Free Republic

This is a huge mistake on both the Dem and Republican sides and I believe those in the DC bubble have seriously underestimated the Anger of the American public on this one.

I hope you're right. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Indeed. Prayers for the Edwards family.

Not so sure about that. Although his behavior was indefensibly wrong, he's taken responsibility for it. More than that: he's admitted that his was a moral/spiritual failure. Sounds like a penitent heart to me. Most Americans, even many of us who call ourselves conservative Christians, are quick to forgive under such circumstances.

I'm not sure yet whether I'd vote for him, but I know I want Newt running. For him to disclose this embarrassing info on Dobson's show suggests that he's getting serious about campaigning. Doing it before he jumps in shows some savvy, too.

The friend of my enemy is not my friend.

Or something like that.

Rove may very well wish for the opportunity to prove his innocence. However, the president's power to pardon is plenary, except in the case of impeachment. During the constitutional convention it was proposed that the power be limited to cases where the pardonee had been convicted; however, that limitation was expressly rejected. The president can pardon any person (other than an impeached person) at any time. He needn't wait for a trial and conviction. Thus, GWB cold pardon Rove for all crimes he may have committed during Fitz's investigation.

Legally, the president could keep Rove on after a pardon. Politically, it might be difficult. But, again, the president could point to Rove's invaluable service to him in time of war. The MSM would go crazy. The dems would go nuts. But the president could say that unless Fitz has the basis to charge Rove for "outing" Valarie Plame, he's not going to let a prosecution go forward.

If all Fitz has against Rove is a weak perjury case, GWB should just pardon Karl and get the whole thing over with.

We are, after all, at war. The president needs his most trusted advisor.

I agree with most of what you said. Miers clearly does not have a track record. Although the ABA-stuff and church membership are nice, they aren't quite what I was hoping for in terms of available background information. Even so, I cannot agree with your determination that Miers lacks the intellect to be a fine justice -- at least not until I see her in action.

At this point (i.e., Day #1 of the nomination), I'd rather be hopeful than angry. Being angry doesn't seem to advance our cause in any way, and it certainly doesn't empower us to change the nominee. I'm not even sure that the nominee is worth trying to change.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that people should love the President's choice. By all means, be critical if you want.

I just hope the death blow for the Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution isn't self-administered. Out-of-control spending, unprotected borders and international turmoil are destabilizing enough. Do we really need to do the dems any favors by killing ourselves for what may turn out to be no good reason?

Miers MAY actually be as conservative as Ginsberg is liberal. She COULD BE to the right of Scalia and Thomas. Given that the President has worked with her for years, the odds are far better than even that she possesses the characteristics that this country needs in a justice. The President understands that his legacy depends on getting Article III nominations right. For five years he's nominated mostly reliable conservatives. Hasn't he? Although GWB does not have a great record when it comes to other important matters, at least -- to this point -- he's been faithful in nominating good judges. Why assume this case is any different?

"Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool."

I agree that we should withhold judgment at this point.

Of course, I understand where others are coming from. We've waited (and worked) for decades to be in the position we're in now: a Republican in the WH and GOP control of the Senate. Wouldn't it be great to have a fight about judicial philosophy, especially one that we're likely to win? Don't we at least deserve the kind of debate that would have been generated by nominating a Luttig, Sykes, Owens, Brown, etc.?

I practice law in San Francisco, surrounded by Harvard/Stanford/Yale/Berkeley-educated, left-leaning, Bush haters. I also happen to be an evangelical Christian. I would love for my colleagues to see again that their views are those of a mere minority. The nomination and confirmation of an obvious record-conservative would have been so glorious.

Still, what matters most to me (and, perhaps, to most of us) is the result: O'Connor's seat filled by a constitutionalist with a healthy respect for the separation of powers doctrine, who just happens to be pro-life, pro-family, and pro-America. I want someone smart, tough, thoughtful and focused. She should be a good communicator, fair-minded, and committed to listening to both sides in each case.

Do I think a Justice Miers would be that person? I don't know. It bothers me that I don't know. It bothers me that I'm having to "just trust" the President on this.

But Justice Miers could be exactly the person I want. Given that, I am willing to wait, to see how the confirmation hearings go, and, if she's confirmed, to see how she rules on important cases.

If I may be so bold, I propose that we all take a deep breath. Be frustrated that George Bush is so stubborn, so loyal and so not following our script. Be disappointed that the nominee is such an unknown. Fine. But let's not abandon the President or the GOP quite yet.

We've labored too hard to grow a conservative majority in this country to let our frustration divide us over a judicial nominee that may turn out to be (almost) everything we want her to be.

Does anyone know if Congressman Dreier thinks there's room in the federal budget for some cutting?

I hope TD is found not guilty and that Earl gets his comeuppance. But in the meantime I'd like to see some fiscal slicing and dicing.

Talk about forced enthusiasm. Gestures worthy of a Saturday Night Live sketch. If it wasn't so serious, it'd be laughable.

http://www.boycottcbs.com/index.php