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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/
Highly unlikely.
Would you seriously be angry at the President if he withdraws her nomination?
Not even close. It's just the political process playing out. It's just not playing out the way you want.
Barbara Boxer, Kennedy, and Schummer are rejoicing that our movement will be permanently divided.
When the pro-Miers side actually starts to address the arguments of the anti-Miers side, instead of just complaining about them, that will mark the momemnt when the division will start reversing.
If he doesn't allow the normal process leading to a hearing, yes, I would be.
Some of you have convinced yourself that us "mushy moderates" don't have minds of our own.
We want fair; and being blackmailed by a bunch of extremists isn't fair.
So you're saying he has an obligation to run his nominations past Alan Keyes? A nutbag non-lawyer? And Gary Bauer, who hasn't really practiced law for more than 20 years? At least Thernstrom is a lawyer, but I still don't see why Bush has to get a stamp of approval from her. Nobody elected her, as far as I can tell.
You do acknowledge that he made this choice without consulting anyone besides his wife practically?
No I don't. I know, for example, that he discussed it with Leonard Leo, just for starters.
That says it all for me. Bush is using Clinton tactics without Clinton savvy. :(
I didn't say everything was just fine, I just don't think we need to add things she didn't say on top of the offensive things she really has said. I think she has done a good job of reducing her fan base over this, she lost me for the most part with her Roberts comments in July.
As far as I can tell, she didn't call the President a lush or a drunk. If she had, I think I would have seen it posted on one of these threads.
That would be a first.
Ow.
You post things that I know you know are false, because I've seen you on all the threads where they were proven to be false. I point out that you are using lies to smear a candidate for the Supreme Court in order to get others to support your call for her to withdraw, and your response to my calling you out is
"I don't respond to epithets".
OK.
It's not the most vocal. Posts on articles that are against miers have most of the anti-miers people. Posts on articles which are pro-miers have more pro-miers comments.
And you wonder why you're being called a drama queen? Normal people don't consider attempts to persuade political leaders to do their jobs right to be "power grabs".
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 hope that he gets even more vindictive of his poor little bruised ego so it can be smacked down again? My, you have high hopes for our public servants.
You asked me for some people he didn't consult and I named just a few. You disparage and dismiss them. Guess I know where this is going.
I know, for example, that he discussed it with Leonard Leo, just for starters.
And how do you know that? And he should be consulted rather than others because...?
On second thought, don't bother replying: Bush is right, his critics are wrong---I get it.
Pretty Determined Guy.
The beguilable morons are the ones who are beguiled by Bush's "trust me" and who refuse to see the facts of the matter.
These are the folks who I seem to be with on this issue:
Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin, Sen. Rick Santorum, Judge Robert Bork, Rep. Tom Tancredo, George Will, John Podhoretz, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist, Laura Ingraham, Bill Kristol, Melanie Morgan, Bill Bennett, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, Charles Krauthammer, David Keene, Sen. Sam Brownback, Robert Novak, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Gary Bauer, David Limbaugh, Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Mona Charen, Richard Lessner, Hundreds of Conservative Bloggers and many, many more.
These are not beguilable morons, as you assert. Neither are their MILLIONS of listeners and readers. Before the appalling nomination of an unqualified political crony you would have considered nearly all of these people your friends and conservative allies. Now, they're "beguilable morons". They haven't changed, you have. I think it is YOU who needs to reexamine your premises.
A first what?
Dress up your epithets the way you want to---you're still being abusive and scurrilously calling me a liar. If you're really with any GOP organization at all, you're living proof that the Party needs a thorough disinfecting.
COULTER: And as you were saying in your opening—[applause]—you don't want your base turning against you. I mean, this was at least something Bill Clinton had the political wisdom to figure out: when you're on the ropes, you turn to your base. You don't screw your base. [laughter] [applause]Map Kernow: That says it all for me. Bush is using Clinton tactics without Clinton savvy. :(
Ooops! Re-read your highlighted coulter quote in light of your follow-up comment.
Nowhere in coulter's quote does she say "Bush is using Clinton tactics." In fact, she is suggesting that Bush should be more like Clinton by turning to his base when he's in trouble.
In other words, your side wants Bush to be more like Clinton.
That says it all for me about your side.
Oh, I didn't think you did; sorry if I wasn't clearer.
Save the party by dividing it further? I know his strategery gets a little hard to follow at times, but now it's starting to look like a Picasso.
Don't let the RATS and RINOs win by default, let Miers be heard.
She's their candidate. It's too bad you're not seeing that. If you believe Bush would cave by nominating Gonzales, why are you insistent that he's not caving by nominating Miers?
Funny, I actually thought that's what you were (a RINO).
These attacks against each other only validates the fact that this ill-advised (or stubbornly stupid & unpredictable) nomination of Harriet Miers by GWB has resulted in a huge schism in the Republican Party. If the nomination is not withdrawn, the GWB's main legacy will be that of a divided, snarling, fractured and demoralized party. GWB had every opportunity to have united and energized the Republican party with the nomination of someone like Luttig, Alioto, McConnell, Brown, Owens or one of several dozen other deserving conservative nominations. For some unfathomable reason, he chose not to!
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.