Some things seem so obvious to me and yet others think what I deduce is garbage. Let me make my case for trusting President Bush. I do so by presenting my analysis of  what I believe to be  the reasoning  behind the Miers appointment.

If we go back to last spring, it seems obvious to me that Senate Majority leader Bill Frist was trying to do the nuclear option. It was all over the press, but it was never brought to a vote.  Had the nuclear option been passed then just 50 Senators out of 100 and V.P. Cheney  could confirm a judicial nominee. Filibusters would not be legal.

Last spring there was constant speculation that every week would be the week that the nuclear option was to be brought to the senate floor by Majority leader Frist. But one week went by and then another and another with nothing but talk. There was no action.

Everyone is surely aware of Frist's desire to be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008. Imagine where Frist would be in our esteem had he pulled off the nuclear option? Can anyone  believe that Frist would NOT be a Right Wing Hero? The media would refer to him as the Senate Dictator. The media would play Frist as the all powerful leader unfairly using raw power to defeat the left and moderates. We would love him. But by failing to pull off the nuclear option, his reputation as an effective leader has been put in the dumpster.   It takes a huge  dose of self delusion to believe that Frist chose NOT to enact the Nuclear option. The only real conclusion is he did not do so because he did not have the votes.

Had Frist pulled off the Nuclear option, he would be the leading  contender for 2008 Republican Nomination... Would he not? One would have to believe Frist was too dumb to know what enacting the Nuclear Option would do for his career. That does defy credibility.

It seems perfectly obvious that Frist could not pull it off. The RINOs of the DeWine and Lindsay Graham stripe, managed to compromise their way out. Their actions against the nuclear option  would have produced a  total Republican defeat.  To save their own rear ends they did the compromise solution and offered the chance of total victory to the Democrats.. The RINOs were and are in control. They will not enact the nuclear option. That option is not possible in this senate session or the next.  The so called compromise was a way for the RINOs to cover their rumps while at the same time taking steps to prevent the court making a certain right turn.

Rove and Bush had to be thinking of way to win the promised goal of taking the court to the right.  The question was HOW to accomplish it? 

Having watched Frist's Nuclear option bluff fail, could anyone believe that an openly right wing  Bush Nominee could have l defeated the Left, the RINOS, DINOs and the media?  What part of an effective Democratic filibuster can't the right understand? The right wing pundits are just demanding a Bush defeat and they want that defeat  now!

Actually pundits all have the same goal. Retain and grow audience. If it would retain and grow audience they would all claim the earth was flat. 

I ask each reader, "What would you have advised the President to do in this situation?". What could he do in order to take the supreme court to the right?  After months of media bashing what were the chances of getting a right wing nominee confirmed? Next to zero is the truthful answer.  What does that leave as a viable option?

I know what my advice would have been.. I would have advised the president to find a female Ronald Reagan whose public persona was where Ronald Reagan's was in late 1963.  Can you imagine what would happen had President Bush appointed a Ronald Reagan clone... a Reaganesque  person whose persona was where Reagan's was in 1963?

Can you imagine... the right wing's uproar and the left's  joy. Reagan had supported with money and campaign appearances the Democratic candidates for president in the previous 6 presidential races. Reagan had campaigned and contributed to Democratic candidates for quarter of a century. Imagine if Bush appointed a person who had openly supported Democrats in the last six presidential election. Imagine Bush appointing a nominee who had supported Jimmy Carter twice, Walter Mondale once, Bill Clinton twice and Al Gore once. Would the right go ballistic? Has a cat got a tail?

Would the leader of the Democrats in the Senate step forward to praise the President for appointing a female  Reagan circa 1963? Certainly.. Just as Minority leader Reid has done for Miers.  I ask you  to consider if  history would prove that a female Reagan would prove to be a great choice? Even if she was not a graduate of the Harvard Law School?

Only after a Reagan clone was confirmed and some cases decided would the world know the truth about how mis-underestimated the President had been. Yet strong conservatives like Ed Meese and Cap Weinberger knew full well in 1963 what Reagan was and what he would be in the future. Just as I believe that President Bush knows what Harriet Miers is today and will be in the future.

The record is clear.  President Bush is truthful. There are those on the right that point out that President Bush has done some things they do not like. But it is also clear that he told the world he was going to do them before he was elected.

I have no doubt that a man like Karl Rove would tell the president that if we want to change the court, we must find a person whose political views have changed from being somewhat leftist to a convinced conservative. That is.. they needed to find a female Reagan clone. If the Democrats are not to filibuster they must believe that President Bush has appointed another Souter.

Does anyone with an ability to make clear judgments believe that President Bush would strive to appoint another Souter?  How could anyone believe that he would? Only those who are themselves untrustworthy would believe that to be true.

Many of those on the right are like many on the left. They have feelings that shape opinions. They do not understand what it takes to change the Supreme Court.  To change the court the President had to appoint  a candidate the Democrats will not filibuster. To gain confirmation the president must appoint someone of whom he is sure, but most others will think is a Souter. 

For that to work,  the President must gain the trust of the Republican Senators and the doubts of the Democratic Senators.  It is the Presidents best and perhaps only chance to move the court to the right.

Is Harriet Miers a Harriet Reagan?  President Bush has yet to lie to me or do other than what he said he would do. President Bush said he would take the court to the right.  I  believe people who openly say what they will do, and have never ever told an untruth. I believe people who have never  failed to try to do what they said they would do.  I have never found it hard to trust a man who has proven he is trustworthy.  

I think many on the right do not trust President Bush because they themselves are not trustworthy. It is hard to trust someone else, when one can't trust himself.  The punditry world is full of the untrustworthy.

The Miers opponents tell us a lot about their own character.. They tell us a lot more about themselves than they do about President Bush or Harriet Miers.