Miers withdraws SC nomination

[SilverNRed]

20%, do you make this sh-- up as you go?    Try 45% in Zogby, which isn't some left or right wing hack poll.

 

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12062

487868[/snapback]

Poll numbers are important too.

[VABills]

Poll numbers are important too. 

487872[/snapback]

Just keeping the Mickster straight.

[Mickey]

My feeling all along was that he put her out there thinking the Dems would shoot her down based on her lack of qualifications, and mostly that she was his choice.  Then he could submit the name of a very conservative, but ideally qualified person, and the Dems would be exposed as partisan hacks.  In this case, though, the rabid right abandoned him, and took aim at this paper-doll conservative, ironically because she didn't have a complete enough conservative-leaning resume.  Now the Dems can do what they want with the next one.  Weird.  I thought Rove and Cheney were smarter than that.

487859[/snapback]

 

I think he nominated her because Laura told him it would be a long time before he ever had his pebble nozzled again if he didn't. That plus he likes getting his butt kissed and surrounding himself with sycophants like Karen Hughes. She is no more qualified to improve our image in the Arab world than Miers was for the Supreme Court. Both however are Texas buds of the Prez going way back. Remember what he said when the right went after Gonzalez? Something along the lines of "I don't like it when people pick on my friends" or words to that effect. Then he goes and nominates Miers. Not surprising is it? The question is whether he has the stones to flip the bird at the faaaaar right again by nominating another friend. Gonzalez himself maybe. I don't think he does.

 

Here is an interesting thought: The next person he nominates will be what must have been his third choice, a person he decided to pass over not once but twice.

[OnTheRocks]

My feeling all along was that he put her out there thinking the Dems would shoot her down based on her lack of qualifications, and mostly that she was his choice.  Then he could submit the name of a very conservative, but ideally qualified person, and the Dems would be exposed as partisan hacks.  In this case, though, the rabid right abandoned him, and took aim at this paper-doll conservative, ironically because she didn't have a complete enough conservative-leaning resume.  Now the Dems can do what they want with the next one.  Weird.  I thought Rove and Cheney were smarter than that.

487859[/snapback]

 

I had the same philosophy in this thread.

But I figured he would start with J.R.Brown. Now it appears she might be part two of that plan. Although I would love to see JRB nominated and approved I have a hard time believing the dems wouldn't fillabuster the appointment vote.

[Campy]

last i checked there some "righties" in the Senate.

487838[/snapback]

If you read the letter you would have seen that she's blaming some members of the Senate for being in a document grab that would hinder the usual chicanery, er business, of the oval office.

 

As good an excuse as any, I suppose...

[OnTheRocks]

Will John Paul Stevens retire or survive the next 3 years?

[Mickey]

The nomination flopped almost instantly and that was when the word on Miers was that she'd definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The Miers nomination proves exactly the opposite of what you just said (EDIT) about conservatives as a whole.

487870[/snapback]

Do I really have to troll through all the conservative web sites calling into question the nomination precisely because she might not overturn Roe? Really, these conservatives make no bones about it, they want a nominee who will overturn Roe, it is the sine qua non of judicial nominations with them ala "Justice Sunday". How you can pretend that they have no litmus test is beyond reason.

 

The storm erupted immediately over her nomination with conservatives because she had no established record that would assure them of what she would do on Roe. In response, the administration tried to assure religious conservatives that she would dump Roe which is why we heard all that stuff about her being an evangelical. That didn't come out right away, it came out after the reaction from the right. Some were eventually convinced by this, like Dobson, but some were not. Then we started getting all these revelations about how she took this or that moderate position on abortion or someother issue and lo and behold, her nomination sunk with religious conservatives.

 

 

Here is a typical example, From Right Faith:

 

President Bush has not pandered to the wishes of his conservative base and the result has been the erosion of his staunchest supporters. While the centrists have been dissatisfied for several months with his performance in Iraq and plan for Social Security, traditional conservatives stood by the President and trusted him. With moderate support eroding for several months, conservatives stood with the President...until now.

 

The nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court has stressed the loyalty of conservatives to the President. No longer convinced that he has their values in mind, conservatives are leary about supporting this nomination. Consider the result.

 

Regardless of whether you support Miers or not, let's not miss the lesson. In 2008, centrists will emerge to capture the Republican nomination for President. If, like the Miers appointment, Republicans nominate a candidate without a clear conservative record, conservatives will stay home.

 

In like manner to this appointment, the network of traditional conservative leaders that has opposed this nomination will oppose in a vigorous manner a centrist Presidential nomination. Conservative commentators that have come out against Meirs will come out in like manner toward a nominee without conservative credentials. Grassroot support for the agenda of moderate nominee will wither if the support of traditional values is not secure.

 

When nominees ran for president without the support of traditional 'values-voters', they lost. 1992 and 1996 were mandates, not for Clinton, but for the conservative voters who felt abandoned by the Republican Party. Republican leaders must heed the lessons of the Miers nomination or their nominee will suffer the same fate."

 

 

Not much there complaining about her qualifications but plenty of criticism for the President because he didn't pander to his base and for offering up a nominee with no "clear conservative record", ie, someone with a long record of wanting to overturn Roe. These conservatives and many others who opposed this nomination did so for the same reasons. They wanted him to pander, to litmus test and he didn't.

 

This, from Right Wing News even before the nomination:

 

"...(I)f anything, the base is looking for a sure thing this time around and the level of discontent on the right will certainly rise if they don't get it....Up to this point in his 2nd term, for whatever reason, George Bush's political instincts seem to have largely failed him. But, this is one area where Bush cannot afford to make a mistake. Nominating Alberto Gonzales or for that matter any of the other nominees with questionable conservative credentials -- like Edith Brown Clement, Larry Thompson, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Harriet Miers -- would be a calamitous error."

 

Let me ask, if there is no right side litmus test and all that is of concern are qualifications, why did religious conservatives publicly castrate Arlen Specter when he expressed the slightest degree of independence and go into a national seizure over even the smallest chance that Gonzalez might be nominated?

 

"questionable conservative credentials" Hmmmm...I suppose you think they are talking about their scores on the LSAT's and not Roe?

[Johnny Coli]

President Bush has not pandered to the wishes of his conservative base and the result has been the erosion of his staunchest supporters. While the centrists have been dissatisfied for several months with his performance in Iraq and plan for Social Security, traditional conservatives stood by the President and trusted him. With moderate support eroding for several months, conservatives stood with the President...until now.

 

487944[/snapback]

Wow. Considered an idiot by the Left, incompetent by the center, and a traitor by the Right. The architect of his ascension to power quite possibly going to jail, and his consiglieri on thin ice as well. Wanna get away?

[SilverNRed]

Do I really have to troll through all the conservative web sites calling into question the nomination precisely because she might not overturn Roe? 

487944[/snapback]

No, but I see you did anyway.

 

Bottom line is no one thought she was qualified. You pick the best of the best for SCOTUS, not your personal lawyer. The move reeked of Bush just picking a friend and no one was up for that.

 

And why are you still talking about religious conservatives when I'm saying it wasn't religious conservatives who shot her down on Day 1? Bush even said her "faith" played a role in his decision and the base still wasn't happier (in many cases, it was more unhappy).

[Mickey]

If you read the letter you would have seen that she's blaming some members of the Senate for being in a document grab that would hinder the usual chicanery, er business, of the oval office.

 

As good an excuse as any, I suppose...

487897[/snapback]

Fig leaf. Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece last week suggesting using executive p. as a face saving exit strategy for the Miers nomination and the administration clearly followed the advice.

 

First Arlen Specter was castrated in the town square by religious conservatives, then Gonzalez and now Miers and even the President.

[erynthered]

Fig leaf.  Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece last week suggesting using executive p. as a face saving exit strategy for the Miers nomination and the administration clearly followed the advice. 

 

First Arlen Specter was castrated in the town square by religious conservatives, then Gonzalez and now Miers and even the President.

488020[/snapback]

 

 

I read that last week. Though I think Charles may have been tipped off. Kind of setting the table. JMO

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

"...position of national power..."  Yes, the awesome power of being a VP to a President with poll numbers hovering somewhere in the high twenties, victory would be assured.....for the other side.

487856[/snapback]

 

Except that the Democrats would somehow manage to dig up the single candidate in the world totally unable to beat him.

 

I mean, John Kerry? I'm still boggling at that. A chocolate eclair should have been able to beat Bush in '04...

[bobblehead]

I read this summary on a site this morning: "Not enough credentials for the old-schoolers in the Senate, not enough red meat for the freepers. "

 

The vocal right wants someone like J. R. Brown in order to stick it to "the liberals". IMO, "the liberals" would like to see this, too, for the simple reason of having a nutter be exposed in the hearings and to justify a filibuster, on their terms. I think the hater-types on the left wanted Miers to get as far as the hearings as well, in order for her to be exposed, thus justifiying rejecting her on their terms.

 

Bush could take the opinion that with Miers, the nutters had their chance and blew it, therefore he can nominate someone like Gonzales. Or, he can see it that he now needs to shore up the nutters by giving them what they wanted all along, someone like Brown or Luttig. I'm not sure how it will go, I think it depends on how much influence Karl Rove has left on things. Karl was never really "in" with the nutters, he only used them, but I'm thinking he has no use for them anymore.

[Mickey]

No, but I see you did anyway. 

 

Bottom line is no one thought she was qualified.  You pick the best of the best for SCOTUS, not your personal lawyer.  The move reeked of Bush just picking a friend and no one was up for that.

 

And why are you still talking about religious conservatives when I'm saying it wasn't religious conservatives who shot her down on Day 1?  Bush even said her "faith" played a role in his decision and the base still wasn't happier (in many cases, it was more unhappy).

487968[/snapback]

...and this from Dobson himself:

 

"I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

 

In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.

 

When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary."

 

No litmus test? Suuurrre.

[Mickey]

Except that the Democrats would somehow manage to dig up the single candidate in the world totally unable to beat him. 

 

I mean, John Kerry?  I'm still boggling at that.  A chocolate eclair should have been able to beat Bush in '04...

488043[/snapback]

The right would have swiftboated whoever they ran until that candidate was just as bad as Kerry. It might have been harder with others but the result would likely have been the same.

 

The thing that got me about Kerry is that every once in awhile he would say something so politically stupid that I couldn't help but scratch my head and wonder. Kind of like Hillary and the "baking cookies" comment she made so long ago. Apart from right or left, democrat or republican, just from the standpoint of strategy, you just can't say stuff like that.

[Mickey]

20%, do you make this sh-- up as you go?    Try 45% in Zogby, which isn't some left or right wing hack poll.

 

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12062

487868[/snapback]

I didn't mean his approval rating which is why I used the generic reference to "poll numbers" and no, I didn't make them up:

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 6-10, 2005. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

 

 

"In the long run, do you think George W. Bush will be a successful or unsuccessful president, or do you think it is too early to tell?"

 

Successful: 26% (10/5)

 

 

"All in all, what effect has George W. Bush had on politics and the way government works in Washington? Has he made things better, made things worse, or hasn't he had much of an effect?" Form 2 (N=742 adults, MoE ± 4)

 

Made Better: 21% (10/5)

 

 

For a second term incumbent, those numbers are lousy.

[SilverNRed]

...and this from Dobson himself:

 

"I believe the president has made a wise decision in accepting Harriet Miers' withdrawal as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

 

In recent days I have grown increasingly concerned about her conservative credentials, and I was dismayed to learn this week about her speech in 1993, in which she sounded pro-abortion themes, and expressed so much praise for left-wing feminist leaders.

 

When the president announced this nominee, I expressed my tentative support, based on what I was able to discover about her. But I also said I would await the hearings to learn more about her judicial philosophy. Based on what we now know about Miss Miers, it appears that we would not have been able to support her candidacy. Thankfully, that difficult evaluation is no longer necessary."

 

No litmus test?  Suuurrre.

488051[/snapback]

That stuff about the speeches she gave came out in the last few days. Her nomination was dead on arrival. It's not like things were going great until it turned out she wasn't going to overturn Roe.

[VABills]

I didn't mean his approval rating which is why I used the generic reference to "poll numbers" and no, I didn't make them up:

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 6-10, 2005. N=1,500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

 

  

"In the long run, do you think George W. Bush will be a successful or unsuccessful president, or do you think it is too early to tell?"

 

Successful: 26% (10/5)   

 

  

"All in all, what effect has George W. Bush had on politics and the way government works in Washington? Has he made things better, made things worse, or hasn't he had much of an effect?" Form 2 (N=742 adults, MoE ± 4)

 

Made Better: 21% (10/5)

For a second term incumbent, those numbers are lousy.

488066[/snapback]

And what's the numbers on too early to tell. Because to be honest that's where I would put myself. Same goes with the second one? How about the whole story there mickey.

[SilverNRed]

And what's the numbers on too early to tell.  Because to be honest that's where I would put myself.  Same goes with the second one?  How about the whole story there mickey.

488186[/snapback]

The whole story is stupid and polls are important.

[Chilly]

And what's the numbers on too early to tell.  Because to be honest that's where I would put myself.  Same goes with the second one?  How about the whole story there mickey.

488186[/snapback]