The real reason Conservatives are maying noise about Miers?

[Prodemsouth]

Anyone here think (like I do)that what is really happening is that Conservatives are "distancing themselves" from Bush because they know he is in trouble. Are we seeing rats desert a sinking ship?
Do you think Miers nomination gave them an opportunity to abandon Bush? Bush is a lame duck..and oh Rudy announced he is getting back into politics. Don't believe he can't sell himself to the religious right. Arnold got Pat Robertson and others behind him. I have only heard people charge that Conservatives were faking outrage because they wanted to lull liberals into a sense of complacency. I initially thought that was possible but since this has gone on for four days, I now believe they are using the Miers nomination to get out from under Bush.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. They see Miers

as a weak choice and a sign of weakness. Pubes don't like weakness. It is unmanly.

[Prodemsouth]

3. Thats what some are saying out loud, but I still think the reason

behind this bravado is to move away from Bush and attach themselves to a new Republican wagon. This board is buzzing about indictments etc. Conservatives have better sources of information on what is really happening in DC than we do because they run the place. They know Bush is in trouble. He is a lame duck anyway. What do they have to lose? It is time for them to move on to save their own ass.

[free2decide]

5. maybe

but I think the real conservatives were looking for a fight, a showdown on constitutional interpretation, origonalist vs the living constitution. But the neocons are secretly entranced by the idea of the living constitution for it can easily be used to subvert the peoples will and install tyranny. Because instead of amendmending the constitution as times change and dictate, a judge can say, well the constitution never used to mean that but it does now. So people on the left can say, well the constitution used to allow right to own guns but the framers never imajined assault weapons so it means we can limit them in modern society. And on the right people can say well the constitution used to require right to a fair trial, freedom from unreasonable search, and cruel and unusual punishment, but the framers never envisioned terrorists who want to nuke us. I was for judicial activism when the left was gaining civil rights advantages, but now see it's a slipperty slope to dictatorship under the neocons. Now I can see that the socialists on the left went too far also, and myself believe in amending the constitution rather then a judge evolving it himself. That is why bush didn't nominate someone like janice Rogers Brown, she absolutly believes judges should rule by the constitution and not be philospher kings as she puts it. The far left wants to use the court to help implement more socialist measures and the far right who wants to use the court to implement more fasist measures. This is undermining the system, as the people don't have the power but a determined minority does.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. My theory, ex-ac-tic-ally

I was thinking that the faux outrage is another distancing tactic, in wake of the all the damn scandals/indictments/Katrina, to play, "Who? Lock-stepping brownshirts? Us?"

Luntz has been watching some SERIOUS "The Usual Suspects," because, especially, in the case of the neocons, the best trick the GOP plays is convincing people that things do not exist...

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. I'll buy into that theory

plus she sucks as a candidate and they know it.