Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
It is Anarchy anytime a group of loud mouthed and well funded bullies, conspire to intimidate the citizens of this Republic out of the opportunity to witness a nominee to any office or position in the land, explain her/his position on pertinent issues and display their compentence or lack there of before a properly established and legitimate,bipartisan panel.
But can pretty words resist BOTH Coulter (no images, please) and K-Lo?
I, for one, welcome our new neo-con dominatrixes.
HAIL K-LO!!! AVE STARE DECISIS!!!
I really doubt it will be. Wish it would be, but it won't happen.
I understand how you feel.
I'm just saying some fundamental things never seem to change. If I was a betting person, and betting on her withdrawal, I would put my money squarely on if I think she is a conservative or not.
In this case you might want to ask yourself..do I feel lucky.
Are we still on this?
Just what is it that anyone thinks is going to happen? I'd like to see the Dow up about 1000 points tomorrow, but that's not going to happen and I don't bet my money that way.
What is likely? Well, start with things that are pretty certain.
1) Senators want to be re-elected.
a) If you're a GOP senator from a very red state, Miers isn't going to lose you your seat and this can be largely a non event for you. So you will bargain for a vote if it looks close enough to matter. Maybe offer a YES in return for money to your state. This is easy in the Gulf area.
b) If you're a GOP senator from a blue state you're likely a RINO. The outcry from the Right has now provided you all the cover you need among your liberal constituents to vote YES on confirmation and earn the fundraising help an Administration can give you and that you always need to win in a state that dislikes GOP anything.
c) If you're a Dem senator from a red state, you have all the cover you need to vote YES on a Bush nominee, which will please the Bush supporters in your state. The hard core right wingers were not going to vote for you anyway so you have no reason not to vote YES.
d) If you're a Dem senator from a blue state, you can do anything you want. A vote NO is a pure anti Bush vote that your constituents will not argue with. A vote YES can be bargained for to get more pork for your state. The Dem senators in c) above will give you the cover you need to make this bargain.
So, that is what looks likely to me. Given competence in the hearings, and given that she will get YES votes from all four categories above, I don't see how she can lose. And given that, why would she withdraw?
Because the only legitimate argument they have so far to disqualify her is that she is an unqualified idiot who shouldn't be allowed IN a courtroom, much less on the bench.
They can't make that argument about Gonzales, who served honorably on the texas supreme court.
They will still rant about him being insufficiently "conservative" (even though if he's a strict constructionist what he "believes" personally shouldn't matter). But they might be able to stop his nomination, they won't be able to stop confirmation, unless they join forces with liberals who will attack him for supporting the war on terror.
There's the headline we all want, conservatives joining forces with the hate-america crowd to stop a qualified judicial nominee because of his personal beliefs.
Tradesports does have a market on Miers. Two days ago she was trading @ 65 percent. It is listed in their LEGAL section. (I'd post the latest but I can't get to it on my Treo).
I agree. The other failed nominee was Ginsburg, he confessed to smoking pot in college, or something like that.
2%.
Do you equate "politicians" with "elected officials"? Because if you do (I don't), I'd have to modify that statement to "expressed reservations"---Brownback for example.
The major conservative groups virtually all are either "pro-miers", or are saying they look forward to the hearings.
You're on, guy: name them.
There is no great grassroot or other support for the idea of withdrawing this nomination. THose who want her withdrawn are in a minority.
Respectfully disagree. The party needs this debate: it was already listing over spending, immigration, government expansion, etc. GW needs a good talking to, and that's what he's getting.
Dubya Dingus won't do it: he is shooting for approval ratings under 20%. Maybe even the alltime record!
She is a highly qualified candidate, fully prepared and capable of sitting on the bench. She is a strict constructionist who will faithfully follow the constitution, who understands the limited role of judges and will support that limited role.
She will, in short, be in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
What PROOF do you have otherwise? You will of course ask me what my proof is, and I won't answer you.
You want a fully qualified nominee to withdraw because you aren't comfortable with her.
Fortunately, most people aren't with you.
Comment by flashbunny from another thread:
On News/Activism ^ 10/14/2005 11:37:13 AM EDT · 32 of 36 ^
For the record, the bush administration is willing to fight:
1. Conservative Bloggers
2. Conservative writers and talk show hosts
3. Conservative members of the senate and house
4. The conservative base who helped get bush elected twice
However, they are unwilling to fight:
1. The democrats in the senate
2. The RINOs in the senate - hell, they campaign for them over conservative primary challengers.
Talk about strategery!
I don't. She's a lovely, loyal, distinguished lady. But I don't think she's conservative.
Rather big "if", there. His judicial record doesn't look all that promising in that department.
There's the headline we all want, conservatives joining forces with the hate-america crowd to stop a qualified judicial nominee because of his personal beliefs.
Something that Bush might want to consider before nominating him, especially after Gonzales has already said that he's not a candidate for the position.
Thanks for replying. I'm betting on the come. ;-D
Somehow I just don't see that happening.
Perhaps we could persuade Fund to resign if she doesn't withdraw.
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.