-related timing has much to do with it. Supreme Court nominees (and certainly withdrawals) are always big news, as are the potential indictments. Both stories will continue to get plenty of media attention, regardless of any attempts at distraction, which I have to think they understand well enough at the White House.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 27, 2005 11:02:56 AM
I'm sure that while their decisions re: nominees will have nothing nothing! to do with politics, their announcements will be very conveniently timed.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 27, 2005 11:51:01 AM
I think they'll be a lot worried about the actual politics of the next nominee than whatever timing they might get out of it. Whoever it is they end up nominating, every single story is going to start out by reminding everyone of what happened with Miers. Naturally, they'll want to get some good coverage out whomever they pick next, but who knows if they're competent enough any more to even pull that off, regardless of how crazy the next nominee might be.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 27, 2005 12:12:06 PM
Er, first sentence should have started "I think they'll be a lot MORE worried about..."
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 27, 2005 12:13:53 PM
I don't know if it is brilliant timing or not.
Let's say there are indictments today/tomorrow. Then the story is spun not of indictments, but a general "WH in complete disarray" spin (Because, in this case, there's an element of truth).
Posted by: Chris R | Oct 27, 2005 12:16:02 PM
I miss the good old days when they would just crank the Terror Alert level to red whenever they wanted to bury news that they disapproved of.
Bush's strategy of putting the most inappropriate person available on the highest court in the land seems like the kind of thing that might have somewhat more severe and longer lasting repercussions that just screwing with the color coded fear chart.
I think it is high time we gave John Hinckley Jr. a second chance.
Posted by: Naked Ape | Oct 27, 2005 12:29:03 PM
Whoa, Naked Ape. Not so much.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 27, 2005 1:20:55 PM
Whoa. Uh, not so much, Naked Ape.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 27, 2005 1:27:23 PM
Yes, I disapproved so much that I wrote it twice in basically the same way. That, and the first one didn't show up right away.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 27, 2005 1:59:18 PM
His name seems very appropriate.
A "they should all be shot" mood, while the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a stranger at a bar (or, well, a blog), is not really in the "wacko" category. A "that guy should be shot, let's turn loose someone with that-guy-shooting tendencies" mood is subtly but significantly different, easily enough to to warrant the aforementioned label.
Or, if you'll pardon the verbosity - you don't speak for anyone but yourself, you naked ape, and I wouldn't be too proud of that.
Posted by: Cyrus | Oct 27, 2005 3:14:47 PM
Hinckley doesn't need a second chance, anyway. Reagan's already dead.
On topic, the timing's probably no coincidence. As Andrew stated above, stories about a new nominee won't push the indictment stories off the news. But they will help diffuse the coverage.
Posted by: Dr. Gori | Oct 27, 2005 5:12:07 PM
This is a DrudgeNews Alert!
Karl Rove will not be indicted!
Karl Rove, evil genius!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 27, 2005 10:26:32 PM
