The Selling of Harriet Miers:
I realize that the White House is trying to sell the Miers candidacy to conservatives, but stuff like this seems a little desperate:
MIERS VOTED FOR REAGAN IN '84Well, there goes the Walter Mondale Fan Club vote.
Fri Oct 07 2005 17:24:18 ET
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a senior official on Harriet Miers’ confirmation team that her political evolution began in 1984 during the Reagan revolution when she voted to reelect President Ronald Reagan.
desparatewith desperate. (I'm not holier than thou. I make lots of mistakes too.)Geez, I wonder why that might be?
Bush's reversion to type is the same problem that Clinton and Carter had when they fell into a similar "state of mind." Governors from southern states are used to an extremely powerful relationship vis a vis other governmental elements within their state. Thus, when the Governor says "do it" or "trust me" or "I think this is what is best done" they are accustomed to such phrases being interpreted synonomously and acted on accordingly.
So, when cronyism, the mindset of a southern governor, and being snakebit all come together... Is there any surprise that Bush would put forth a crony and actually enjoy the political retribution he is exacting by publically dividing the neo-conservatives from the ultra-right from the compassionate conservatives from the true moderates? Is it possible that he's, I think unintentionally, accelerated the fractious process the Republican Party was inevitably doomed to see in the jockeying for the '08 nomination; especially since Bush has, thus far, avoided "grooming" anyone as his successor (with the possible exception of Condi)?
Chuck Schummer and other prominent Democrats have publically stated that they pretty much intend "staying out of the way" while Republicans beat up on each other. If this is what Bush defines as "reaching across the aisle," I think he's chosen a heck of a time to do so; maybe having had one too many barbeques with Bush the Senior's "other son" - Bill Clinton. Because, so far as I can see, all Miers' nomination does for the Republicans is to help the Democrats.
After all the cries of cronyism, favoritism, incompetence, inappropriateness, investigations, corruption of the process, lack of planning, fiscal irresponsibility, and recalictrance - and that's just from the REPUBLICAN side - how is Bush ever going to groom anyone without their being stigmitized with the same 'handicaps.'
Basically, I'd love to be Nancy Pelosi's speechwriter. It was an easy job to write exclusively for her - all you had to do was write one speech, changing the names as appropriate, because all she ever says is that [insert name] is evil, incompetent, criminal, irresponsible, and corrupt. Now, I'd either be enjoying royalties from the Republicans or seeking a large settlement for use of my copyrighted material. What a gig that would have been.
Had I only known.
I am a politically conservative attorney who has wished that W would appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas. I say this just to have my beliefs in the open.
If it comes to it, how does Miers decline her nomination?
I do not believe she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She may be very intelligent and an expert in her field, but that does not mean she has the intellectual ability and training to be a Justice. Conservative Senators could use this nomination to show that nominations are not a matter of politics, but a matter of ability and talent. This opposition would give Republican Senators the high ground in the next debate.