I don't think it is a good idea to support those who would deny President Bush a hearing and vote on the person he has chosen as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice. If the RATS are laughing now, they'd split wide open at what they would see as a win for them. Something I had not considered before the pundits came out against Harriet Miers, is that I would not want them making a SC selection instead of the President. The articles they have written have been mostly personal attacks on either President Bush or Miers. I see most of them as self serving and self important. Their elitist bias has been hung out for all to see and question. Why should we trust these writers more than we trust the President we voted for? I can appreciate your desire for unity but it isn't going to happen even if Miers goes down. The argument will then be over the newest nominee and the equally perfect candidate that was not nominated. I am sticking with the President because I believe he has made a choice that will give us a Justice he can trust to follow the constitution and not legislate from the bench. For those who wanted a bloody fight that would have kept the country in an uproar for months I would remind them that a bird in hand is worth more than one that isn't.
I dont necessary wish to deny her a hearing, if she goes to commitee and impresses me and says what we all want to hear than that would be great.
I know my position right now puts me in with the same "we would never vote for the GOP because in the 1950's Ike put Warren in the court crowd and since then we have never been satisfied with anything the republicans do, but we hate democrats". I think they are a small minority of the naysayers, the others are legitimate dissenters who do belong to the base.