Analysis: Miers Withdrawal Was Damage Control

Oct. 27, 2005 — -- The withdrawal by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was an act of damage control by the White House.

There was a rebellion on the right that appeared to be threatening the president's ability to govern across a broader range of issues. (Indeed, one of the the most stunning things about the failure of the Miers nomination is that it occurred largely because of opposition from within the president's own party, rather than opposition from Democrats.)

There were mounting doubts about the consistency of Miers' judicial philosophy deriving from her various speeches and articles that undoubtedly had not been located and reviewed prior to her nomination.

There were also increasing indications that side issues from Miers' past -- issues involving the Texas Lottery Commission, land sales, lawsuits against her firm and her service on various corporate boards -- might play a role during Senate hearings and complicate consideration of her nomination.

To compound the problem, Miers' courtesy calls were failing to generate commitments of support from senators on either side of the aisle, and the missteps involving her Senate questionnaire and her failure to pay bar dues in a timely way were undercutting one of the central rationales for her nomination: her care, thoroughness and meticulousness as a lawyer.

Given all of this, Miers and the president appear to have concluded that it would be better for both of them to move on. Although it was too early to say that confirmation was impossible, it was looking increasingly difficult, and the White House obviously calculated that -- even if it could be achieved -- it would probably come at too high a cost, damaging both Miers and the president in the process.

Miers has always been exceptionally loyal to President Bush, and I am sure she came to the conclusion that her nomination was doing him injury and, at least in part for that reason, withdrew. It was, in a sense, yet another act of loyalty by Miers.