Why Did Bush Nominate Miers in the First Place?

AMERICAblog this morning posted, “Okay, you know it's not going to happen (if) Hill staffers are emboldened enough to challenge the President.” Joe in DC was referring to a New York Times article reporting, “lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice (Harriet Miers) and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.” And now it comes out that Karl Rove is the one who gave James Dobson the secret info on Miers, which led Dobson to his unqualified support. But the flea in Dobson’s ear made Dobson say, "I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that I'm privy to that I can't describe, because of confidentiality." I must say, I have moments of wondering if Rove hasn’t been setting up GWB for a monumental fall since 2000. But let’s say that Rove and Bush were on the same page about Miers. Why would they nominate someone who didn’t have a prayer? How about payback? They owed her a gigantic quid pro quo and only an extraordinary quid would justify her equally extraordinary quo. At least she does have a law degree. And she is Bush’s consigliere. What on earth did she do to earn the humongous payback of being nominated to the Supreme Court? The perfect thing about this giving and taking back is that Bush and Rove may have been the godfathers on the reward end, but others are doing the taking back. Like stealing back the ransom bag, it's all win. Except, that little detail about what did Miers do for the White House? There is a trail and it will be followed, you can bet the rent on that.