"But the Beltway types still say Miers will get through just fine."
You know I thought so too at first but with Kristol, Will and now Novak exspressing their displeasure I wonder. I also wonder if it is really the questions about her "conservative" credentials but the fact that she appears to be a Bush cultist that bothers them. I wonder if they are uneasy about having a Bush rubber stamp on the court. Although they won't admit as much in public, Will et.al. all know that the chimpy white house has turned everything they have touched into a major cluster-fuck.
I noticed that all the Beltway types are saying she is going to be confirmed. Based on what, might I ask? that the president usually gets his way?
I think that the Goldwater repubs have had enough. don't be too sure that this one will go through.
Posted by susan at October 6, 2005 09:15 AMAnn Coulter has also trashed the nomination as only she can.
Posted by Lis Riba at October 6, 2005 09:55 AMSince I never heard gb43 say "just kidding" about Ms. Miers, and while his apparent stupidity could explain his insensitivity to another charge of "cronyism", I'm gonna hafta assume there's some strategery going on here. Could Bush (Rove) have paid some rightwing pundits to loudly protest the nomination, causing normal people to wonder if she might have something up her sleeve? Frankly, I'm amazed at the bland response from normal people. If reverse psychology doesn't explain it, there's the idea of sacrifice [a hypothetical gb to a hypothetical Senate]: "Y'all turn down my woman nominee. [Now we need a second sacrifice, preferably an ethnic lesbian.] Next you turn down my ethnic-lady nominee. Y'all better accept my third choice: Mr.....GONZALES! A HISPANIC! (And if you don't like him my next choice is Karl Rove!)"
Posted by bbk at October 6, 2005 10:21 AMThe David Souter analogies are just a red herring.
Is bush's hold over the wingnuts so tenuous as this storm suggests? I have my doubts, but still, so long as the Democrats vote no on her, or let the goppers know they're going to vote no, I don't have a problem.
So who are they going to pick as a replacement, some wingnut loon? Please do.
All the "hysteria" from the right would only serve as a lovely backdrop to why "their" choice is equally as bad, and would only strengthen the Dems hand if we get the eagerly anticipated nuke 'em approach.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 6, 2005 10:22 AMMy hope is that one of those 22 or 24 TreasonGate indictments that are coming down has Dubya's name on it -- that alone would be enough to deep-six Harriet Carswell Fortas, and all future judicial nominees Dubya might try to pull out of his ass.
Posted by ck at October 6, 2005 10:34 AMAnn Coulter has also trashed the nomination as only she can.
If Miers nomination is scuttled, Ann Coulter is the next choice.
Posted by tempus at October 6, 2005 12:06 PMThe right wing rantings are just a smoke screen to make the dems relax and not take up the charge to nuke her.
This whole thing has rove written all over it.
The republicans will argue and shout a little but in the end they will vote her in while the dems sit on their hands again.
The dems are being set-up big time to think that because the republicans are arguing and shouting about her then she must not be all that hard core conservative and therefore she might be OK for the left.
Set-up. This same type of operation has been worked against the left so many time now.
But apparently Brownback just said he might not support her since he couldn't find out how she stood on certain major issues that might come before the court. (I'm sure he will in fact end up voting for her.)
Am I experiencing cognitive dissonance? When Democrats ask what judicial nominees' view are on topics that may come before the court, both the Republicans and their nominees say they can't answer the question. But Republican senators avow that they can only support nominees if they know the nominees' views on these issues? I guess only those who hold the reins of power, not including the American public, are entitled to ask questions. And the privileged few don't have to share the answers.
But seriously, after saying such a thing, how can Brownback take a position that nominees' views can be kept under wraps?
Posted by Merle at October 6, 2005 01:45 PMugh - quoting a traitor is just plain wrong