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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/
If she is withdrawn at this point, the President has lost his mind and he will have everyone upset at him.
He has already made the Punditry and the Uberparty mad at him (maybe 10%). His base-- those of us that are trusting him to have made a good pick, and who are awaiting the hearings-- will not take kindly to him backing down when he asked us for his support and we gave it to him.
By withdrawing, he loses face with everyone. He can't do it. (Unless there is some big undisclosed problem that hasn't yet come to light).
Fund also called for an internal White House investigation into the Miers nomination.
Cuckoo.
The best thing would be for Miers to be voted down in a floor vote, not withdrawn. That will neuter the filibuster and allow Bush to nominate someone who's not a stealth candidate.
Satisifed that you have no command of the English language, yes.
"Having talked to my senators office I can tell you there is far more pressure coming from Republicans to confirm Miers than for her to be withdrawn."
Hey Gary, big "surprise" that youre spreading misinformation once again (just like you do with Putin). I called two different offices, including one in DC to relay the message that as someone who has voted for Brownback, I am against this nomination. I also asked what the consensus so far is-- one office said people were overwhelmingly against this nomination and another said it was 50/50.
"Nominating her was a mistake but you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."
Yeah, so let's put that mistake on the bench for life with no recourse what so ever.
Brilliant plan.
This isn't toothpase. This is the supreme court.
Hey, I'll give you a chance. The last guy struck out 0-3.
GO ahead. Give me the top three reasons why Harriet Miers is unqualified to be the next Supreme Court nominee.
I have to answer your scurrilous distortions? Ann said that the one thing Clinton had got right is not screwing his own base, especially not when the chips are down. I've posted over and over again that Bush is using Clinton tactics against his own base or as Ann put it "screwing his base." That's using Clinton tactics without Clinton savvy. Now buzz off---you're not getting any more cheap thrills from me.
It seems too many here have put their faith in GWB. And on many issues, he has let us down (immigration, limited federal government, to name two). Many believed that at least he would give us something back with the SCOTUS nominees.
Well, grow up. Bush gets to select nominees not us. We elected him so we live with his decisions, right or wrong. Is there something illegal about his pick? If so, withdraw the nominee. If not, leave it alone.
We picked the best of the two candidates (Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Kerry). In my opinion, we need MUCH better candidates.
Maybe just maybe, Bush isn't as conservative as some of you may like?
The Lord has told us not to put your trust in man. You will be disappointed.
You missed the point she made without meaning to. Clinton would cave to his base. Bush will stand on principle.
Bush KNOWS this nominee will be a great Supreme Court Justice. Even if he is completely 100% wrong, he is certain she will be good. He is a long-range thinker. If he can get her on the bench, NONE of this sniping will matter to him. The Bench is the MOST IMPORTANT THING, and he is absolutely sure she is the answer to our problems.
You're asking me??? I clearly indicated that this was stolen work! Please ask the person I stole it from.
Howlin (in the wind), I went back and read through the threads preceding this nonsensical comment of yours, and it doesn't even make sense. There were lucid comments and sentences, and then you come with a nonsensical comment like this. You're right on track with your MO, that being to indulge in smear and slander attacks vs simply answering or replying in a civil tone.
Ain't gonna happen, but let the anti-Meirs lunatics believe in their tooth fairy, john fund.
Whatever was in your reply, I didn't read ONE word further than that.
Utterly unoriginal.
...uh....nor does it give her the right to be heard...just for the record.
Outstanding post.
Why?
I'm not hot at all. Actually, I find it hilarious that anyone thinks they can influence the President to reverse course by insulting him and his wife. All the anti-Miers side is going to show in the end is just how impotent they really are.
If Fund and other delusional experts want to believe their own fantasies, that's their problem. This President is not going to cave on this nomination. Just because Bill Clinton governed by polls does not mean George W. Bush will -- and the fact that people here need to be reminded of that is pretty pathetic.
Little Stellar, I have news for you. I know Sam personally, and his aide phoned my office yesterday to chat with me about Miers. Yes, they are going to say it is 50/50 at this time, because he does not want to anger either side.
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.