75% Chance Miers Nomination is Withdrawn (John Fund says on John Batchelor Program)

John Batchelor Program - WABC Radio ^

[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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/

[inquest]

Truth is a paper trail tells you nothing, and so does any investigation done with no paper trail. The Stevens Precendent destroys all confidence one might have in anyone.

What exactly are you referring to here? According to the biography at Oyez.org:

"Nominated by Republican President Gerald Ford in the wake of the Watergate scandal to help re-establish public confidence in government, Stevens was widely viewed as a moderate, concerned more with the details of a given case than a broad and predictable judicial philosophy."

[veronica]

I never heard anything political. Just black helicopter kookery.

[Mike Darancette]

what makes you think they'd let Gonzales past them?

What argument would they us against him? Cronyism? Not like them? Too Liberal? Supports Roe v Wade?

Those arguments would ring hollow. After all the howling they have made about Miers not being a judge, not having a paper trail or having a discernable position.

[lemura]

She is a highly qualified candidate

There are thousands of Americans who are equally qualified (and not just in the practice of law), and there are tens (if not hundreds) of suitable candidates who are better qualified. Just browsing through top 10 law school (including non-Ivy shools like UT-Austin, UM-Ann Arbor, UCLA, etc) graduation rankings circa 1980 would be a great starting point...

[rcrngroup]

With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.

I'm not a fan of Newsweek or Howard Fineman by any means, but Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and Phyllis Schafly are major evangelicals who are withholding their support of Harriet Miers or opposing her. Bush's ill-advised nomination of Miers has created a deep schism in the Republican Party, whereby conservatives and evangelical Christians are now pitted snarling and attacking each other. Thanks GWB, for your role in creating chaos, division and disarray in the Republican Party!

[GarySpFc]

I hope some of you realize either the rejection of Mieros is going to cost the Republicans dearly in the next election, not that most of you care. Hugh Hewitt makes this very point in today's blog. Here is an email he received and his response. First the email:

However, the Miers nomination is the one thing I care most about now. NB. I say again, NB. If the Republicans refuse to support this nomination, if they force this woman to withdraw or force the President to withdraw her name, if they do not put this woman on the Supreme Court, then I will be a Democrat for the rest of my life and will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. I will vote against every Republican on every ballot in every election for the rest of my days. The response of Belt Way Republicans to the Harriet Miers nomination has been disgusting. This is the feather that will make me a Democrat. Harriet Miers is exactly the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court. She is far more likely to vote the way I want a Justice to vote than will John Roberts. No more "bright lights" from Harvard. No more from Yale. I have had enough incest like the Kelo decision. This is no debate among friends, Hugh, not with me. If these Ivy League Republicans, these Belt Way snobs and their "better sort" sense of themselves, defeat this nomination, then I will despise the Republican Party as much as I despise the Democrats. But I will vote for the Democrats anyway to punish, yes, punish the Republicans for their shameful ways.

From this point onward, I will never look at NRO again. Nor will I read The Weekly Standard. Frum, Will, Krauthammer and Kristol especially Kristol, are no longer worth my time. I say again, this is no debate among friends. And I have to ask: just how do these critics expect the President to name a person of their choosing when we know the Democrats will filibuster such a choice and the Republican Senator will not have the guts to carry out the nuclear option?

The point of this e-mail is that self-proclaimed protectors of the conservative base need to understand that defeating the Miers nomination is a political disaster of the first order. Which is why Barbara Boxer has begun to hope for death by committee.

Alarmed by this, who should be?

For starters, every GOP candidate with a competitive race in 2006. Beyond that, every GOP would be presidential candidate, but especially John McCain, whose Gang of 14 is rightfully identified as the reason we are here today.

Where is Senator McCain, anyway, on Harriet Miers? He's not shy about media coverage, so I hope this weekend's Sunday shows coax him out for an extended conversation on the process amd the nominee.

Now Barbara Boxer:

"Here's what I know about Harriet Miers," Boxer said. "I know that she's a crony of the president. I know she thinks he's the most brilliant man she's ever met. I know that she was head of the search committee and wound up being the nominee, and I know that she is personally anti-choice. Those are things I know."

[F.J. Mitchell]

"And General Franco is still dead."

No sh*t? And what is the present status of General DEGaule?

[Revolting cat!]

Why is it that our American Infallible Pope George W. Bush didn't anticipate the reaction to his brilliant choice? Maybe for the same reason that he, his CIA, and the disinterested (of course) Iraqi emigres whispering in his ear didn't anticipate the post "mission accomplished" uprising in the land they all deemed ready and hungry for American style democracy. Pure genius!

[alcuin]

How did the WH know that conservatives would act like hysterical 2 year olds.

Yet another instance of incompetent vetting.

Two-year-olds shouldn't have been allowed to vote for him.

[Wolfstar]

And support for her among conservative opinion-makers...

That's the problem. People rely on others to make their opinions for them. The "opinion makers" have told the thundering herd what to think, and like the reliable reactionaries they are, the herd responded as desired.

The reactionary herd and their "opinion makers" are so afraid of Harriet Miers that they even want to deny her hearings where she can exercise her right to speak on her own behalf.

Charming.

[LibLieSlayer]

I won't argue with you further, because your mind will not be changed by exchange of thought. Let me just say that I AM PART OF THE BASE, and you do not speak for me.

I walked the walk, and talked the talk. I manned phone banks, raised funds, donated heavily, attended many local and state functions, and worked polling centers. I campaigned for Conservative causes and pols for over 30 years. I have earned the rank of base.

LLS

[inquest]

After all the howling they have made about Miers not being a judge, not having a paper trail or having a discernable position.

Objecting to not having a discernable position doesn't mean they're willing to accept any discernable position. The whole point of wanting a discernable position is so they can examine it and see if it's suitable. They'll be very likely to conclude that it's not in his case.

If you think that would make Republican Senators guilty of flip-flopping, what would that say about nominating Gonzales after he's already said that he's not a candidate?

[Map Kernow]

No disrespect, but your elaborate and well articulated argument boils down to two words: "Trust Bush." Trust him even if he acts on his own, appoints someone close to him, without consulting the people to whom this appointment has meant so much for not just years, but DECADES. In fact, especially trust Bush in that case. I can't go along.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks, it is about as great as your tagline!:)

[Grampa Dave]

Spoken like a true Rino, ready to stab GW in the back at the drop of a hat.

[inquest]

The reactionary herd and their "opinion makers" are so afraid of Harriet Miers that they even want to deny her hearings where she can exercise her right to speak on her own behalf.

Ugh, and to think that the anti-Miers people get accused of being drama queens...

[alnick]

And how does Johnny know this?

He made it up.

[safisoft]

If Harriet Miers is forced to withdraw before the hearings to which she is entitled, I hope the President nominates Alberto Gonzalez next. It would serve you reactionaries right.

So, according to you, the President is vindictive in his choices?

Who will be acting like the two-year old in that case?

[lemura]

What do you define as the base

My wife and her work friends are lawyers - all typical mildly conservative OCers who aren't really political. Their common refrain is 'who the heck is Harriet Miers?' My wife frequently deals with the head of certain state bar - this is not a typical track record for future SCOTUS nominees.

[Map Kernow]

nn Coulter has ruined her career.

Yep---I saw her sobbing and crying just yesterday on her way to the bank to make another deposit in one of her accounts.