CNN: HARRIET MIERS HAS WITHDRAWN!

[SoFloFreeper]

just breaking!!!!!!!!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Richard Gantt

Posted on October 27th, 2005 at 11:35 am.

About 'A Person Worthy of Our Respect, and Thanks'.

#2

I hate to say it, but I’m with you.

I am offended at the idea that someone would characterize our criticisms as personal. With such an avalanche of substantive evidence against this nominee it never needed to get personal (as if we would stoop to that!) and it never did.

THE ONLY PERSONAL ATTACKS, CAROL, WERE THOSE MADE AGAINST US!!! WE WERE CALLED SEXISTS, ELITISTS AND “ANTI-EVANGELICALS.” What unmitigated claptrap.

Also, Carol, there will be no adverse “political fallout” as you put it. That was just prevented by the withdrawal of this millstone of a nominee.

Are these posts analogous to the proverbial individual who “just loves to hear himself talk?” You surely cannot believe that we read stuff like this with a straight face.

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1739

[JeffAtlanta]

Kristol is a weasel .. always has been .. always will be

It's very telling that you accuse pundits of being mean spirited and then you call Kristol a weasel.

Kristol's piece on Miers that I read indicated that she was not the right pick for the job. It is very telling that he was not alone as almost every conservative columnist said the exact same thing. Are they are weasels too?

[Still Thinking]

But JRB may be one of the ones that "pulled their names from consideration"

Well, pull it back! Just kidding. I don't mean to say JRB is the only candidate I would find acceptable, just that she's the one I like the best. If she's no longer interested, there are plenty of others who are well qualified who may be willing to run the Senatorial gamut.

[Mo1]

Whatever

Fight this battle alone ..

[George W. Bush]

Is Howlin moving to France or something?

[livius]

I think no one here has read more than cherry-picked fragments of them, most of which could be taken either way and many of which were contradictory. Why did no one want to give her a chance to speak for herself, as she is now? That's all I and many others were asking. I don't think I would have liked her, but I thought she should have had an honest chance because she was Bush's personal pick.

But once the pack started baying, there was no point in appealing to reason.

[pleikumud]

I nominate Alexander Hamilton.
Or someone who the Jackass Party hates so much, that we'll know he or she is the right choice. Then we'll see if Senate Republicans are worth re-electing. Or are they just complete fakes who offer little choice versus the Jackass Party.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I saw that! I rarely eat my own kind. Liberals, however, taste like chicken.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Put some ice on that. We stopped an unqualified crony with liberal leanings who writes as well as Bush extemporaneously speaks from infecting the Supreme Court for 20 years. Sorry if that ruined your day, Cupcake."

Thank you for shutting that whiny little beeatch up. I'm sick of watching Wolfie spin the party line (the conservatives were mean, we should nominate a RINO, if we nominate a conservative they'll lose too, because we quit because we hate meanies).

The RINOs pushing Miers really have proven they can't muster a positive argument to save their lives, and now they're pulling the Clinton change-history-game where they pretend their opponents used the same slash-and-burn tactics they did. Aren't they all gone yet? Can't we leave these people to play in the Rat sandbox?

[George W. Bush]

From what I understand,...the qualificaions for SCOTUS justice don't even require American citizenship...am I wrong?

The Constitution says there will be a Supreme Court. And the Senate will advise and consent on the president's nominees. And that's all.

No qualifications, no hearings, no given number of justices, nada. That's up to us. The Framers were not dictatorial in this.

However, given that the Framers were pretty restrictive in many other matters, it does indicate that the courts were never intended to rule us as they have in the last fifty years. So we originalist admirers of the Constitution are on very good grounds philosophically, right along with the Founders.

I love it when questions like this come up. It reminds of the Old Days during the Xlinton era. You couldn't read three threads without comments about the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I miss that some days.

[AlbionGirl]

Kristol is anything but a weasle. I don't always agree with him, but he's an honorable guy. What's surprising is the disparate opponents she garnered for herself. Frum, Coulter, Kristol, Schlaffy (sp?), Buchanan. That's a feat, if you ask me.

Ms. Miers writing was absolutely mediocre. Mark Steyn says that we should be hoping that one day we get back to appointing mediocrites like her, just like the early SC used to be filled with. Problem is we need fire in the belly Conservatives to either stamp out or at the very least neutralize the SC's ACLU reps: Ginsberg, Breyer.

[flashbunny]

If you really cared about how the president looked in all of this, you should be glad she didn't go before the senate. She would have been an embarrassment. And that's based on all her writings, her speeches, and the numerous reports of her meetings with senators.

It would have been a train wreck, and I think even she and the president began to realize that.

[ARCADIA]

What they're doing instead is lining up to trash any conservative nominee with the Rats, and hoping they'll be able to wait out the right by trashing until they get another stealth lib. It's worked before, but it won't work this time. Too many of us are watching, we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it any more.

It certainly looks that way. This is a wake up call for RINOs of all stripe.

[AlbionGirl]

Or is that Beyer?

[Cboldt]

What kills me is people wanted her to have a hearing!

The hearing became a surrogate for the nominee. Rather than defend the emerging record of the nominee, many Miers proponents started to defend the hearing and the mechanical aspects of the advise & consent process.

That argument took attention from the record and attributes of the nominee.

[Txsleuth]

I posted something similar on this same thread early early, I think to the same poster....

I agree wholeheartedly with you..

BTW...the anti-anti-Miers people sure don't take "winning" gracefully, do they? LOL

[NittanyLion]

Whatever I'll be on the sideline watching this all blow up in your face

Don't want to support a conservative candidate, or are you just upset that "your team" lost?

My advice is to understand that you don't win every battle in a political war, and you don't change the world by taking your ball and running home every time you lose. Grow up.

[Txsleuth]

Boy....you are battling with Black Tooth for the title of being the nastiest poster of the day, aren't you?

Why do you need to make personal remarks about another poster....and NOT have the courage to put that poster's name on the post????

[NeoCaveman]

Whatever I'll be on the sideline watching this all blow up in your face

Enjoy.

[Txsleuth]

Thanks...I am glad I could contribute to the debate!