Yes, the President appointed a total crony to the Supreme Court. Yes, he's known to value near-fanatical loyalty above all else. Yes, he may be dumb when it comes to other things, but he knows how Washington works and he knows that no paper trail usually = no ammo for the opposition.
But none of that really answers why he'd pick someone as obviously flawed as Harriet Miers. Let's explore this for a moment.
The usual explanations given for Miers nomination are that she's got a strong personal loyalty to Bush, she's likely to elude Democratic opposition because of her gender, and she's even more of a blank slate than Roberts. But none of this would explain why he'd pick a nominee with so many glaring political problems for the President.
Now I understand working with the opposition, but this is like handing us a gift-wrapped present. Of course we should be careful about her qualifications and we should ask probing questions to understand her real stances on major issues. But if someone had told you in 2000 that George W. Bush's replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor would be a former Democratic donor (who gave money to Al Gore of all people), who was not too reactionary towards gays and who organized speeches by the likes of Susan Faludi, I bet you would have laughed in that person's face. What does Bush gain in handing Democrats someone who-- at least as of now-- looks like she might even be an IMPROVEMENT on O'Connor in some areas?
It's even weirder because this is completely out of step with everything the Administration has done. They haven't courted the moderate vote at all, in fact their whole political strategy has relied upon energizing their base. And it's been a winning strategy, too. Why throw this monkey wrench into that winning machine? Some have theorized that Rove organized this to keep Roe v. Wade around as a political issue, but I don't buy it. Politicians who use grassroots energy can't betray that energy and then expect to draw on it again anytime soon. To me, the Rove explanation is like saying Clinton pushed NAFTA to make sure unions would have something to organize around in the future. Since Reagan, the right has been focused on overturning Roe to put women "back in their place" and then pressing the attack to re-marginalize various other out-groups. Bush's pick almost guarantees that'll never happen. In fact, if Roberts and Miers do end up coming down pro-Roe (which is at least POSSIBLE) then Bush has expanded the court to 6-3 in favor of legal abortion rights. This pick seems almost calculated to split away the social conservative base that's propelled the Republican culture war since the 60s. That means no more Dobson-led jihads. No more nuclear option rallies. No more government organized "spontaneous pro-war celebrations". This whole fictional reality apparatus depends on the unwavering loyalty of the wingnuts.
At the same time, the very close personal relationship that the President has to Ms. Miers raises major issues of cronyism. She's an old Texan hand who's been involved in Bush's business deals for years. Personal loyalty is one thing, but claiming that Bush is one of the most brilliant men she's ever met is sycophantic to the point of being pathological. And it's not as though Bush is lacking in people who are loyal to him who ALSO have more compelling legal backgrounds. Alberto Gonzales, for example, would have looked more qualified, dispelled charges of cronyism, and would have helped Ken Mehlman in his strategy of splitting the Latino vote. This is particularly bewildering because the stink of Hurricane Katrina cronyism is still thick in the air-- with bodies still rotting in the muck that used to be New Orleans, why would Bush deliberately call attention to his Gilded Age tendencies?
Still, the ONLY advantage Miers seems to bring Bush is that she's completely personally loyal. As in, she would probably rule in favor of his position no matter what the merits of a case. But in pushing her to the fore, he's made huge sacrifices in political capital both in his base and in the eyes of the American people. Now what would make a strong, though increasingly unpopular, President take such an extreme loss to make sure he had a personal advocate on the Supreme Court? This may be very tinfoil, but the only time I can think of the SCOTUS ever affecting George W. Bush personally would be a certain situation that starts with "im" and has a nice juicy peach in the middle. What does George W. Bush know that we don't?