Harriet Miers Out? (From live TV - CNBC)

Another slow news day.

Well, she picked a good day to step aside, if she wants to avoid attention.

No hint on whether Fitzgerald planned to indict her.

MORE:  My Fitzgerald picks are below:  No indictment for Rove; Libby, Hannah, and Wurmser indicted.

At the race track, I would include Hadley and Fleischer in some wheel bets.

Comments

[Tollhouse]

Finally. Damn idiots up there. Guess they wisely realized that Meirs, the War, the budget and Fitz, were just too much to deal with.

[politicaobscura]

If I were the Prez I would push on these issues for the next six months.

- a qualified conservative SCOTUS pick.

- Iran and Syria, Iran and Syria, again and again (Americans like to know who "the bad guys" are.)

- US border security reform (stop the inflow first, THEN move on to guest-worker program, and just a bit of amnesty, maybe for some folks here 10plus years)

- Balancing the budget (put a plan in place to balance the budget over the next 6 years)

- Methodical, tactical, strategic troop withdrawl from Iraq (homecoming videos and all that, too)

- And a nice kicker, he should make noise about US firms helping China censor the Internet... he should go to Silicon Valley and give them a tongue lashing....

This would set up the 06 elections nicely...

[Jim E.]

This is outrageous. I thought the president's nominees deserved a straight up-and-down vote in the Senate. It's too bad that the President has to deal with those extreme ideologues in the Senate. For shame. And to think that all of the glass-breaking Harriet did wasn't enough to get her one measly lifetime appointment. I weep for Harriet.

(In all seriousness, I actually do feel bad for Miers. She wasn't served well by the administration.)

[Sue]

All Bush has left at the moment is us, his base. If we aren't happy, Bush won't be happy. ;) Ms. Meirs, while I weep for her, should have known the base would not be happy with her, whether the president realized it or not. Onward, upward...

[arrowhead]

Don't blame the administration for Harriet Miers' removal from consideration for the next Supreme Court Justice. This falls squarely on her shoulders.

Her interviews with the members of the Senate were a disaster. Her answers to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were simplistic and painfully vague. Ultimately, she was going to be confronted with her own past words and actions and asked to explain how they conformed with those of one who purports to be a strict constructionist, non-activist judge.

I supported her nomination prior to her submittal of the questionnaire responses. After that, I didn't hold out much hope that she would be capable of holding up during the hearing process. As more information began to surface about her, it seemed that the best thing she could do would be to withdraw. To her credit, she has done that today.

[arrowhead]

Don't blame the administration for Harriet Miers' removal from consideration for the Day-O'Connor vacancy on the Supreme Court Justice. This falls squarely on her shoulders.

Her interviews with the members of the Senate were a disaster. Her answers to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were simplistic and painfully vague. Ultimately, she was going to be confronted with her own past words and actions and asked to explain how they conformed with those of one who purports to be a strict constructionist, non-activist judge.

I supported her nomination prior to her submittal of the questionnaire responses. After that, I didn't hold out much hope that she would be capable of holding up during the hearing process. As more information began to surface about her, it seemed that the best thing she could do would be to withdraw. To her credit, she has done that today.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Be careful what you wish for....

What we've got is Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for some time to come.

[Syl]

Well, Bush's base thinks way too highly of itself. They didn't re-elect him. I did.

In fact, if we could change the rules back to the original, I'd vote for Bush again in '08.

But I think judicial activism stinks, no matter which side it's on. Bush's base wants to control outcomes just as much as the left. They just pretend they don't.

That Miers snit by his base, turned the middle against the base...not against Bush nor against the GOP.

And the Democrats should be so lucky. They pretend their differences don't exist...it isn't helping them.

[Florence Schmieg]

I still think she would have been a solid conservative vote. No emanations and penumbras from her. Bush knew her too well not to know what she is really all about. That stuff from the past was before her evangelical experience. Those things change a person, and at 60, she was unlikely to blow in the wind. Oh well. Let's talk 10 years from now and see how the new justice more acceptable to the zealots will have voted.

[Syl]

Jim

Those questionnaire responses were cherry-picked. They didn't even see everything. And some of the criticized answers turned out to be right. The snit-throwers pulled the same tricks that the left does. The problem is, the left had neither reason nor desire to correct them and point out the flaws in their arguments.

I think the entire affair was unseemly. As an American I believe in fairness. There was nothing fair about this. Up or Down? That's only for someone they support.

The whole thing stunk.

[Syl]

You know, I think Florence above, for example, and I probably disagree on a lot of social issues. And I think we supported Miers for different reasons.

I won't presume to speak for you, Florence, but I supported Miers because I thought it was about time SCOTUS had someone who didn't come from hallowed halls. She was out there in the real world. The elitists who were complaining would prefer someone who'd live their lives in a closed windowless room full of books.

[arrowhead]

Syl

I didn't pay any attention to the "snit-throwers" (an apt description of the elitists) nor did I read whatever sections of Miers' response they chose to highlight.

I linked on the questionnaire itself and read it in its entirety. I was disappointed to say the least.

While I firmly believe that a nominee deserves a fair hearing and a vote - up or down, I also think that it was prudent to avoid the inevitable train wreck that would have been the Miers' hearings. The feeding frenzy and speculation over indictments made it impossible for the White House to stay with Miers.

In the last analysis, the one person I want to shore up is the President. Like you, I voted for him and want him to be able to operate from as strong a position as possible. If that meant Miers had to go, so be it.

[Syl]

Jim

I agree she had to go. Not because of who she is, but because of the snit.

BTW, Fitz office said no announcements today.

[cathyf]

Gee, do ya think maybe the "grim" mood that the MSM has been telling us has been "gripping" the White House for the past coupla weeks might be about something other than Plame-fuffle and shouldn't be taken as positive proof that Rove & Libby are going down?

(Even my kerfufflholism isn't that bad -- I've noticed that few outside of us folks really gives a s*** about this whole thing.)

cathy :-)

[Rick Ballard]

Syl,

I wonder how the Seven Dwarves are going to be sleeping until the next candidate is announced? They got their wish on the Miers pick - a nice "moderate" conservative. If the President goes with the NRO snitwits advice and tosses out red meat the Dwarves are either going to have to rent spines or slither out of sight.

I'm looking forward to seeing how many of the red meat nominees take themselves out of contention due to fear of the process. They know how to write a good fight but I have sincere doubts regarding their true intestinal fortitude.

Fight for Bork - Get Kennedy!!!

No more clickees for the deservedly fired Frum and his ilk from me.

[Sue]

The snit throwers had nothing to do with her performance on the hill. When you can't answer the questions, you have problems. Ms. Miers will continue to be a great asset to Bush. She was not qualified, IMO, for the SC.

[Sue]

If Ms. Miers had not seen the writing on the wall, Bush would have backed her. If nothing else, he is stubborn to a fault. And very, very, very loyal.

[owl]

"Snit Throwers"---perfect. Love it and Syl said it all. These elite "snit throwers" are not Bush's base. They are a few thousand pundits, judges/lawyers and professors. They have turned themselves into their own little elite MSM. One even told me that Bush would not be qualified for SC. Think about that one. Did they actually vote for that idiot for the most important job in the world? Seems to be what they are saying. One said "apples and oranges". Sure, but try not to go out in the rain.

[Geek, Esq.]

Well, our friends in the conservative movement have definitively established that litmus tests are perfectly fine.

Over to you, Chuck Schumer.

[Syl]

Rick

Agree. And they have nobody but themselves to blame.

Sue

"When you can't answer questions". You do know you sound like one of those liberals, don't you? That's a snarky overgeneralization and you know it.

Besides, the snit-storm happened LONG before she took her pen to paper.

I had no problem with Miers being voted down. Or even not getting out of committee. I have a problem with the snotty snit-storm. It was mean spirited, rude, elitist.

And it galls me when people think they were the only ones who voted for Bush so they should get their way.

Remember what Move-on said to the DNC? We bought you. We own you.

This sounds like the same kind of thing to me.

[Geek, Esq.]

The real victim here is Bush's legislative agenda.

World War III is coming to the Senate--he needs to throw the base some nice Edith Jones-style red meat.

The Republicans will go nuclear on the inevitable Democratic fillibuster, and the Democrats will retaliate by shutting the Senate down.

Nothing in the news to talk about except how the Republicans can't govern the country.

And the Fitzgerald investigation.

[Syl]

Sue

And this isn't personal. I know some the group who volunteered and worked their butts off to help get Bush elected. I know that. I appreciate that. I'm thankful for every one of you. I even agree with you on most things. That's why I'm here and not on the other side any more.

But I was so disappointed at this firestorm. It felt so childish. And I'm not blaming regular bush supporters in his base as much as I'm really livid about those darn pontificators and columnists and elite snobs of conservatism.

[Syl]

Geek

Go fish.

The difference is, we Republicans can fight and argue and yell at each other but we're still together on what matters.

If the democrats fight amongst themselves, half of them will run off in a snit and vote Green. In 2008 they won't have Bush to rally against.

Not that that type of thing hasn't happened on this side before, but times are a bit different and when it counts, we'll hang together.

And as far as Republicans not being able to govern? Stick it in your ear. It's been obstruction after obstruction from the Democrats with NO alternative plan. All they do stand there with their hands on their hips and shout 'NO!'.

Yeah, like I'd vote for one of them?

[topsecretk9]

Jim E - I agree with much of your post, but this is such a load of crap

(In all seriousness, I actually do feel bad for Miers. She wasn't served well by the administration.)

This is just convenient Bush hating and you know it, you can do better than that

[Geek, Esq.]

Syl:

Yeah right you Republicans are together where it matters. Had Miers been pushed through, a whole ton of you would have been staying home in 2006. Bush caved to the conservative ideologues on this one because he knew they would walk.

So, we're going to have this out in the open. Bush is going to ram through someone who wants to turn back the clock to somewhere between Griswold and the Reconstruction Era. And the Dems are going to fight back, and most likely shut Congress down in the process.

And cry me a river about obstruction. I was in DC during the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

[owl]

Oh yeah, you go Syl. Being one of the dummies that can't say what I want in less than 10 pages, you are saying it exactly. You are hitting all the points.

[Sue]

I am not NRO. I am not anyone but myself. I consider myself the base of Bush's party, and I was upset that he nominated his personal attorney to the SC of the US. If Clinton had nominated Lanny Davis, I would have been up in arms too. Besides, Ms. Miers has not been able to handle herself on the hill. The snit for me started when she didn't know which Justice she most admired. ;)

[Syl]

Geek

"Bush caved to the conservative ideologues on this one because he knew they would walk."

Bush isn't running for election, in case you didn't know it. He saw it looking bad in the Senate, he wasn't looking at his base.

Sue

"The snit for me started when she didn't know which Justice she most admired. "

Yeah, there is that ;) But anything and everything would have come out on its own. There is a process. We should use it.

The problem is all those elitists started screaming the moment her name was announced! And then others just yelled 'yeah!' like they knew what they were talking about.

[Syl]

owl

Bless you. I needed that.

[JayDee]

This nomination was a terrible embarrassment. The woman was clearly unqualified and a crony with no independence from the executive. However, the country needs to wake up and see who is controlling the puppet strings - radical extremist conservative ideologue elitists. (There, got it all in!) Just like they took us to war because they knew better than to trust the citizens of a democracy with the truth, they also demand that their activist ideology be allowed to control the Supreme Court of our country...if it still is our country. It seems to belong to a tiny beltway of fanatical elitist intellectuals these days.

I recommend Bush nominate a fire breathing conservative with no charisma. Someone with the courage to state plainly to the American people that they think both minimum wage and Social Security are unconstitutional. Got any of those? It's time the American people got a closeup look at just what this conservative elitism is all about. It's a democracy, after all, or so I'm told.

[Syl]

Geek

"And cry me a river about obstruction. I was in DC during the first two years of Clinton's presidency."

I was on the other side then. I plead innocent!

[Gary Maxwell]

Geek

Go ahead and shut it down. A little less government might be a welcome breath of fresh air! And you are taking a page out of the Newt Gingrich play book? Your hero. It works so well for him ( and the Texas Democrats more recently) why not!

Must really chap you that O'Connor will be replaced by a nominee every bit as conservative and Darth Bader is liberal.

[Syl]

Jaydee

You're wrong. You haven't a clue what makes up the GOP.

The neocons are the imperialist warmongers.
The social conservatives are the ideologues.
The fiscal conservatives are the cheapskates.
The religious conservatives are the theocrats.
The libertarians are the know-it-alls.
The NRA types are the scary ones.
The Business men are the corporate shysters.
The Oil companies are the string pullers.

Keep your enemies straight!

:)

[Beautiful Day]

The Dems played the Miers nomination all wrong. They should have bad mouthed her instead of saying she was a decent choice and then sitting back. Now the Libs will go crazy over Bush's next nominee (and eventual SC Justice). While the left drools over the "Scooter" sideshow, Bush packs the court with another solid conservative...and the Bush court will rule the land for the next 30+ years! Luv it!!!!

[Geek, Esq.]

Bush isn't running for election, in case you didn't know it. He saw it looking bad in the Senate, he wasn't looking at his base.

Why do you think the Republican Senators were nervous? Check out redstate.org--their immediate comments regarding Miers were "looks like I'll get to work on my golf game in 2006 instead of campaigning for Republican candidates."

Go ahead and shut it down. A little less government might be a welcome breath of fresh air! And you are taking a page out of the Newt Gingrich play book? Your hero. It works so well for him ( and the Texas Democrats more recently) why not!

The Republicans, led by Newt and Dole, obstructed like crazy during the first two years of the Clinton administration. We all know the results.

People tend to blame the party in control when the place doesn't work. They blamed the Dems in 1994, and then they blamed the Republicans in 1996 and 1998 (to lesser degrees, since they still retained control of Congress).

So, yeah I do hope they borrow from 1994 Newt.

[Rick Ballard]

Gary,

The Seven Dwarves (plus Voinovich and Specter) make the nomination of a red meat candidate problematical. Dopey and Dopier have probably seen the error of their ways and maybe DeWine and Warner will come around but Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, Specter and Voinovich are unreliable squishes. That still might allow the necessary rule change to eliminate the filibuster but the attempt would be foolish without assurance that it would succeed.

It would be nice if the snit throwers (or snitwits) knew how to count.

Oh well, the thought of McCain and Graham drinking two bottles of Maalox every day is cheering. Fools.

[Creepy Dude]

times are a bit different and when it counts, we'll hang together.

Well it certainly counts in Plamegate...

[Syl]

"looks like I'll get to work on my golf game in 2006 instead of campaigning for Republican candidates."

Yeah. They wanted to take their toys and go home. What would happen to RedState if Bush called their bluff? They'd have to shut down...because their raison d'etre would go poof.

Garbage like this was part of the snit. In case you missed it, I was against the snit.

[Keith]

TM,

If you get a chance, I'd like to get your take on the WaPo's description of the frantic efforts by Rove's lawyers on his behalf. To me, it reveals either that (a) Rove must have said some pretty clear-cut things early on that now have been contradicted, such as, "I know for a fact that I didn't talk to any other reporters" or "I know I heard it from reporters first." Or, it might suggest that (b) Fitzgerald is just playing very strict with the rules and is willing to indict Rove on a weak case just because he can.

From what we know, the case against Rove is weak. But apparently it's not weak enough to erase doubts even on the last day.

[Kate]

I've had my doubts about Fitzgerald's fairness and non-partisan status for months since it would appear that someone from his office has been routinely leaking to very liberal sources at regular intervals.

Rove will be indicted because Fitzgerald has bought off on the Wilson as victim narrative.

[Jim E.]

ts9,
Maybe you were joking, but the part of my post that you claimed to agree with was sarcasm. That's why my paranthetical aside started with "in all seriousness." I'm afraid I can't telegraph it any more plainly. But we both know about your challanges with sarcasm, don't we?

And in terms of the sincere part of my post that you label "crap," well, that's what I think. Besides, I'm hardly alone in that assessment. John Fund of all people documented how slip-shod the WH vetting process was. I think you also read The Corner, and they've expressed the exact same sentiments I did. Exactly the same. The ones you described as "crap." I guess NRO is full of "Bush haters." (Note to TS9: the previous sentence is sarcasm.)

[cathyf]

Must really chap you that O'Connor will be replaced by a nominee every bit as conservative as Darth Bader is liberal.

I keep trying to think of one, but I come up empty... Remember, this is the algebra:

Byron White + Sandra O'Connor = Ruth Ginsberg + X

Ok, try to solve for X... Ann Coulter? Nah, too liberal... It's mainly amusing in that you think of candidates and then you imagine Teddy Kennedy's head exploding!

cathy :-)

[pollyusa]

This looks interesting

But his office was contacted late Tuesday by attorneys representing figures outside the White House, lawyers said, who expressed interest in entering into plea talks with the prosecutor. Several have agreed to enter into last-minute plea negotiations with Fitzgerald in exchange for providing testimony that could result in criminal charges being brought against additional officials inside the White House, they added.

Could these 'figures' be the same officials reported previously? Certainly possible.

Two other officials, who are not employees
in the White House, are also expected to
face indictments, the lawyers said.

[Geek, Esq.]

Yeah. They wanted to take their toys and go home. What would happen to RedState if Bush called their bluff? They'd have to shut down...because their raison d'etre would go poof.

Quite the contrary--you're conflating movement conservatives with Republican activists. The movement conservatives are more similar to the Michael Moore lefties than you suspect. They're not going to go out and vote for Democrats ever, but their enthusiasm and participation is very much subject to change.

[pollyusa]

To add to the previous comment.

Fleicher anyone?

[Geek, Esq.]

Polly:

I'm convinced that Raw Story has two categories of sources:

1) Journalists from sources like the Daily News; and

2) Their own ass.

[pollyusa]

Geek

Your colorful anaysis could be right.

[Rick Ballard]

Geek,

Any opinion on which of the two Raw Story sources you cite has proven more reliable?

Btw - very good observation on the Redstaters. They have an extremely low utility to the party.

[Geek, Esq.]

Rick:

Not until indictments come out.

[pollyusa]

Syl

Membership in the GOP

Don't forget Country Club Republicans they inherit their membership and they fall into none of the afore mentioned categories.

[Syl]

Geek

"you're conflating movement conservatives with Republican activists."

Point taken.

pollyusa

"Don't forget Country Club Republicans "

Ah! But are they evil enough? ;)

[windansea]

I feel sorry for our resident geeks and lefties...their constant sniping drips with the bitterness of those left on the sidelines

President Bush will pick another nominee who will get confirmed and we'll have a majority on the Supreme Court for 30 years.

Plamegate is not going to stop our success in Iraq.

We will continue to kick your asses in future elections until your party actually stands for something.

think our base is crumbling??

RALLYING THE BASE [Mark R. Levin]
It's time for our liberals friends to worry. If the president picks a solid nominee, the base -- meaning Republican Party loyalists and conservative activists -- will be united, reinvigorated, and ready for battle. At least that's the indication from my radio audience. And frankly, as an aside, there's another event that is uniting them, and that's their growing resentment toward Patrick Fitzgerald. Positive press profiles aside, they increasingly view him as a threat to the presidency, and are not much impressed with all the talk in the media about possible indictments for perjury or false statements over emails or memory lapses.

good luck hearding the cats!!

[windansea]

Ah! But are they evil enough? ;)

golfers are evil thuglicans with clubs in their hands

[windansea]

PS

I nominate Ted Olsen

[Geek, Esq.]

Well, if Mr. Levin wants to rally the anti-freedom, anti-American, criminal-loving elements of his party, he has that right.

Of course, ordinary, law-abiding Americans won't like what they see.

[windansea]

bitter bitter bitter

whine, snipe, more whine

got power????

I rest my case

[Geek, Esq.]

By the way, this investigation is far, FAR from over.

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Cheney had been the foremost administration advocate for war with Iraq, and Libby played a central staff role in coordinating the sale of the war to both the public and Congress.
Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney's office -- and Libby in particular -- pushed to be included in Powell's speech, the sources said.

The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

The disclosures also come as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wraps up the nearly two-year-old CIA leak investigation that has focused heavily on Libby's role in discussing covert intelligence operative Valerie Plame with reporters. Fitzgerald could announce as soon as tomorrow whether a federal grand jury is handing up indictments in the case.

Central to Fitzgerald's investigation is whether administration officials disclosed Plame's identity and CIA status in an effort to discredit her husband, former ambassador and vocal Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who wrote newspaper op-ed columns and made other public charges beginning in 2003 that the administration misused intelligence on Iraq that he gathered on a CIA-sponsored trip to Africa.

In recent weeks Fitzgerald's investigation has zeroed in on the activities of Libby, who is Cheney's top national security and foreign policy advisor, as well as the conflict between the vice president's office on one side and the CIA and State Department on the other over the use of intelligence on Iraq. The New York Times reported this week, for example, that Libby first learned about Plame and her covert CIA status from Cheney in a conversation with the vice president weeks before Plame's cover was blown in a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak.

[pollyusa]

Geek

Saw that new Waas article, looks like Waas's sources are both former administration officials and current insiders. looks like the knives are out for Libby.

At the same time, however, administration officials said in interviews that they cannot recall another instance in which Cheney and Libby played such direct personal roles in denying foreign policy papers to a congressional committee, and that in doing so they overruled White House staff and lawyers who advised that the materials should be turned over to the Senate panel.

[Sue]

My prediction? No indictments tomorrow. GJ extended. :) Just to drive us all crazier than we are.

[Sue]

So far, none of the leaks have proven correct. Except for the one about the email on Rove/Cooper. And that only came out because Cooper talked to someone. All these leaks are more of what we do. Guessing. :)

[Lesley]

Doncha just love leaks, and the leaking leakers who leak them?

[Sue]

How about leaks while in an investigation about leaks? ;) It doesn't get any better...

[Geek, Esq.]

Murray Waas is infinitely more reliable than folks like Raw Story.

[Sue]

I'm infinitely more reliable than raw story. :)

[Rick Ballard]

1 is infinitely more than 0.

It's still 1 and if the scale is 1-10...

[Lesley]

Its all about the HYPOCRISY!!!! Uh, no, wait, um, there are leaks which benefit my team which are GOOD leaks, and then there are leaks which hurt my team which are BAD leaks. Yeah, ok, now I've figured everything out.

[Sue]

I'll tell you this much, though. Wilson is not the target of this investigation. He made a speech in Seattle and if he had received a target letter, his mouth would not be working.

[Geek, Esq.]

Uh, Murray Waas ranks pretty damn high. Just ask TM, who red pens him at his own risk.

[Sue]

Well, the good thing about a Rove indictment, if it is for perjury, the democrats won't care. It is a memory, seared in my mind, that perjury ain't no big thing. ;) I mean, really, how else will they perceive a perjury charge without being hypocritical? ;)

[SteveMG]

"This investigation is far far from over"

Please, let's have a modicum of rationality in this discussion even if it's from someone who believes that Glenn Reynolds is a "fascist."

Fitzgerald is not going to investigate whether the VP's office should have turned over to the Senate passages in drafts of speeches or intelligence that someone pushed to include but wasn't.

My god, they failed to include "passages in drafts"? Drafts, mind you; not the actual finished product.

Horrors, that must have violated a dozen statutes in the criminal code.

SMG

[Sue]

Kind of like Bush's team making policy instead of beurocrats? ;) Oh the horror. An elected official actually making policy instead of career beurocrats.

[Sue]

Bureaucrat. Sorry. :(

[Danny Rather]

No indictment for Rove = Big Lib loss!!!!

Get ready!!

Plus, Fitz will recommend follow up GJ to investigate Wilson's trip and CIA leaks.

By the way, what's a "Scooter"?

[Robin Roberts]

The conventional wisdom is that the Miers nomination failed because of a lack of support from the Right.

However, notice that Harriet Miers was chosen in part because she was on Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's list of acceptable nominees. But Democrats were as scornful of her qualifications as Republicans. But you don't hear any criticism of Harry Reid's inability to lead Democrats behind the nominee.

So much for the Democrats' claim that the problem was a lack of consultation with them.

[!]

Two things which must be funny to some and disappointing for others:
1)This past week, Congress has rebuffed the WH 3x.
The ass't AG nominee: withdraws;
Davis-Bacon supsension: not;
Meirs: withdraws

So, there are three branches of government. I was starting to doubt that.

2) In order for Bush to salvage his remaining time in office he and the WH NEEDS to work with the other side in Congress.
See: Reagan and Clinton for prior examples of how that works to boost flagging performance ratings and accomplish anything.

If Reagan's and Clinton's second terms are any indicators only compromise salvages second terms. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neill and Clinton worked with Gingrich, Dole and Hatch (on SCOTUS). There was give and take .

I'll admit that I may wrong about the second point. Certainly have not seen or heard anyone mention how Clinton and Reagan made it work in the second act outside of citations of good economies. It really isn't about which party has the majority in the current Second Term. It is more about working with the other party that is key to any second term success. The prior circumstances in Reagan pt. II and Clinton pt. II did indeed have the other party in control of Congress, at least the House. But, nonetheless, it was working with the other party.

Bush is going to have to do compromise and I don't mean like initating passable initiatives like bloating (instead of fixing) Medicare in '03 or LNCB (expanding fed gov't) in '02.

Now, surely there are people who don't like that thought. And, surely there are people who say the other side is devoid of ideas. Well, if the way the House of Reps is run, sure some will say "that is a tight ship and the way it should be" but moderates Republicans and Democrats don't have much say.

Balance is the thing that keeps people from falling over. There hasn't been balance in quite some time and there's a lot of people in government who are falling these days.

[Cecil Turner]

Her interviews with the members of the Senate were a disaster. Her answers to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were simplistic and painfully vague.

That is probably the bottom line . . . her questionnaire sank her. And though I think some of that criticism was off-base, the typos and errors were unforgivable.

However, notice that Harriet Miers was chosen in part because she was on Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's list of acceptable nominees.

One interesting thing about Miers's [forced] withdrawal is that it underscores the criticality of qualifications (and for the base, conservatism), while discounting the importance of acceptability to Dems and diversity. It seems to me it opens the door for my preferred nomination, J. Michael Luttig, whose only major negatives were: 1) he's not a woman; and, 2) too conservative. (Or at least I'd like to think so.)

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some Hellgate London gold .

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!