Redstate

n/t

I hate to say it, but I think it is up to Trent Lott to take control of this thing.  He is sufficiently immune to the White House that he can put together a group, go to the President, and say, "look, I've got X Senators who think you should withdraw her."  If X is big enough, the White house would HAVE to bite the bullet, don't you think?

God, this is disspiriting.

"This same source bolsters what a White House staffer tells me, in that the vetting process was so poorly done that much of what is now coming out about Miers was unknown before her nomination."

Amateur google monkeys from both sides found the Gore donation within an hour of her announcement, I believe.  Surely that had to have turned up in vetting?

Most of the other info I've seen on Miers was available online prior to her nomination.  While it's an impossible experiment now, I would love to have seen what "Harriet Miers" turned up on google before the announcement.

Do you mean that Card (or whoever) misgauged response to this information, or that it simply did not turn up in vetting at all?  What information specifically were they suprised to learn?

The backed out person didn't want to go through the anal probe from DNC/NARAL/Kos? Can't say I blame them, even Scalia (yesterday in his interview on CNBC) said he wouldn't want to go through it right now.

I agree. Let's start counting senators. And we're not restricted to true blue conservatives here. We just need people willing to say, "This is splitting the party irreparably. It needs to stop."

Don't think the usual suspects (Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Specter) will sign up but otherwise anyone (including people who have been supportive of Miers) is a prospect.

Does this Freeper "Pukin Dog" post fit into what you have heard?

Specifically

More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.

Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.

Erick, can you add a little more to your post?  Who was the potential nominee?  Why have the comments from your sources stopped?  Is there any talk about a withdrawl of Miers from insiders?  Are senators pressing for this?

Quite honestly, i don;t give a rats behind about what WH staffers think.  And really, I'm tired of this crud about the nomination.  Many of you have done your best to divide this party, and it's darn well working.  R VS. W is not my reason that I am a Republican.  I do understand the issue, but need to understand it more.  You, my fellow GOP people are not making it any easier.

92 pages in the GOP 2004 Platform.  Not until page 82 is abortion mentioned.  Who do you claim to speak for?  Your GOP, our ours?.  

You who have pissed and moaned about this have forced it to the forefront, with dissregard for the rest of us. You call us names because we seek a normal resolution like let the process work?

You divided this party, and God hope that anyone in positions of authority..that read this wonderful Blog, takes this for what it is..selfish, personal interests vs. a party aligned together.

Sorry, but all this crud had ticked me off.  Your issues are not ours.  We stand together on what we can, but this , to what we've all seen in the last couple weeks, is as bad as I've seen in 20 years of voting.

I think they are talking about the Priscilla Owen withdrawl.

She withdrew herself; early money, and almost every source, had her pegged.

Rush Limbaugh has also expressed that Janice Rogers Brown might not have been willing to go through the brawl to get appointed.  That makes at least two so far of note.

I'd be willing to bet that Jones, Luttig, McConnell, Garza, or Alito are more than ready to fight.  The young and very promising Estrada - well - I'm not so sure he'd want to fight it out.  I hope he would want to, though.

First, there is no way Bush voluntarily withdraws Miers.  She will either be confirmed, withdraw her own name from the process, or the Senate will not confirm her (either because she doesn't make it out of committee or fails on a floor vote).

Second, George will throw a giant hissy-fit if she does not withdraw her name and she is not confirmed.  This is not a good thing.

Yup.

I think what happened was that they backed themselves into a corner about nominating a woman.  Then Owen backed out.  Probably Rogers Brown too.  They found out through the vetting process that they didn't really like Jones and Batchelder and maybe one or two others (like Clement from last time around).  Then they were screwed - what other women were there?

Process of elimination, and we've got Miers.

Process of elimination is not the best way to choose a nominee.

Had this been the first time  President Bush irked conservatives, I'd buy that.  It's not, though.

He proved himself non-conservative early in his Presidential campaign, when his "compassionate conservative" slogan implicitly tarred all other  conservatives as heartless, using tired old liberal attacks to his advantage.

He followed that up with his liberal talk on lax immigration control, strict federal education control, and shoring up the New Deal.

He proved himself unreliable as a supply-sider early in his Presidency, when his first instinct for a tax cut was to send checks to people.  Speaking of the New Deal, he also brought Keynes back into the White House.

It's only the War on Terror that saved him from being a failed one-termer, in my view.

...but we can dream.

There is still an outside shot she isn't deemed qualified by the ABA, though it is unlikely that will actually occur.  It would hurt the PR of this pick, nonetheless, if it did happen.

I think that at some point, the political ramifications of 2006 and 2008 are going to start to weigh more heavily as the uproar keeps coming.  The best anyone will have to go on to decide whether or not Miers was a good pick will be a handful of rulings before the next elections.  She'll be under a Scalia-scope like nobody has ever been before, and even one bad ruling might be all it takes for a great deal of the base to declare indisputible proof of absolute betrayal.  Imagine if she actually does support Affirmative Action in a ruling, or comes out in favor of Campaign Finance Reform.  It'll be crippling in 2006, and possibly 2008.

The big questions remain: Is the President really willing to fight much of his base for, potentially, months in order to get Miers confirmed?  Is he 100% sure that the base is going to have nothing to be disappointed about in her short tenure of rulings before the next elections?  Does he really expect that forcing this pick down the throats of almost half of his base won't have consequences?  I mean, does anyone (even Miers supporters) see a grassroots effort anywhere near that of the last three elections happening in 2006 after this?

I just can't see it.  The passionate support isn't going to be there, and the President will be disarmed of two of his biggest selling points in campaigns:

"Scalia and Thomas" and

"Marriage Amendment"  (which has disappeared from the map)

I mean, tort reform and banruptcy reform only have so much of a ring to it........

Why should conservative Republicans care what the ABA says?

Didn't they rate Bork unqualified?

insert the words "fearmongering about" before "the War on Terror."

You could stop being so circumspect and come out and say whatever you mean.

It's clear to a majority of Americans that Republicans take this War seriously.  It is unclear whether the Democrats are hoping it will go away or are serious about winning it.  

I wasn't fear-monged.  I just had to watch television on 9-11-2001 to see that what he was doing was right.

The elections in Afghanistan and Iraq were just frosting by comparison with the need to attack the terrorists.

"Interestingly, there is a credible rumor out there that the White House insisted on Monday because the intended nominee to be announced backed out over the weekend. Yes, it is a very credible rumor."

As Elmer would say - Oh (^&)&@#%@!!!

IIRC the "backed out" person must be Owens, since it was publicly reported (cannot find link, but must have been wire service) she withdrew. I guess it may not specify before or after an offer was made, but still, it was reported.

An oddball question: I just noted on another thread that the preferred Ginsburg was also withdrawn as a nominee. Remember this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Ginsburg

He's 59, been on the DC circuit for 19 years, and it would be a triumph of irony for him to return. Anyone have any opinion of his record - it must be massive by now. Almost pre-vetted, and certainly pre-scandalised.

If the WH is grasping for straws why can't the rest of us?

If the President is consistently governing in non-conservative ways, I don't see why everyone is so shocked and angry that he didn't appoint a hardcore conservative justice.  It should not have been a surprise.

it would be before we found ourselves in this mess.

Given the political climate, I can fully understand why people simply wouldn't want to put them or their family through such a vengeful process.  I know I sure wouldn't.

I have also wondered if this type of atmosphere is what has caused so many "A" senate cadidates to simply say "no thanks" to the possibility of a Senate run in the '06 midterms.

and risk getting a "worse" nominee instead? (I mean worse from their POV of course.)

---"Why should conservative Republicans care what the ABA says?"

We shouldn't, but much of the public does.

---"Didn't they rate Bork unqualified?"---

Perhaps a big part of why the Democrats felt so emboldened in voting him down.

I could give a rat's rear end what the ABA thinks; but it would be a big PR hit against her nod, like it or not.  

That being said, I don't think they'll deem her "unqualified."

The ABA became more inconsistent over time, but during the Bork nomination, they still had a mostly worthwhile reputation.

For the first time since the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary began evaluating Supreme Court nominees, a substantial minority of the Standing Committee found a Supreme Court nominee to be "not qualified" to serve on the nation's highest court. In evaluating the nomination of Judge Bork, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Chairman of the Standing Committee (and a former federal district court judge), testified that "ten members voted well-qualified; one, not opposed, and four, not qualified."

Yeah I thought I might be mis-remembering.  So four of eleven voted him not qualified.  That still reflects poorly on the organization, I think.

So whatever it says should have no influence on whether conservative Republican Senators join with Boxer, Kennedy, and the other strongly liberal Democrats in opposing Miers.

If Miers is withdraw and if pressure is to come for that to happen, this cannot be about ideology.

She is not outside the mainstream.  She is not an extraordinary circumstance.  She is quite normal.  And according to many people: unqualified.

If people are wanting to push for her withdrawal it will have to be on the grounds that she is underwhelming, underqualified, and not ready for a seat on the Supreme Court.  She is a pick by a President for personal reasons as opposed to a pick based on professional reasons.

That logic can appeal to Dems, liberal Rs, centrists, and conservatives.  It should be the strategy of those who oppose her confirmation.  And it doesn't preclude Specter, Snowe or the rest.

Unless the Democrats start lining up against Miers, the Senate Republican bosses are not in control of her confirmation.  If the Dems decide she is acceptable, then only 5 Republican votes will be required for confirmation, assuming Cheney would break the tie in favor of Miers.  I cannot imagine that the Republicans would allow it to come to that, that they would be forced to stand with Bush to confirm his nominee and thus avoid making it look like this is the Democrat's choice.

So I see the balance of power now being on the Democrat side of the ledger.  If they split on Miers, then a split from the Republicans could reject her, or force a withdrawal before the vote.  But if the Democrats line up with her, whether is 45-0, 42-3, 40-5 or whatever, that would force the Republicans hand to support her and, in turn, the President.  There is no way the Republican Party could risk the embarrassment of opposing a Democrat-supported Bush nominee.

My previous endorsement was made under the assumption that Bush took care in nominating someone who was well checked, and known to be qualified and who would be an originalist. If this was a rush job, and there where warning signs from the start, it is something to be concerned about.

I don't know where to stand anymore. All I want to know is what the heck is going on! This is the most monumental nomination of the last 10 years, and its splitting the Republican party. Very Frustrating! I could care less about who says what--give me the facts and the truth. Is she qualified? Will she be an originalist? Will she stand firm against the pressures of the liberals in DC?

I'm not a lawyer, or a political analyst, so I have to really and trust others. But, it seems I can't get a straight answer, and everything is being contradicted. Now, there is all this talk of secret conversations, who said what, etc, etc.

Ugh!

The FS should start a rating system too.  It could have two effects.  One, the ABA would be seen as the left rating and the FS as the right rating.  Two, it would dilute some of the PR power of the ABA rating.  When you have more than one rating floating around, each is worth less than before.  Think NCAA football.

Is that they won't begin until December.  Spector has said he won't schedule until she is ready and they are talking early December.

I don't see how this nomination can make it that long.

If you can't take serious argument, go read the NY Times and leave us alone.

You've attacked the motives of those dissenting on the Miers nomination, but you haven't provided any evidence.  Nor have you made any argument for why (temporary) party unity is more important than seriously debating the merits of a (lifelong) Supreme Court appointment.  

 

I am hoping this whole Miers affair isnt an indication of how prepared this white house is to handle a nuclear attack in the middle of New York City.

1 - Keep in mind these are unconfirmed, unnamed sources which Erick is citing. It sounds very credible, Erick has proven reliability, and I'm very skeptical on both sides of this argument, but they meet the minimum acceptable standard for starting a reliable argument, even if it goes no further than informed speculation.

2 - Also keep in mind that this is almost certainly not the first time candidates have been -  shall we say - hesitant to put themselves under the microscope and through the wringer. It's been going on forever, and certainly the Bork and Thomas hearings established low-water marks we haven't seen since. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but one of the GOP's weapons since then was the Ginsburg and Breyer treatment. The party, at least the senate portion, seized the high ground and has not yielded an inch since. Nothing in this episode indicates any wavering from that position, thank goodness.

weren't they also the ones that said that this pick would be from the 4th circuit court and also that the first pick was not Roberts before it was Roberts?

one president. This president has been rock solid of the war and judges, even going back to Texas.

I am a lawyer and I trust Bush. If I could appoint fellow lawyers I've known for 15 years, I could do so in 2 seconds and be assured.

Movements can't be president.

The DC guys were upset after roberts that they didn't get a judge on their list. Is that simple. And the grass roots is with Bush. But the grass roots aint on tv.

Miers will slam dunk em.'

It sounds right that Card may have been pushing her. However that contradicts the idea pushed by David Frum that Card fired Miers from his office. Most of the Frum/Yoo story sounded petty and vindictive and I'm not surprised it's been replaced by scenario 2.0.

The "somebody dropped out" theory doesn't sound right, or more precisely doesn't sound like a useful piece of information. Any position search at that level always picks the last person standing for one simple reason: People at that high of a peak never want to be passed over. They are more likely to be looked in the next search if they drop out before being rejected. Therefore when it becomes obvious that they aren't going to get it they exit the process 'voluntarily'.

That happens with CEO searches all the time. The search committee starts with 7 interested parties. As they inform the candidates where they stand, the ones on the bottom of the list suddenly decide to drop out "to spend more time with the family" or "for personal reasons". In the end there are 2 left, and the runner-up drops out just before the decision is made (knowing full well what the decision will be).

A more likely scenario is that the SCOTUS search came down to 2 finalists, Miers and another person. When staffers went back to the other finalist with a list of "How do we overcome this?" questions it became obvious that Miers was the nominee and he/she dropped out. Low level staffers misinterpreted the machinations of when/why the withdrawal came.

A couple of other points: It doesn't have the ring of truth that people warned that there would be an issue with Miers. The actual nomination was too closely held secret that very few people knew about. Of the 5 or so people that knew, did they really counsel against Miers?

One thing that does sound right, and may be a large part of what touched off the Washington based portion of the revolt. Conservative groups have been grooming candidates for the Supreme Court for 20 years now. John Roberts was the pinnacle of their success. However Bush decided that their preferred list just wasn't right for the next nomination, squelching thousands of hours of positioning. Understandably they're ticked right now. Roberts may be their last opportunity for a number of years.

And that is the issue of independance.  I believe that as long Bush is in the White House -and Jeb Bush is looking to land at 4 Penn- she'll be a reliable Conservative vote.  But what's going to happen when the Washington Post and the New York Times start to suggest that Miers is nothing but a puppet managed from the ranch in Crawford? Instead of siding with the Scalia, Thomas and Roberts block....she's going to start siding with her second cousin David Souter.  No matter what way you put it this nomination smells disaster.

I wonder if Chairman Specter also doesn't see how it can make it that long. OTOH, it would be a real treat to see the democrats demand an earlier start to the hearings.

What do Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Miers all have in common?

What do Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor have in common?

Group 1: They all spent time in DC before their appointment.

Group 2: They all moved to DC with their appointment, and all have 'moved left'.

Group 1 cannot be as easily influenced to move left since DC isn't new to them (the cocktail parties, the press, the sheer number of liberals around)

ideology is all that matters isn't it? Snowe and Collins are not going to go against a woman I wouldn't think, and the RINOs would prefer someone who MIGHT turn out to be a Souter than one who'll be a Thomas. Ditto the Dems, though in their case as someone pointed out they'll claim any replacement is a right-wing nutcase sent up to placate the right-wing nutcase base after they savaged their own guy's nominee.

Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but one of the GOP's weapons since then was the Ginsburg and Breyer treatment. The party, at least the senate portion, seized the high ground and has not yielded an inch since.

The GOP gives deference to a Democratic President's nominees; the Democrats do not return the favor.

80s: Bork/Thomas

90s: Ginsburg/Breyer

00s: Roberts/?

Compare and contrast. Clinton's nominees got 100x better treatment than the Reagan/Bush ones around them.

guess you missed my meaning.  in fact, i had just gotten back from a long lunch, signed on, and got mad.  could be the wrong entry to vent , but now i don't care.

you have issues that haven't come up strongly for you, and whatver base you claim to rep.  Fine..we all do.

but none, to me at this time, have been proven to be the primary issue of the PARTY.  GWB never made promises to me directly about judicial apointments.  nor have i been told that when i cast my vote, my vote reps one issue over any others.

i / we, cast our vote for what?...one issue, two, or a general belief that it is the right way to vote?  I can understand the passion, but understand that not all  right now can put that passion you hold at the top of the list.

let's see what happens...pick your battles

If positive on a Democratic nominee:

• The gold standard
  
• Nothing else matters
  

If negative on a Democratic nominee:

- Too hypothetical; will never happen

If negative on a Republican nominee:

• The gold standard
  
• Nothing else matters
  

If positive on a Republican nominee:

- Irrelevant

Keep running on the issue of which is the better party when it comes to conducting confirmation hearings. The GOP wins the case for merit, the democrats for ideology.  The Roberts vote was a chance for the democrats to climb aboard the merit bandwagon, and some did, but the GOP still wins.

Add that to a winning ideology for the GOP in election campaigns, and they don't need to fight the ideological battles in committee. Someday they may, but the strategy has worked well since the Thomas hearing.

I'm not sure Andy's political judgements are really sound by themselves, and it was reported that Rove was less involved in this one.

Andy is a Republican from the Massachusetts establishment, and I'm not sure he's sufficiently in tune with the conservative wing. If, in his mind, he blurs the line between the 'evangelical base' with the 'conservative base', then that would explain the tone-deafness of this nomination and the work that's gone into it.

And, yes, in retrospect, all signs point to Miers being a last-minute replacement. Good catch, whoever made it.

Serious arguement?  Please PAL.  This is outright hysteria.  I've attacked nothing personal, only wondered why it has come to this.  Evidence?  how about two freaking weeks of like mined people coming apart at the seams over one issue?  I don't want your unity, or anyone elses that singularly thinks this nomination is the crux of conservatism.  do me a favor, go outside tonight, find the moon, and howl.  

I respect all the opinions here, but my point is that continued angst over this, prior to any hearing, is bad for the party.  And yes PAL, there are still people that think about others, instead of what they think is important.

It's called unity...try a dose...it's nice every once in a while

I don't understand what your point is, then.  Are you saying people should only criticize the President when he fails to deliver on issues that matter to you?

For better or for worse, the President courted single-issue voters.  Now some of those single issue voters are angry at him.

To blame those single issue voters for the current weakness of the President and the party is unfair, though, because the weakness began long before now.

when you have people the GOP base would love dropping out because they don't want to go through the ordeal? Looks like a Democratic victory to me.

If we did it like they did, can you imagine the witnesses we'd have brought and the questions we'd asked at RBG's nomination hearings?? Would have made for some great theater.

Congratulations Erick and RedState.

Regardless of ones political or partisan beliefs, this is some damn, damn fine reporting. Just excellent.

A fascinating look into the behind the scenes selection of Miers, and more than a few persuasive, if not speculative, ideas about why the nomination was made and why it has staggered out of the gates.

Again, congratulations. This is some of the best political inside info to come out of any blog Right, Left, or Center.

join our cause in despising the rulings of liberal justices

I doubt every single prospectively acceptable nominee dropped out. And I also wonder whether the "ordeal" issue was the only reason - I can understand it being one of several good ones, but if the vetting gets down to it as the only reason, that's where coordinated party support/across the board loyalty comes into play.

I think that process probably worked in the Roberts context, and if anyone dropped out this time, I bet there was another coincidental reason as well (experience, timing, other career goals). If your pre-eminent goal is the SCOTUS, ambition will propel you into the nomination process.

Finally, even though they "lost" the battle to take the seat, Judges Ginsburg and Bork could hardly be considered failures in any sense of the word. It has the perverse effect of making the GOP talent pool that much tougher, stronger, and more resilient. Where are Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood these days?

Neil-

My friend- I have enjoyed your posts and have learned a lot.  I am not criticizing anyone. I respect your decisions to be angry, however, I do not think they speak for all. And I know you are not trying to do that.

RS is a serious blog that gets many hits.  People come here to learn, participate, and maybe even become more aligned with their party.

It is shocking to me that so many people hold this single issue so highly. I think we all agree that the appointment of judges is a big deal, but how could the appointment ire so many, to the point of abandoning party? If Miers is deemed unqualified for this role, then so be it. But, let's be fair and give her the opportunity to be evaluated.  By the way, what is the issue?.Miers is not the person to address abortion, or she is simply not qualified?

I just feel that there are more issues to tackle right now, issues that we all can identify with.  

Now I'm going to stand up for Miers for being the stand-up girl. I was going to stand up for the conservative judges who were willing to go through any fight the Dems put up. Now I'm going to fight for her to prove it. My biggest reason (which is reason enough to be my only reason if it were necessary) for being a Republican is for the support of originalist judges. Miers may or may not be that, I don't know, but she put her neck out for the President knowing she would be dragged through the mud; by Dems if she was originalist, by Republicans if she wasn't. Turns out she been muddied by us all, but she continues to act as if there is nothing to lose. Bush tried our originalists, who dropped off until her name came up. Now, she is the President's nominee, and now we know (or it is rumored) that he made wise attempts. This finally was his choice, and was perhaps the wisest given the circumstances. Given that the President made his decision with wisdom, it is now OUR TURN to be originalist. Now we must support her; regardless of her ideology, regardless of her qualifications (she is now the best nominee willing to fight), and regardless of how much we know about her originalist positions (the President deemed her most originalist). I will support her now, if for no other reason than to show the judges who backed out that I will fight for originalism. Even if we lose this battle (if Miers isn't originalist), I will not lose this cultural war.

I hear that in the military, a soldier must follow his commander's orders without question, even if the result is quite unsure (or even certain to be lost). Here I will do the same. Right or wrong, I'm going all out.

Mr. President, I've questioned your nomination of Harriet Miers long enough. Now, I report to duty.

We have a misunderstanding here.

I'm not angry.  Just ask Leon H, because he and I have gone back and forth a few times on this, with me being firmly on the "wait for the hearings" side of things.

I just hope to elevate the discussion, by challenging those people who paint the opponents of Miers too harshly.

So, thanks for your comments here, since I think we'd all be better off if more of this discussion were carried out in that spirit.

Now try making an actual argument, one based on reasons.

Try leaving your feelings out of it this time.

Try leaving out the arrogance, sarcasm and condescension, too.

If you don't want to try this, then walk away.  

And yes PAL, there are still people that think about others, instead of what they think is important.

That always seems to get said by people who are wanting others to think about them. Like right now.

Andy personifies Bush family loyalty, inner-circle (two generations worth), and a very good, decent guy.  My guess is that Andy supported the pick because he very well knew that Miers is what his boss and his boss's wife wanted.  Also, Andy is practical, and he may have wanted to avoid a philosophical show-down in the Senate over the next few months, due to concerns about the war, legal issues etc.  He failed to take into account and advise the President regarding the potential reaction to the absence of a track record or discernable qualifications, other than her relationship with Bush.  

This is us reciprocating.

If Laura Bush's opinions had any weight in the evaluation of potential nominees, this Presidency loses ANY support from me.

Hear, Hear.  

As his wife, her views must influence him, although I have little insight as to what issues or areas she focuses on.  I have read that Laura and Harriet are close personally, and that she supported the pick.  At least in modern times,  First Ladies have been key advisors, such as Nancy Reagan.

this is done.  i'm not trying to argue with you.  more trying to understand  you and others that have made this the most important item in the last couple weeks.

no more, i'm done.  and, sorry for the Pal.  it gets heated trying to understand others.  should have known better

Fair enough.

I can certainly understand getting angry.

See ya around RedState.

I'm sure Laura influences George, that's unavoidable.

But if Laura is influence White House staff, then something is terribly wrong in the Bush administration.

I am sure that many of you have already seen the Washington Post article today where Laura Bush, responding to a question, thought that sexism could very well be a motiviation for some of the opposition to the Miers nomination.  Of course, this is a silly charge that you would expect from a liberal Democrat not the wife of a conversative President.

Honestly, the White House continues to make matters worse everytime they attempt to defend Miers.  I don't know if I speak for the majority of disgruntled conservatives but I am very angry with W that he chose to put us all through this mess.  There were plenty of qualified people that he could have nominated without creating this controversy.

Lastly, I absolutely hate Bush's comment regarding knowing Miers' heart.  That is classic liberal thinking.  Conservatives don't really care about her heart. It's her head that matters.  We care about a judges' ability to set aside personal feelings and decide cases based upon the original meaning of the Constitution.

I hope - but doubt - that Miers will realize that her nomination is hurting the President and withdraw before further damage is done to the Republican party.

In reality, you've made the separation.  My only questions have been why is there the divide that you now claim "us"?

What seems to have happened is that what you and others thought should have happened, didn't.

And while people cripe and moan, we just think the best option is to see what happens.

i've read your posts Leon, and see there is merit to your beliefs.  i just don't think this instance is a deal breaker.  

offer still stands for tics to see your team.:)

My sources in Texas are pretty good, though they have not been very forthcoming about what happened until last night.  My second best source said that, contrary to reports mid-week that Owen had withdrawn, she had not, but that she did withdraw later when the WH could not assure her that the inevitable filibuster would be broken.  

McCain would go along with deserting the gang of 14 deal for Williams and Batchelder; the WH found some problems with Batchelder, whether background, paper trail or whatever, my source did not know.  However, he says they were never going to appoint Williams regardless of how many short lists she was on because they were not going to give Lindsey Graham the satisfaction of having the gang of 14 deal redound to the benefit of one of its authors.

I ran this past my best source today and he refused to comment.  However, he had vehemently denied the first reports of Owen's withdrawal.  All he would say is that John McCain had already lost friends in Texas before this last nomination came up, and he now had a lot fewer.  

I think we're talking about Owen as well.

She is the only one who "announced" that she was no longer a candidate.

And if you think about it, the leap from Owen to Miers makes sense.

Two Texas women who Bush knows really well.

During this timeframe, there was talk that Bush was still "considering who to pick" ... my comment at that time was that it worried me that they might rush to bad decision.

That having been said, it still doesn't mean that Miers won't turn out to be a female Thomas.

It does mean that the White House goofed this up worse than previously thought.

It is the single most important issue for me, but I think a lot of what you are seeing is that it seemed to be the ONE issue where Bush was conservative.

He hasn't been on spending.

He hasn't been on immigration.

Judges had been (with WoT) his strong area.

And for many of us, it was either #1 or #2 on the list (abortion is the reason I left the Democratic party in the late 1980s)....

Come to think of it, conservative Supremes is THE reason I put thousands of dollars into Senate campaigns of Chambliss, Isakson, Talent, Coleman, and a few others.

For many of us, judges is the finger that has been holding us to the building and Bush seems to have just stomped on that.

Now, keep in mind, that I'm a ping-pong ball (I need my own gif file I guess) on the Miers thing.

Leon posts and I'm against.

SpectatorGirl posts and I'm for.

But, you asked about the single issue thing, so there it is.

John Fund basically said the same thing on Hugh's show and Ken M. basically through the whole Andy Card story under the bus.

Are these the same staffers who seem to always never to be in the know.

Chairman Spector said he wants hearings completed before Thanksgiving. This was said yesterday

If Rove was out of this decision making why did he call Dobson and provide the details on Meirs. Either Rove was involved or he was not. To believe Rove was not involved on this important issue is just not credible.

If Bush trusts anyone it is Rove and to beleive Card made all the decisions is just another wasteful rumor.  

The idea that canidates are pulling out to avoid to avoid conformation hearings sounds like convenient  talking points comming out of the White House.

Really, "shocking", where have you been over the last 30 years.

I can't say I'd be thrilled with the idea of Captain Toke on the Supreme Court.  I blame him trying to get away with his drug use for Kenedy.  If he had been honest, Reagan could have nominated someone else (like E. Jones) after Bork.  But after the Captain Toke fiasco, he was in no position to have another fight and went for someone more moderate.  Some people called Douglas Ginsburg 'Son of Bork' and they were not meaning it as a compliment.

Unrelated - has anyone ever thought that part of the problem with Bork was that he was so dead ugly?

involved.  dare i ask about the last 30 for you?

is that he didn't come across well in the hearings.  He allowed himself to get pigeon holed by the opposition, and often comes across as grouchy.

I think that is one area where Roberts shined in his hearings, granted Roberts had less paper trail than Bork on the controversial issues, but Roberts played the committee quite well, and didn't really give them anything to vote against him on.

Bork did.

In the end though, I am not so sure that judcial committee hearings reveal much about a nominee that isn't already known-they are sort of more a senate dog and pony show, where senators get to grandstand than something all that revealing.

If anyone actually thinks a wife/spouse has no influence, they are living in la la land.

I think it is the degree of influence that is key, and nobody knows that but the couple.

Anyone think Ronald Reagan didn't bounce things off of Nancy?  Given the closeness of their relationship, I find it hard to believe that he never did.

If Laura is sitting in on meetings and making suggestions, that is where I would draw the line, but influence, intution and opinion are some things I don't think can be avoided.

this I can agree with.

I don't think unelected presidential spouses should be in there telling the staff what they should an shouldn't do regarding policy or nominations.

The president bouncing something off his wife for her opinion/intuition on the issue is unaviodable I think.

lame.  Laura hasn't been the first to make it, but apparantly she liked the sound of it.

But had Bush nominated Brown, Jones, Williams or even Clement I would say most people ticked off at the Miers nomination would have been backing the nomination fully.

I admit I wasn't overjoyed at the Clement rumors during the Roberts hearings but I would have backed her nomination given her experience.

Miers' experience just doesn't make me think she is qualified for the SCOTUS-people may call me an elitist or whatever, but I think there are far too many other choices more qualified to have gone with her.

If anyone actually thinks a wife/spouse has no influence, they are living in la la land.

When Hillary gets to be Queen -er, I mean President, she may not give a flip what Bill thinks about anything. He'll have served his purpose and be of no further use to her.

Just what is needed in my opinion.  Check out my latest diary entry on this.

http://mark-i.redstate.org

They most certainly should