[sinkspur]

It would not be smart for Bush to stake his presidency on something as thin as "Executive Privilege". It doesn't hold up well in either a court of law or the court of public opinion. The day Bush and his administration start hiding behind "Executive Privilege" is the day they start looking guilty as charged.

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.

[counterpunch]

FYI, Bush "hid" behind "executive privilege" with John Roberts, with John Bolton, and Alberto Gonzales. Nobody cared.

Yeah, and Roberts was blocked in committee the first time around, and then half of the Democrats weren't adequately impressed by "Executive Privilege" enough to vote for him when he was up for SCOTUS.

John Bolton was filibustered and Bush had to use a recess appointment, and as for Gonzales, the Democrats were just happy to be replacing Ashcroft. They weren't going to raise that much of a fight.

What you seem to be missing here is how much Democrats are going to want those documents. They will hold up the Miers nomination as leverage to get them. Republicans aren't going to think Miers is worth pulling the trigger on the "nuclear option", so either Bush will have to relent on the documents, withdraw the nomination, or Republicans may strike a deal with Democrats where Miers is allowed a vote where she is defeated.