What do they expect, to be on the President's speed dial everytime he makes a decision that he's entitled to do? The pundits and presstitutes sound angry that they were not consulted first....sheesh!
I guess they've been spending their time listening/reading to the Has-Been Media rather than doing their homework since FReepers and bloggers have to do it for them (Beldar blog is but one example).
What are the serious arguments of those against Harriet Miers? Certainly not "cronyism" to appoint one of the top 50 lawyers, no experience (I guess they haven't bothered to look), others are "more qualified" (problem remains with more confirmations if you have to re-fill a spot it took 2 years to pass confirmation), "stealth" nominee (just because the pundits don't know about her record, that doesn't make it invisible), avoiding a fight (why pick a fight when the other side already has a white flag ready to go). Do you want to have a litmus test for each nominee who's supposed to represent an independent judiciary? Many arguments are just because their pet activist didn't make the cut.
Most of the rest I have read about don't have anything to do with Miers, but rather the pundits view of how President Bush has wronged them in someway - and they are beginning to sound more and more like the folks from Camp Cindy than a conservative I would respect.
The pundits need daily reminding of the President's track record on appointments (the nominees that have already been confirmed are NEEDED in thier posts, so I would scratch those off the list right away too, even if they wanted the nomination).
I think Miers will prove herself to be a spectacular choice when all the dust settles. Would you want to play poker with this guy?
Before anyone jumps ship over to the DUmocrats, read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1499184/posts
Merry MOOSEMUSS everyone!