Posted on 10/10/2005 10:19:20 PM PDT by CalRepublican
Here's the money quote:
JF: Here's the problem. Because the White House has been so unfair to Harriet Miers and her supporters, because they haven't collected the information, they've sent you onto the beaches of Normandy without proper ammunition and armament. Because of that, we are going to see six or seven surprises come down the road the next few days, about Harriet Miers. Now all of them are sustainable individually. The problem is because the White House was completely unprepared for this, they're doing a disservice to you and her supporters...
HH: Want to give me an example of one, John?
JF: The Texas Lotter Commission, and all the various contracts that were allocated, how they were allocated, and Harriet Miers' role in them.
HH: And what's that going to tell us about her?
JF: The story will be coming out this week, and it's going to involve possible interference by the governor's office with the operations of the Lotter Commission. I'm not saying Harriet Miers was involved. I'm simply saying these are stories that are going to come out, that need answers, and frankly, the White House hasn't done the homework. I hope they have the answers ready.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioblogger.com ...
From what I'm seeing on the web, there might be an issue with the tax advice her firm gave as well.
Bush should withdraw this woman immediately.
I'll support Bush when he's conservative and when he appoints a known originalist to the bench.
But this nomination is a joke. Her biggest supporters are crowing about her performance in litigation that the top attorneys in this country--and there are a lot of them--would find very routine.
We're better than this.
Who says they were unprepared? How would he know how much preparation they made? To what is Fund privy ?
Bush should withdraw this woman immediately.
Where have you been? Bush and the WH completely did not expect the opposition to Miers that they are getting from true conservatives.
They expected a pass.
That "example" was a huge nothingburger. I am sure the rest will be equally substantial.
I thought the more we found out about her, the more conservatives would support this nomination. What a f-ing joke!
Advice her firm gave means nothing. Advice she gave might mean something.
Calling hysterical Knee Jerking crybabies "conservatives" is not accurate. Conservatives are none of those things and do not distrust the President's judgment which has been excellent wrt judicial nominees. We heard the same kind of worrying about Roberts who is an excellent appointment.
Then the Senate Republicans are just going to have to take him to task. At some point, someone in Washington better start acting like a conservative or 2006 is going to be ugly.
Unless Bush just wanted re-election for the paycheck, he better come around, because life in Washington isn't going to be much fun with Democrats in charge of Congress.
IMHO, Bush is too stubborn to withdraw this until the handwriting is on the wall, IMO. Too bad for us.
Uh, pardon me, but I thought her selling point was that she RAN a large firm. So now that doesn't mean anything?
Gotta take the bad with the good. . .
No
Sandra Day O'Connor might stay on the Court until the next President was elected.
We'll see. I don't know too many evangelical biblical literalists who take such a rosey view of gamblin' and lotteries in the first place. . .
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
No you're not !
The GOP can't even reform Social Security or even talk about it !
Heck we're in an energy crunch and a bunch of the GOP voted against more drilling Friday !
I can keep going on and on pointing out where the GOP isn't "We're better than this" !
Running a large law firm is much like running the SCOTUS or running an academic department. You don't get to tell the other partners what they must do or say.
Do you seriously imagine that the managing partner in a law firm screens the advice each lawyer gives?
She was a Managing Partner. That makes her responsible for the advice the firm gave.
Anyone who doesn't think that Ginsburg and Miers are going to become chums as the only two women on the Court is naive. We know Ginsburg will never deviate from her blighted worldview, so what does that leave us?
Regarding possible revelations (and opportunities for the Dems to get nasty on ambiguous information), if Bush didn't see an incredible Pandora's Box of dangers involving favoritism, self-dealing, cronyism, recusal and conflict-of-interest issues in nominating Miers to the Supreme Court, he was as senseless as his dad was on Miyazawa's lap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.