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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/
>>>"Bush is acting like a King not a President and this "royal" pick is offensive... The SC is not where "loyalty" to a friend is rewarded. It's a place where "loyalty" to the constitution is rewarded."
I agree 100 percent. This is looking like a bad case of hubris on Bush's part. His cavalier attitude on limiting legislation by judges may have already caused damage enough to split the party. This is a core issue.
Hoppy
Actually, the "thundering herd" isn't thundering. That is the amazing and encouraging thing.
See, it turns out that most of us DO think on our own, and do not blindly follow Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh.
Rush I think gets it. He is opposed, but does so in a way that doesn't turn us all off. Most opponents don't get it. They think we are all stupid idiots, and that we should trust THEM to hold the keys to the kingdom.
If I hear Laura INgraham one more time try to invoke Reagan in her evil dance of hatred over this nominee, well, I won't because I'm shutting her off.
Let's check out Laura's web site. Laura is RABIDLY anti-miers. Virtually all her discussions are anti-miers. Her site is full of anti-miers links, including that stupid petition.
And when she tells her own listeners to VOTE, and gives them only two choices (yes or no) rather than including the "wait-and-see", She only gets 2/3rds of her audience to agree with her. 1/3 opposes her position.
Lest you think that is good result for her, it is typical when a host does a poll about a position they take, the numbers are more like 95%.
Only if we can sustain the pressure opposing the seating of an unqualified crony on the Supreme Court. We have to keep it up everywhere we can.
People can tote up all the pundits they want on the anti-Miers side; it doesn't matter, because they don't vote.
All that matters how the Senate will vote. Period.
Know her how? By watching her answers questions at hearings? It's not unreasonable to expect a nominee have better qualifications before being sent to hearings---it's unreasonable not to.
Did she say that on HBO?
I really think the WH screwed up with this nomination! A strong originalist would have given the base something to work towards getting a stronger majority to get the nominees through. Now, there is no fight. Pitiful waste of an opportunity to gain more seats imho...
Those who chastize the rest of us wanting the fight are too narrow minded in thinking! It's not the fight so much as the loss of the opportunity to FINALLY define ourselves to the public at large & use the opportunity to advance the Republican majority in Congress. Sheesh! Not only that - the Supreme Court!! The battle we've been waiting to fight for 30 years. Bush squandered it with this nominee!
Well stated. Conservatives aren't always Republican. Especially when they don't see conservatism coming from the party.
I'm not sure the head-shaking should be directed toward your conservative "allies". We didn't appoint her, nor should we be asked to forego our principles...
So who in your opinion must the President appoint to confirm his maturity, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Rosie O'Donnel, Pee Wee Herman......???? Barney Fwank? Jesse Jackson????
People within his own Administration, like Abigail Thernstrom, who were dismayed at the choice, movement conservatives, like Bauer, Keyes---the list is too numerous to put in one reply. You do acknowledge that he made this choice without consulting anyone besides his wife practically? Are you saying that's all good?
Wow, has that article been posted here?
I don't think those were her exact words.....but close. Something like he must have been drunk or drinking to make such a pick. I didn't see it and haven't seen a transcript.
This isn't just YOUR house; and a vast majority of US don't agree with your myopic tunnel visioned logic.
You post that like you're pretty damn sure the rest of us will go along with you. Somehow, I doubt many of us will be willing to go over the edge with you.
Gosh, wrong twice on one thread.
"0%"? OK if I ping you if the 0% event happens?
I'm pretty sure your money would be safe.
I think a safer bet would be that they don't care if this destroys the conservatives as long as they get their way.
Thank you. :)
Parrish will not be missed by most Canadians.
On a side note, there was a letter to the editor in the National Post by an American living in Toronto. He was writing about the constant anti-Americanism here (boy could I relate). Even worse for him, he lives in Parrish's district.
Close is good enough with words like that.
I'm pullin' y'all BACK from the edge.
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.