Posted on 10/12/2005 2:52:26 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Miers to withdraw
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: October 13, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Harriet Miers is never going to be grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
She is going to withdraw her name from consideration before such hearings ever begin.
You can take that to the bank.
Why? Because, even though Democrats in the Senate seem more pleased with the choice of Miers than do Republicans, the questions that must be asked of the nominee for Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court seat would be among the most embarrassing ever raised about her boss, President Bush.
Most of the attention on the nomination so far has focused on her lack of experience, her track record, her opinions on abortion, etc.
But the silver bullet that will do in the nominee is her cozy relationship with Bush – one that likely placed her in a position of covering up scandals in the Texas Lottery to keep secret the preferential treatment the president received as a young man to enter the Texas Air National Guard.
All it will take is a subpoena or two to get the whole sordid story on the public record – in front of a national television audience.
I don't think George W. Bush, already experiencing unfavorable public opinion ratings, will allow that to happen.
Democratic senators will overcome their apparent enthusiasm for the Miers pick when they realize they have an opportunity to embarrass Bush over the way he avoided Vietnam service.
All they would have to do is to subpoena two witnesses – former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes and former Texas Lottery director Lawrence Littwin.
It was Barnes, also a former House speaker in the state, who testified under oath in 1999 in a lawsuit brought by Littwin that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to put in a good word for Bush. Barnes later parlayed that favor into multimillion-dollar leverage as a lobbyist-consultant with a company called GTECH that won the business of running the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery.
After Littwin was hired by the Texas Lottery Commission, he made the unfortunate decision of questioning why GTECH should get Texas' business without facing competitive bids. He also questioned why the company should be paying former state officials like Barnes and contributing money, perhaps illegally, to other Texas politicians.
As a result, the commission headed by Miers fired Littwin. GTECH paid him off with a $300,000 settlement and bought out Barnes' contract for $23 million. The unusual settlement required Littwin to destroy all of his lawsuit documents, and Harriet Miers, the chairman of the Lottery Commission and future White House counsel and Supreme Court nominee, avoided testifying as to her knowledge of the whole sordid affair.
Does anyone really expect President Bush will allow this can o' worms to be reopened in Senate hearings?
No way!
In fact, every day Bush allows this nomination to remain on the table is another day he risks embarrassment over a scandal everyone thought was dead with the retirement of Dan Rather as CBS anchorman.
Can you imagine John Kerry's friends in the Senate passing up an opportunity to revisit the high-water mark of the Democrats' 2004 presidential campaign? I don't think so.
Frankly, I'm amazed the Democrats have been able to keep still as long as they have. They are keeping their powder dry for a reason: They want Harriet Miers to testify.
Somehow, this story has remained largely below the radar screen of the national press. Maybe they, too, can't wait for the real fireworks to begin in televised hearings.
So, now it's back to the drawing board for President Bush. Maybe Harriet Miers will decide she can't put her favorite client through this ordeal. She may suddenly decide she doesn't really want to be on the Supreme Court, after all.
In any case, mark my words, Bush is looking for his third choice to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat right now.
What was your MOS?
Thank you, Dan Rather.
Have a look at this post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501376/posts?page=35#35
"It was Barnes, also a former House speaker in the state, who testified under oath in 1999 in a lawsuit brought by Littwin that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to put in a good word for Bush."
The problem is, Barnes was lying. He was proven to have not had any kind of relationship with the Bush family at the time of Bush's Guard stint. Not to mention, if I recall at the time Barnes was a nobody who would have had no power to influence anyone over anything. So why would the Bush's have sought out his help? Farah is letting his Miers-hate get the better of his good judgment if he's trusting the word of a proven liar and a now discredited trash-talking Bush hater. Who's he going to cite next? Bill Burkett?
At the time the popular Ben Barnes was the TX house speaker and the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. LBJ once predicted that Barnes would be the next Texan (after him) to become President.
It will never be a good idea to leave the Republican Party. Even when they are eventually for abortion except in the case where a couple is purposely trying to prevent the birth of a homosexual child, their positions will be somewhat more tolerable than the Democrats.
And there will be someone on FR who will proudly point that out and call you a traitor for even pondering the idea.
Is this what you refer to?:
QUOTE: ...Barnes' daughter stated to FOX's Sean Hannity that her father told her in 2000 that he had not helped Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1216958/posts
Joe is still praying for the U.S. to be hit by an Iranian EMP strike or by Al-Qaeda nukes.
Preston E. Smith was Lt. Governor of Texas from 1963 to 1969.
Ben Barnes was Lt. Governor from 1969 to 1973.
His story was that he helped Bush get into the TANG as Lt. Governor, but Bush enlisted on May 27, 1968.
Is Farah a useful idiot or does he have an inside track?
If memory serves, Barnes was not yet Speaker when Bush joined the guard, so just how did he help?
Actually I have a lot more faith in DEBKA. While they certainly run lots of wild rumors, of which only a small percentage turn out to be well-founded, I think they're a much more sophisticated operation than WND. First, because when one of their "scoops" turns out to be true, it often did appear there first, and has some real significance. Secondly, and more importantly, I think "reporting" isn't DEBKA's main purpose -- more likely, they are in the intelligence gathering business, floating "trial balloons" on the Internet, and then monitoring and analyzing the resulting chatter. WND is a joke, but I'm reasonably sure DEBKA isn't.
I never understood what all the fuss was over the TANG situation....so Bush got a cushy postition to keep from going to Nam....he was a rich kid of the boomer generation...big chunk of them did that....what's the big deal? It has no effect on who he is or what he is doing today.
I think I wil base my final opinion of Mr. Farah on this "take it to the bank" prediction. Too bad. I liked his theory that the left has a "hive" mentality.
"Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes" LOL!!
The same Ben Barnes whose daughter says her father lied about Bush to Dan Blather?
"I said it before, and I'll say it now: The day the Republicans pull a nominee because the Democrats might ask stupid, unfair questions about old, played-out bullcrap and make themselves look even more obnoxious and bitter than they already do...is the day I quit the party."
You can keep on saying it all you want; you're absolutely right. Bowing down to a little controversy at this point would pretty much doom this Presidency and perhaps fatally impact Repub. chances in '08. Bush needs to stick it out. If the party wants to fight a war on the next nominee, they've indicated we're ready to do so, but this one has got to go through.
Hey pal. You and the drooling Joe Farah haven't a clue.
The "Texas Air Guard" stuff didn't work with "public opinion" in 2000, and it worked even less in 2004. But, like a dog returning to its vomit, the two of you seem to think that the third time is a charm, when neither Bush nor Miers is going to say one word about it.
This is not a court, either. It's a Senate Committee, with each Senator limited to 20 minutes for questions.
If the Democrats want to fritter their time away on foolishness, they can certainly do that.
FYI, Bush "hid" behind "executive privilege" with John Roberts, with John Bolton, and Alberto Gonzales. Nobody cared.
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.