why did they float one SC nominee all day & then announce another?

[mopaul]

all day long, when they realized bush was going for the big diversion announcement yesterday, the media began hawking the name of a lady nominee, edith clements. and then about an hour before the big ape revealed it officially, the media announced it was indeed john roberts.

why the cheap, ridiculous slight of hand? it's just so Rovian.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Because they're dicks. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

2. they want to make it seem like a woman was seriously considered

Just like how the RW floats Condi's name for President in 2008... just so they can say how their party is fair to African Americans.

[wakeme2008]

3. If Rawstory is correct Rogers was not their first choice as of 6:00pm

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Speculation_swirls_around_Bushs_choice_for_Su_0719.html

[girl gone mad]

5. Interesting speculation.

I also read on talkingpointsmemo.com wearlier today that Edith Clement may have been nixed early on because she believes Roe is settled law and therefore fundies would not approve.

Well, it didn't take Democrats long to dig up a quote from Roberts saying precisely the same thing.

I believe that they were desperate to get the spotlight off of Rove, but were they desperate enough to botch something as important as an SC nominee? They've had years to prepare this one. Personally, I believe they started the rumors to get the maximum amount of coverage they could out of the announcement, thereby further squashing Rovegate stories.

[mmonk]

4. To induce anger from Dems

and interest groups to deflect the investigation's momentum in the public eye.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. I think it was a set up and we didn't take the bait

I think they put up the name of a moderate woman to see if we jump all over and tear her apart. When everyone went ho-hum we could live with her, they decided to up the ante and put up someone more radical because she wouldn't have created enough of a diversion.