75% Chance Miers Nomination is Withdrawn (John Fund says on John Batchelor Program)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He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.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/

[onyx]

Thank you. "GOOD" to see you, my FRiend.

[LibLieSlayer]

I understand why you are upset, and I even understand why you feel the way that you do. What I disagree with is the way some (not accusing you) have attacked the President as if he were worse than jimmah carter, teddy boy kennedy, and klintoon piled together. No man is perfect, but some here on FR give the President NO credit for doing anything good. This is just beyond the pale. I can go into detail, but there is really no need to.

If people are disappointed with this pick, there are many avenues to log such disappointment. Write or call the President, write or call your Senators, call in to talk shows, and write letters to the editor. Debating in a civil manner on Free Republic is also a good idea. By attacking the President on unrelated issues, by stating over-the-top slanderous innuendo, and attacking those that agree with this pick, only those in our party are damaged. Not the dims, not Miers, and not the politicians (other than our President).

I am not accusing you of doing these things, but disagreements within our party do not need to be bloody battles such as we see here on FR.

As to the sexist, elitist claim etc, that is directed at Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and George Will primarily. Some Conservatives seem to think this is aimed at all dissenters. That is not my understanding of the situation, and certainly not my personal belief. If you have read their writings, and watched their TV appearances, then you already know that those charges have some limited viability. Ann's appearance on maher's show was so far beyond what is expected of a professional, I have written her off for good.

Like an old coach used to say, "You win some, you lose some, and some get rained out".

LLS

[Howlin]

This would cause maximum pain for all members of the gang.

Perhaps that is why they don't want this to come to a hearing.

[dagnabbit]

Good tagline:

Robert Bork on the Miers Nomination: "I think it's a disaster on every level

[Les_Miserables]

Yep I too want to hear what she has to say but the Constitution does not give her that right the Senate rules do...So much for precision....No matter what she says she still can't create a record that doesn't exist and she can say whatever she wants and we still will not know....heck-uva-deal.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I still consider them my friends and conservative allies, as much as ever. I have embraced them, not because I was/am too d*mn stupid to form opinions of my own, but because we shared similar opinions on many issues and subjects.

Blindly trusting Bush, as the liberals and RINO's accuse me/us of doing, is absolute liberal/RINO bull sh*t intended to drive a wedge into Republican unity.

I am willing to re-examine my premises, if neccessary, but not until Ms Miers has had the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee and make her case. All Presidential appointees deserve nothing less-regardless of party.

[LibLieSlayer]

You need to research her appearance. HBO will rerun it this month I am sure. She said those things and much more. She had the libs howling with laughter, and the louder they howled, the more asinine she became.

Do you really think I am a liar?

LLS

[Revolting cat!]

"Catfight!"

[livius]

not until Ms Miers has had the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee and make her case. All Presidential appointees deserve nothing less-regardless of party.

Exactly!

I can't believe the behavior of some people here. They'd be more respectful to the most raving of left-wing Dem candidates, were that the situation.

[jdhljc169]

This poll would "scare" me if I thought the GOP base was 14,000 people.

***

Yeah, and that's double the amount that has responded here but I see a bunch of people dragging the FR poll out and spreading them as gospel.

[Spiff]

I am willing to re-examine my premises, if neccessary, but not until Ms Miers has had the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee and make her case. All Presidential appointees deserve nothing less-regardless of party.

By then, it is too late. Do you honestly think that if she flubs her answers on the committee, that Republican Senators are going to vote against her? It's not going to happen unless they reveal that she tortures children or something. Once it hits committee, she's a done deal. This isn't a crime, this isn't a court of law, we do not have to assume she is innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove herself worthy to the pundits, the press, and to us, the Republican base. If she fails there, and she is failing, then we're going to pressure her to withdraw before the process moves into the committee. If the pressure is strong enough, she'll pull her name or the President will ask her to. But, by the time she makes it to the committee hearings it is basically too late. There's some pressure we can put in place then, but not very much.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Record or no record, we never know how a new Justice will turn out, history bears witness to that fact.

Picking Supreme Court Justices is far from an exact science. If something is ever invented that does make it an exact science-it will render the court itself obslete.

Interesting how everything in this mortal life,finally comes down to having faith in one thing or the other.

[Revolting cat!]

If Miers doesn't withdraw, the kitten dies, and that's final!

[RobFromGa]

I posted a transcript of Coulter on Maher at #258, she didn't call him a drunk or a lush.

[livius]

No, it's not too late. Why don't you want the woman to have her say? Because you're afraid you might actually find out that she's okay?

BTW, if you're interested, most surveys have shown that GOP voters as a whole wants her to have hearings. If you consider yourself part of a self-appointed "base," fine. But you were not solely responsible for getting Bush elected - many people worked on that campaign, at least where I lived, and I would suspect that few of them would take your view or that of Bill Kristol as Gospel. Give the woman a chance. If she's incompetent, she won't make it. If she's competent, there's no reason she shouldn't make it.

[RobFromGa]

I posted the transcript at #258 . I am calling you a liar if you think she called Bush a drunk or a lush. I find her statements offensive but I don't think we need to put words in her mouth.

Unless she appeared on Maher a second time and made these statments you are alleging?

[TAdams8591]

"It is far more important to get a GOOD, qualified person and proven conserative on the court." TA Reply 185.

It doesn't get much clearer than the above.

How one can deduce from that comment, that Hillary Clinton, Roseann Barr or Peewee Herman should be nominated to the SC, is beyond me. You were behaving like a smart alec. Not a difficult deduction considering my comment and yours.

[livius]

What the heck does fact matter at this point?

This is all about a bunch of aging self-proclaimed conservative "leaders" waving their metaphorical wienies and making chimp noises to prove that they're really the dominants in the pack. Reason and fact have never been part of this.

[Les_Miserables]

Hi. I just ran across this in your log. The framers intent expressed in your post was also based on their intent that the Senate was to be a body not subject to the direct vagaries of the electorate and elected only by the legislatures of the states with the intent to give the states themselves (only indirectly the electorate) a voice in the government that would balance the popularly elected (and more easily influenced) House. The fact they entrusted the consent role to the Senate for appointments to national posts (along with treaty ratifications, declarations of war, etc) indicates they trusted the stability of the State governments to be more consistent reliable guardians of national interests than the electorate... I submit that the logic of the Senate's intended functional behavior prior to the 17th Amendment was turned on it's head with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Do you realize just how much you sound like the instigator of a lynch mob in that last response, # 371? Go and reread it if you don't.

You sound like "If we allow it to go to trial before an impartial jury and the defendant is found innocent, it will be too late to string that SOB up!!!!"