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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/
You sure have, guy.
And if the Republicans on the committee won't support her, the Democrats will take this as a sure sign that she's pro-abortion, a lie, and they will ALL vote for her, thus putting her on the floor for a vote!
I know it's only anecdotal, but you did say anywhere.
I have been a registered Republican my entire adult life. I have been a grassroots volunteer on many GOP campaigns. I fully support the right of Harriet Miers' to hearings before the senate. I fully support her right of free speech, and her opportunity to exercise same in her own behalf before the senate. I fully support the President's constitutional power to nominate and the senate's power to vote yes or no on nominations.
I do NOT support in any way the power grab that the so-called conservative punditocracy is engaged in by trying to get Ms. Miers to withdraw before her hearings.
If Ms. Miers does weaken and withdraw, I would fully support the President if his next nominee did not meet with the approval of the so-called conservative punditocracy. In fact, I would hope that the President would nominate Alberto Gonzalez should Ms. Miers withdraw.
You've just told us all more than you ever wanted us to know.
A "Careful What You Ask For" bump. :-)
It's more like 95% that she'll be withdrawn. Common sense tells you as much. The WH sorely "misunderestimated" the amount of passion that another "stealth candidate" would elicit from the conservative base, especially when that candidate comes highly recommended by Dingy Harry. The President doesn't need this kind of flack from his loyal troops, and the sooner that Miss Miers "voluntarily decides to withdraw", the better it will be for him. They are hemorrhaging right now. Just my opinion, I don't have any sources.
The constitution does not demand that nomination be followed by confirmation.
As to Coulter (no images, please), I take her about as seriously as I take The Dowdy One.
Stay well, and soldier on.
FR!!!
So now people who want to see the process unfold in an orderly, constitutional way, rather through the action of pressure groups, are "drama queens." Thanks. You've superbly made my point about the reactionary herd.
Just trying out my new tagline....
No, I just told you about POLITICS, something you have no grasp of.
Do you think the Democrats aren't going to take advantage of a split in this party?
You wanted a fight; well, you got one: with your own party.
I hope you're happy with the results.
You mean not a candidate then, he will be if Bush asks him to help save the Party.
Don't let the RATS and RINOs win by default, let Miers be heard. The RATS, in the end, Cannot let Miers go unchallenged because they cant be sure that Miers is not exactly what Bush advertises.
Sounds like my tv weather man................ who is more than wrong more than occasionally.
;-)
No, I am. What part of "I hope the President nominates Alberto Gonzalez next," do you not understand?
I'm plenty vindictive. I won't forget what's happened over this nominee, and the caterwauling to deny Ms. Miers her "day in court." If she withdraws, I will never again vote for any candidate who puts "conservative" first.
Miers will be confirmed. Fund cannot get her denied by arbitrarily fiddling with the "numbers" or the "chances" that she may not be confirmed. It's a game.
Well Ann herself has convinced me of one thing about her that no one else has ever been able to do-she's too bony. Between the ears.
I know there are better arguments than these.
She has no disdain for the federalist society, that is a lie and you would know it was a lie if you actually examined the record. You base that lie on stuff you read from WND which is based on a transcript of testimony she gave back in 1989-90 where she said she would not be a member of the federalist society because of the stigma attached to such membership. SOmething that most certainly was true for a democrat in texas in the late 80s.
She has been firmly on board with the Federalist Society for years now. Don't take my word for it. She has been vetting all the nominees. Leo Leonard, of Federalist Society, says she has firmly supported them and their goals. She has spoken on record of her support, back before she was nominated. She has worked closely with members while working to pick nominees and vet them.
AN argument against that starts with a blatant falsehood is hardly a good way to convince anybody she should withdraw.
Your "support for quotas" is also highly misleading. Again, it is from 1989-90. We DO need to ask her what her views are on this subject, but the transcript does not show support for quotas specifically, although it is supportive of the "necessity" for more minority representation.
I happen to think that more minority representation in politics is a good thing, so it doesn't bother me much that she took the position. But to suggest that her 1990 support for increased representation of minorities means that she NOW supports QUOTAS again shows the absurdity of her withdrawl.
Your third point is guilt by association, and devoid of factual support (liar liar). She supported the CREATION of a "women's study" thing at SMU, named after a woman lawyer of apparently great acheivement (and not a feminazi).
That group HAS since invited a lot of liberal females to speak. But there is no evidence that she supports "sponsorship" of those people. I will note that I happen to think that liberal women lawyers have A RIGHT to speak at colleges, because I'm a big first-amendment freak. But there is no evidence she sponsored these speakers. Of course, the inuendo is that not only did she support them, she must agree with them.
OK, 0-3. I see why you wrote your senator to get this person withdrawn. God forbid we find out you had no clue what you were talking about.
I agree that there is a lack of a published paper trail that we can see. I expect the hearings to reveal what we need to know. That is the "wait-and-see" position.
Your position is that she should withdraw because a lot of LOUD people with BIG audiences are spreading lies about her record.
The pundits make money off Republicans, I will grant you. I probably own a few of their books. They are NOT the base.
By the way, while I'm thinking about it, could you tell me why Miers is considered untrustworthy because she used to be a democrat, but no one questions Kristol or Krauthammer, who also used to be democrats?
So, if she's not withdrawn, will you admit to not having any common sense?
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.