I was wrong; so please join me in supporting Harriet Miers.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Let the Dems and RINOs try to kill a qualified, experienced, Conservative nominee knowledgeable about the Constitution with a proven judicial track record.

I think they would do just that, and with suprising ease given the spineless RINOs we have in the Senate.

[kabar]

There is no possibility of compromise any longer. Democrats are fighting for their very existence. They wont give an inch and must be beaten like mules if we are to get anywhere.

So why is Bush nominating someone who was suggested by Harry Reid? Or who doesn't have a paper trail? Miers sounds like a compromise candidate to me.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I rest my case, the First Lady's comments have been twisted and blown out of proportion.

[kabar]

Agree completely. Let's put the RINOs on the spot and see who can be relied upon.

[pollyannaish]

I agree she could have done better. I am also saying it doesn't matter.

Going after her on this weakens other arguments, and may actually shore up the points the media are trying to make at her expense.

FWIW, in all fairness, I tepidly back this nomination because I am not sure what else could be done.

But I think if conservatives are going to go after her...they must knock off the personal attacks of Miers, Laura and The President...and oppose her on the basis of what we know about her philosophy.

I heard an argument yesterday on Hewitt's show that while she would probably be very conservative on social issues, her acceptance of an expanding Federal role in relationship to Business interests was troublesome.

While I do not yet know the veracity of that claim, I believe that is a fair and reasoned argument/discussion for us to have.

Freaking out because she is a dumpy, underqualified church lady who is too stupid to understand the nuances of the constitution are not acceptable. Talking about her making coffee and bringing cookies are not acceptable. Yelling cronyism, trashing the President and Mrs. Bush, calling everything they have ever said and done "liberal" is a tactic more suited for the far left.

That is my point. If you feel she needs to be defeated, defeat her on the ideas...not on the weaknesses in the decision making process, your frustration with the President on other issues, or your disappointment in Laura for not being politically astute.

[kabar]

I think they would do just that, and with suprising ease given the spineless RINOs we have in the Senate.

So what? Either you are with us or against us. Let them choose and so will the electorate next time they come up for reelection.

[DesScorp]

"Join me in supporting Miers"

Not only no, but HELL no

[Pukin Dog]

I think they would do just that, and with suprising ease given the spineless RINOs we have in the Senate.

This is something that must be avoided at all costs. If our 'best' are allowed to be defeated, were one of them ever willing to undergo the process, it would set back the Conservative movement for quite some time. Bush needs victories, not fights. Under that criteria, Miers is the best candidate, which is why I changed my mind.

[nerdgirl]

Enjoyed your MSM manifesto from way back, PD. One question - can you clarify what you meant by Bush not putting up anyone else?

[Jim Noble]

if Miers was Harry Myers, former President of the Texas State Bar, former head of a large, powerful law firm in Texas and the President's chief counsel, that it is doubtful that old Harry Myers would have any problems with critics.

If George W Bush or any other President nominated "Harry Myers", his counsel who had never been a judge and had no record relevant to the job, he would be laughed out of town.

If Harriet were a man, she would not have been considered for five seconds.

[dagnabbit]

The Senate ate my homework.

LOL.

[Pukin Dog]

It was suggested to me that if Miers is withdrawn, that Bush will not name another candidate this year, and allow O'Conner to sit another term instead. This way, next year Republican Senators will be forced to act like CONSERVATIVES, even if they are not, if they expect to get re-elected. This will insure that one of our best might just make it through without much trouble.

I for one, would love to see Lincoln Chaffee vote against a nominee two months before his own election.

[ContemptofCourt]

Well, seeing how she has no ideas, that leads those who oppose Miers to focus on other aspects of her nomination...like how it evolved that she was the "most qualified nominee" Bush could find.

[GBA]

"Bush needs victories, not fights."

Same can be said for the country, but the conservative base wants both. We got a taste with Roberts and have been hoping for a full course meal this time around. After years of Clinton's outrageous thrashing of our justice system, there is a lot of pent up frustration. This is the heat those senators need to feel. President Bush feels it now and my guess is that the weak, spineless Republicans would have felt it had Bush nominated one of the more anticipated nominees and they not supported him or her.

[Jim Noble]

Dog, why should she withdraw?

The RATs will give her 45 votes.

Their support for her is a no-brainer.

First, it splits the majority.

Second, there is an abundance of evidence that Harriet is Sandy Baby without the background - that she can and will be rolled by the leftists on the court.

Third, the fact that she will (probably) be seen as a failure will blacken the name of W long after he's back in Texas.

It's a trifecta for the Dems, and their support is all but assured.

There are at least five (actually, many more) leftist Republicans who will go along.

You can swear her in - unless SHE withdraws, and I don't know why she would.

[Miss Marple]

Lincoln Chaffee will do what it takes to keep his very liberal constituency supporting him. If a conservative candidate is demonized by the press (as I expect) then he will vote against that candidate, and he will pay NO price in the general election.

This is the whole trouble with these senators. Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins answer to their electorates, which are very liberal. That's why they can only support a non-paper trail conservative.

Others, like Hagel, McCain, and Lugar, are in safe seats or aren't up for reelection until 2010.

Some, like Voinovich, have gone mushy and cowardly because they are afraid of the press.

Voinovich you could maybe cowe into voting with the President. The rest would do what they darn well pleased, based on how advantageous it is to them.

[pollyannaish]

Well, you kind of made my point.

If she has no ideas, then that is a legitimate argument against her. Several commentators have done an honest job of presenting that angle without attacking either her or the President personally.

There just isn't a morally acceptable reason to attack the personal angle in this case. After all, if you think back to the Bork nomination, that is what got us to this political point in time in the first place.

Well...I'm off for a bit. Thanks for the interesting discussion. I appreciate your fairness to an opposing viewpoint.

[Jim Noble]

If you go back 45 years, John F. Kennedy could nominate his BROTHER for attorney general

His COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED brother, you mean?

[Miss Marple]

Nice try. Robert Kennedy filled the requirements on paper. He was an attorney and President Kennedy's choice.

He wasn't a GOOD attorney geneeral, but then neither was Janet Reno.

Harriet Miers is qualified. Are there people who might be more qualified? Sure. Would they have accepted the nomination? Don't know...except for Priscilla Owens, who removed her name. Would another candidate get approved? Looking at the squishy GOP senators and lock-step democrats, I am not very confident of that.

Unlike many, I am only williing to take on a senate battle if we can win it. I presume Bush counted the votes he had available, since he spoke to 80 senators about the nomination. He isn't going to nominate someone to go through the meatgrinder if all that happens is that their career and reptation are trashed, and they don't get the position.

[jla]

Why do you think that Linda Chavez had to withdraw her name?

She broke the law in hiring illegal immigrants to clean her house. I much admire Linda Chavez, but facts are facts.

Why do you think that Bernard Kerrik is not heading Homelanad Security?

Because he can't be faithful to his own wife and he took kickbacks.

Do you not remember the DUI that almost got the President de-railed?

I think you're exaggerating the voting publics' concern with this. Voters know he drank and that he snorted coke. People make mistakes. GWB quit and moved on, became a Christian.

Marple, I'm not contesting what the MSM are: a sordid pack of immoral, lying, unethical, rabid, mangy dogs. I'm just saying that they didn't become this way only after the Clinton presidency.