Punt Miers
October 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 pm by Preston Taylor Holmes(via Protein Wisdom)
N.Z. Bear from TTLB is rounding up bloggers’ opinions on the horrific Miers nomination, and, if for some reason I haven’t made it clear enough, I oppose the Miers nomination.
I still think her nomination is a slam dunk, unless she does something unthinkably stupid during the hearings. Which is possible, I suppose.
I finally feel like my opinion means something.
I only speak on my own behalf, of course, and not on the behalf of my drunken co-bloggers.
October 22nd, 2005 at 11:53 pm
I think we’re underestimating Democrats wanting to lay the cheap shot against whoever Chimpy nominates. They’ve got to justify their Moveon and NARAL contributions somehow. More than a few lefty sites aren’t buying into that whole “we’re not gonna get much better than this” right now hoo-ha.
Having said that, after that “Of Miers and Men” post, I didn’t want to go off about her again barring some new revelation.
To me, here’s what at stake. If she gets confirmed or has an embarassing hearing where she’s rejected – it’s still a defeat for the Right. If this bullshit nomination isn’t a) retracted on it’s own as Peggy Noonan and NRO (twice now) has suggested, then millions of Republicans will stay home in 2006. And here’s the rub – if Democrats take back either the House or the Senate, we’re going to have nothing but independent special prosecutors pulling Ronnie Earles on a federal level until 2008. That’s what’s at stake.
Peggy Sue Noonan’s piece in the WSJ yesterday was, as always, so gracious. If I were suffering from a painful case of impotence, Miss Noonan would hold my hand, tell me it was going to be all right and she’d be on all fours in no time. Giggidy-giggidy.
October 23rd, 2005 at 3:10 am
Slam dunk? I think not. Read the blogs and papers. She’s finished.
I’m an attorney in Pennsylvania and know personally dozens of excellent lawyers with every bit the gray matter, skill, and constitutional law experience (or lack of it) that Ms. Miers apparently possesses. And so I conclude that she has been chosen because she’s chummy with the President. This insults me. This is what I object to most about her nomination.
I voted for Bush twice, but I’m seeing in him a Ruling Class mentality. I thought conservatives believed in selection by merit. Hell, I thought America was founded on that principle.
The president’s response to the conservative uproar over Miers has been telling. The president seems to view his public as small-minded, insignificant people (in his startling words, “background noiseâ€) doing unimportant things, and not deserving of very much consideration. After all, Miers is HIS friend, and the Supreme Court vacancy is HIS to appoint, and so, he thinks, it is entirely appropriate – no, he has a right! — to put her on the Court. I sense that he’s actually angry we peons are complaining.
The White House’s response to our questions has been to throw us one-liners (“She’s a Evangelical Christian” (Mr. President, we don’t care!), “Her opponents are ’sexist’” (Mr. President, no they’re not!). It‘s embarrassing that he thinks these platitudes should “work†on us, quiet us down, and it’s a disturbing sign that the Ruling Class mentality may be layers deep in the executive branch.
October 23rd, 2005 at 9:24 am
“I sense that he’s actually angry we peons are complaining.”
ABSOLUTELY. That sums up the response from Junior. The sycophants are bleating “I trust W so that’s good enough for me” which is the slavish nitwittery he was counting on.
Unfortunately for him, many in his conservative base are conservative on principle and he’s given us NO reason to “trust him” to date. If he had built up that kind of collateral, that would be one thing, but he hasn’t.
Good points, Smantix. I don’t know if enough of us will stay home in 2006 to send a message, but it may take a shitload of us to make a dent.
October 23rd, 2005 at 10:32 am
These last few elections have been razor thin. Three million this last time. Losing the popular vote in 2000. In 1996, Republicans lost to Clinton by the same number of votes The Reform Party received. And when Perot took 19 million votes in 1992, it’ safe to say that a majority of them were disaffected Republicans getting back at Bush I for breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.
I voted for Bush because of a)the Courts and b) to fight terrorism. He’s backstabbed anyone who has supported him on The Courts and allowing illegals to run wild over the southern border is as big as any national security threat that could come on a plane. People won’t jump ship and vote Dimocrack but they will stay home.
In that WaPo piece I linked to, he’s repeating that “if we have an employer who needs to fill a job, and no american will do it, we need to let a Mexican do it.” We should not have a single person on welfare in this country if we have so many jobs available that we have to quit enforcing immigration laws to fill them.
Of course, that’s BS. We enforce immigration laws all of the time on people from every other country. Just ask a Haitian or an Indian trying to get an H1-B Visa.