Man… that was easy:
Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush ended his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court Thursday and promised a quick replacement. Democrats accused him of bowing to the “radical right wing of the Republican Party.”
…
The withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting potential bad news for the administration on another front – the possible indictments of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq hit 2,000.
My regular readers must have noticed that I commented little on the Miers nomination, preferring instead to sit back and watch the normally disciplined Republican Party implode on its own. Let this be a lesson to those few moderates and true conservatives left in a position of authority within the GOP… the far right wing of your party expects absolute loyalty and allegiance from you, but should you stray one tiny step from the Good Book, they’ll throw you to the lions without a moment’s hesitation. They don’t give a shit about fiscal conservativism or federalism or strict constructionism… they’ll stop at absolutely nothing in pursuit of their theocratic agenda, even if it means turning on a Republican president at a time he desperately needed party discipline to save his crumbling administration.
Whatever her qualifications, Miers was without a doubt a reliably pro-business, corporate attorney who could be counted on to favor the GOP’s financial backers for decades to come. But even this devout, born again, Evangelical Christian failed to pass the religious right’s rigid litmus test, that demands justices who will criminalize abortion and homosexuality, while undermining our nation’s sacred tradition of separating church and state.
And isn’t it curious… that her dramatic, surprise withdrawal comes on a day the White House expects criminal indictments of high-level members of the administration? I guess it should come as no surprise that Karl Rove would sacrifice a Supreme Court nominee in an effort to save his own skin.
Folks should be very careful what they wish for. Democrats should expect a much worse candidate now. This isn’t good for the future of the Supreme Court. It’s a hard right turn now….using the nuclear option if necessary to get it done.
Goldy: “…the far right wing of your party expects absolute loyalty and allegiance from you, but should you stray one tiny step from the Good Book, they’ll throw you to the lions without a moment’s hesitation.”
Oh, yes, and the extreme left of the Democratic Party isn’t doing the same thing. I’m sure all the criticism of Hillary Clinton from the left isn’t an example of your point, either.
The Miers nomination was a bad move from a number of standpoints, for me, the worse aspect was that this nomination was feeding the fire of cronyism that exploded after Michael Brown.
Also, what’s so wrong with nominating a strong conservative, in that, the Senate can have a donnybrook over it because they actually know where a nominee stands….
Thanks GW! Now the SCOTUS debate can take the steam out of Plamegate, etc. The whipped cream topping – nominate Pat Fitzgerald to the SCOTUS later today.
I can hear the pot boiling on the left.
Goldy said: “Let this be a lesson to those few moderates and true conservatives left in a position of authority within the GOP… the far right wing of your party expects absolute loyalty and allegiance from you, but should you stray one tiny step from the Good Book, they’ll throw you to the lions without a moment’s hesitation.”
Let’s think about what you have to be for a donk:
1.) Must be Pro-Abortion. Where are the contrary voices?
2.) Must be Pro-Gay Marriage. Where are the contrary voices?
3.) Must be Pro-NEA. Where are the contrary voices?
4.) Must be Pro-Union. Where are the contrary voices?
5.) Must hate WalMart. Where are the contrary voices?
6.) Must be anti-Republican. Where are the contrary voices?
7.) Must want to cut the military budget. Where are the contrary voices?
If you are not all of the above you can’t be an official donk!
@2: “…all the criticism of Hillary Clinton from the left”..
Huh? I don’t think so. It’s the right wing, mostly males who have been wet-nursing an irrational, hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton.
‘But even this devout, born again, Evangelical Christian failed to pass the religious right’s rigid litmus test..’
Luckily for the lefties Miers also failed their litmus test. Goldy writes as if he is not aware of the dissent in his corner.
Just goes to show – even when the left and right come together against something GW does the lefties cannot bring themselves out of rock-throwing mode. There is nothing GW can do to please the left, so why even try?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could just get a replacement for Sandra who was not extreme left or extreme right? Why does it always have to be a major ordeal to get a nominee on the Supreme Court?
hardovertoport-5 ‘..an irrational, hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton.’
Where have you been? Google Cindy Sheehan and Hillary Clinton. In the words of another familiar voice…Either you are with me on Iraq or you are against me.
hardovertoport-5 ‘..an irrational, hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton.’
Hillary to the right is what Tom Delay is to the left. Most are actually hoping she runs in 2008.
lib @ 7
Not with this president. Notwithstanding hs 40% and 55% disapproval rating. He wants what the significant majority of us don’t want.
source: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Libertarian-7 ‘Why does it always have to be a major ordeal to get a nominee on the Supreme Court?’
If you are really a Libertarian I am surprised you need to ask that question. Many crucial and long-term decisions regarding how Federal and State laws can be implemented, as well as the goverments role in factors that affect fundemental freedoms, rights, etc. are determined by the SCOTUS.
It is also a major deal because these crucial justices serve for life, affecting perhaps the next 20-40 years and beyond.
‘..while undermining our nation’s sacred tradition of separating church and state.’
Interesting take on “tradition”. The ACLU has been working overtime for years (recently) to make sure localities all over the US do not “continue” to display nativity scenes, crosses, etc. Look at the money, etc. It really appears that the “traditions” are what the lefties want to change. Even Goldy’s use of the word “sacred” is interesting, as it is used most prominantly in religious context.
Ok, too many yearight comments. I will stop now so as not to be confused with the wabbit.
OK, one more.
Fitzgerald for SCOTUS!
My fellow Liberals:
Don’t fool yourselves here. Harriet “Quag” Miers was nominated by design for withdrawal. look at the timing of all this. When Bush picked “Quag” Miers, Rove knew the timing on her confirmation hearings starting in early Nov vs. the CIA Grand Jury expiring on this week.
A) It gave the WH an opportunity to control the news cycle to keep the heat off of them for the CIA leaks and the 2000th US causality in Iraq
B) When the firestorm CIA indictments are handed out, Bush will nominate his REAL and first choice for ASCJ, an ultra right wing conservative who will fly under the radar screen of the CIA leak 24/7 news coverage.
C) Bush holds the trump cards in the CIA leak case and Rove will stay on in his position.
Remember when Bush qualified his statement from anyone involved with this leak would be kicked out of his administration to anyone “convicted.” Hell, W will pull a Bush Sr. and grant presidential pardon to Rove after he’s indicted, but before he’s convicted. That way Bush won’t be “lying” about his earlier statements.
Only a flop of control in the House would bring this issue to the light of truth through articles of impeachment.
While Bush may keep his cronies out of prison, the resulting political damage to the Republican party is already done. Now, the only thing left to see is how wide and how deep the damage runs in next year’s elections.
GBS-14
Finally you say something that makes sense. All except the damage to the repubs. The new SCOTUS nominee will patch many wounds.
Fitzgerald for SCOTUS.
@4
What’s wrong with hating Wal-Mart or being anti-Republican? Wal-Mart and Republicans are evil.
haha
the Bush-dolt gets a big kick in the balls again, and it’s only beginning.
Bush-dolt: “Mommy, it hurts.”
Angry ‘Pube bloggers = good news. hee-hee.
say bye-bye ‘Pubes.
Yea ‘right’ @ 15
C’mon, all BS aside. Do you honestly believe the Republicans haven’t suffered ANY political damage as a result of this CIA outing?
Really?
Though she had no business being considered for the Supreme Court, Harriet seemed like a nice enough (though overly-fawning) person, and I was almost feeling sorry for her because of the viciousness of the religious right’s attacks on her. If GW now gives the religious right what it so aggressively demands–a Christian Taliban Justice, then GW will have completed the castration of the Republican Party. The party will become the eunuch of the James Dobsons, Pat Robertsons, and Ralph Reeds who already have way too much pull in American politics. GW, who forfeited his balls to others long ago, will surely give them what they want.
by Goldy, 10/27/2005, 8:35 AM
“And isn’t it curious… that her dramatic, surprise withdrawal comes on a day the White House expects criminal indictments of high-level members of the administration?”
http://tinyurl.com/7kt4l
“WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 – The special counsel in the C.I.A. leak inquiry is not planning to make any public announcement on the case before Friday, when the term of the federal grand jury considering indictments expires, a spokesman for the prosecutor said today.”
Guess that blows that theory.
Here’s the straw that broke the camel’s back:
http://sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3155284
“A 1993 speech by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers prompted new skepticism from some Senate Republicans about whether she has a consistently conservative judicial philosophy about abortion, religion and the role of courts.
The senators said Miers must explain an apparent contradiction between her 1989 support for a constitutional amendment banning most abortions and the speech in which she suggested a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy was a matter of ”self-determination.””
She didn’t have the votes to be confirmed, why bother going on?
The far righ-wing?
I didn’t know a single person who thought Miers was a reasonable choice.
GBS-19 ‘Do you honestly believe the Republicans haven’t suffered ANY political damage as a result of this CIA outing?’
Not at all. The damage, however, will depend on what any indictments are for, and how much air time they get while the SCOTUS fight is going on. If Rove and/or Libby get indicted for perjury or obstruction, as opposed to “outing” a covert, the damage will be relatively small. (Other than the loss of Rove should he resign.)
proud leftist-20 ‘I was almost feeling sorry for her because of the viciousness of the religious right’s attacks on her.’
I wonder if the same feeling would happen after hearings, where the lefties had some pretty grand plans.
1.) Must be Pro-Abortion. Where are the contrary voices?
In the Senate Minority leader’s office?
BTW, let’s give Harry Reid a big round of applause for shanking Bush on the Miers nomination. “I think that rather than looking at the people your lawyer’s recommending, pick her.”
bwahahahahaha
Well-played Mister Reid. Well-played.
6.) Must be anti-Republican. Where are the contrary voices?
In the Republican party? Seriously. If you’re pro-Republican, pretty much *by definition*, you don’t belong in the Democratic party.
Honestly, did anyone here think Miers was a good selection, based strictly on her resume? Of course not. She wasn’t qualified.
I’m so glad you all are salivating over what Fitzgerald will do. It will make the actual news so much more fun! Yearight is right – there is no more talk about outing a covert agent. The charge now is that Libby and Rove told the truth about who Wilson’s wife was. Huh?
Aexia: Harry Reid Anti-Abortion? Now you are delusional. The big democratic tent? Ha ha ha ha. We put Olympis Snow, Susan, Collins, Rudy Has Big Guilianis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain front and center in our party. I rest my case on my SEVEN points. No Animal Hind Parts LEFTIST PINHEAD can refute them. They all be true!!!!
re 26: It’s all about lieing to a grand jury, remember?
@ 26
Thanks for proving the Liberals point about cronyism. Why on Earth would the President of the United States of America put forth an unqualified appointment?
PS: Just a bit of advise, but I would team up with a moron like yearight. You’re sullying any sense of decency an intelligence you may have left.
My guess is the Dems will live to regret not getting behind Harriet Meiers. I’m not say she was the best candidate by any means….but I truly believe she would have proved to be a very moderate conservative voice.
I believe Bush is stupid limiting himself to only women for this Supreme Court position. This is such a critical position. I hope there is another John Roberts out there….but I don’t see him/her.
boy did reid make Bush look stupid. Now the Democrats have come away from two SC nominations looking rational, and can point to the radical right as having killed poor Harriet Miers so they can get someone to pass their litmus test.
The door is open for the Democrats to fight a true wingnut nomination with everything they have, and not be targeted as mindlessly partisan. Their answer? “We didn’t oppose the two moderates you sent up…but this person is a wacko to satisfy the wackos in your base.” And there’s no good counter to that.
Pull up your pants and fix that wedgie, George!
re 27: You mean McCain really is a patriot and not a traitor like Karl Rove said he was? Miers withdrew because the former head of the Texas lottery was going to out Bush on his traitorous military non-service in the Vietnam war. Used to be deserters were punished.
There’s so much more than perjury in play here. We’ll find out more very soon. And just like the conservatives eating crow on David Irons, so too, will they dine on crow from the WH.
Even Hannity went off on Republicans in congress yesterday trying to distance himself from TreasonGate. The rats, truly are fleeing that sinking ship.
Roger Rabbit thinks he’s a stud cuz he claims to have had sex with his grade school teacher.
Normally I would applaud Rog for his manliness……except for one small detail…..
Roger Rabbit was HOME-SCHOOLED!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HARHO HO HOH OHOHO OH OHOHOHOHOHOOHOOHOHOHOHOOHOOHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOHOOHOHOOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOHOOHOHOHOHOOHOHOHOHHOOHOHOHOHOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEHOOOOOOHEEEEEEEEEEEHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Roger Rabbit had sex with his grade school teacher…..only problem is Roger was home schooled.
That there is funny stuff…..I don’t care who you are!
Mr Loony: I said McCain is out front in the Repub party and he is a contrary voice. I realize that with your head-in-de-ass you can’t think straight. I realize you posting during school hours has forced you to be nice, since PacMan said he was turning you in for comments unbecoming a school teacher during school hours. But that being said, still, you are an ass.
Where are the contrary voices in the donkocratic party/ I know there are conservative democrats who are anti-abortion. Why don’t you donks let them speak? I remember one wanted to speak at the 2004 convention and was shut down!
Comment by headless lucy— 10/27/05 @ 11:27 am
“You mean McCain really is a patriot and not a traitor like Karl Rove said he was?”
Where and when did Rove call McCain a traitor? Is this another of your “facts”?
Like in this thread:
http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=1112
“The lowest 40% of the working people of the U.S. pay 20% of the income taxes.”
GBS-29
Fitzgerald for SCOTUS!!
torridjoe-31 ‘We didn’t oppose the two moderates you sent up..’
Are you kidding? You should get out more. Look for quotes and press releases for Kennedy, Schumer, NARAL, etc.
yearight @ 11:
Since these judges are appointed for life, that’s all the more reason to have moderates on the Supreme Court rather than right- and left-wing extremists and political cronies. I think the lady that withdrew her name today was pretty much a Bush crony. Withdrawing was the correct decision.
Ultimately, the indictments in this case might only include perjury and obstruction, but the investigation entails much more. Remember that Fitzgerald has requested CIA documents concerning pre-war intel, including the phoney Italian memo that started the whole ‘yellow-cake’ affair.
For those who have followed this story since last year, it is apparent the scope of Fitzgerald’s investigation has widened considerably. Whether he has enough dots connected to indict remains to be seen.
Has all this hurt the Republicans? You bet it has. Taken with Katrina and all the other missteps, this administration wreaks of flop sweat. A more relevant question would be, “Can the Democrats take advantage of this opportunity and win in 2006?” That is definitely debatable.
You mean McCain really is a patriot
McCain is to the Republican Party what Zell Miller is to the Democratic Party. Do you believe Zell Miller is a patriot?
J.R @ 40:
I agree with you: this is definitely an opportunity for the Dems to take back the White House in 2008. They just have to nominate a candidate that is not viewed as a fringe player. The Dems and Reps both have un-electable candidates in the wings for 2008, but the Reps will apparently have the stigma of Bush’s performance, 2001 – 2007(?), weighing them down.
Who’s going to win in ’08 is anybody’s guess!
Yup Time for a Real Conservative candidate!
I really do not understand the Miers nomination, but then again, I do not understand Bush either. The Flight Suit in Chief follows no logical pattern or curve in his actions. He nominates a brilliant, if psychotic, legal mind like John Roberts in the mold of “Fat Tony” Scalia, and “Johnny the Robber” is elivated without a fight to Chief Justice.
Then he does a 180 degree about face and nominates Miers, the Clarence Thomas when it comes to qualifications for the court. And unlike Johnny Rob and Fat Tony, “Coke™ can” Thomas was at least a dominionist when it comes to his legal beliefs. His devotion to overthrowing our Constitutional form of Government and replacing it with a theocracy was never in doubt.
Miers had no solid credentials when it came to expanding Dominionist agenda, it makes no sense. Anybody have a clue what this was about?
yearight–
the only thing that counts is the votes…
Miers was a disappointing choice. We need sharp legal minds with education and/or experience in Constitutional law and NOT someone who passes either the Far Right’s or Left’s litmus tests.
Personally, I’d like to see someone like a Maureen Mahoney nominated. She definitely appears to have the legal chops. She’s also a woman (for those who pray at the alter of diversity), relatively young and sounds like she isn’t a Christian Right robot.
Just wait, though… The GroupThink Lefties will find SOME reason to oppose her — even if it is just to be contrary.
Nominate Maureen Mahoney and you’ll see another 78-22 vote to confirm.
Me @ 46
Yikes! Guess I should’a proofed before posting. The second sentence should really be “NOT someone who is confirmed because they pass… litmus tests.”
Also, while one is likely “altered” if they are too zealous about diversity, it should properly have been written “altar” in the post.
GBS-29 ‘..I would team up with a moron like yearight.’
Coming from you…..never mind. A badge of honor..thanks.
The White House indicates that a new nominee will be announced in the next 24-48 hours. Perhaps before Fitzgerald announces indictments, etc.
Fitzgerald for SCOTUS!!
J.R.-40 ‘..including the phoney Italian memo that started the whole ‘yellow-cake’ affair.’
Is the Italian memo the forged one? I do not think that came out until October 2002, 6 or 8 months after Wilson went to Niger.
commander ogg-44 ‘Anybody have a clue what this was about?’
Another Rovian plot. The plan was to have Miers go through the wringer due to no paper trail. If the dems filibustered Miers could withdraw and Bush could get the real SCOTUS pick, except now the dems would look silly to filibuster again. Plan was diverted by the right, who worried that the dems liked Miers too much to filibuster, and she might actually get confirmned. That, and the Plamegate progress, now call for a good battle for a real conservative nominee. Either the left is so distracted by Rove/Libby indictments that the SCOTUS nominee sails through, or the battle shifts to the nomination to minimize damage from Plamegate.
Or, a combination of the two – Fitzgerald for SCOTUS!!
The Flippy-Floppy MArk @ 146 “Miers was a disappointing choice. We need sharp legal minds with education and/or experience in Constitutional law and NOT someone who passes either the Far Right’s or Left’s litmus tests.”
So, I am sure you agree, an appointment to the Supreme Court is a VERY important appointment.
My question: Does not the Miers appointment prove to you that Bush is a completel MORON. And that he has no backbone when the puppet master NEO-CONs he serves tell him to backdown?
If not, why?
Here is a shovle, start digging your own grave.
Is Mr Cynical in this thread, he is a funny guy. Bush now goes with an extreme right winger,
if he/she does not fly, he at least appeases the right. Harriet withdrew so that just after tomorrow’s indictments,
Bush can appoint some pin-head from the far right, diverting the attention of the NY Times (THE PRESS), that is not hard
But I could go with Mr Cyncial as a nominee, the highest court could use some humor.
Or is Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA, still around, he would fit it well too?
But when he was the head of the Arabian horse group,he did support artificial insemination
Donnageddon-52 ‘Does not the Miers appointment prove to you that Bush is a completel MORON.’
See comment 51. Dems are being led around by nose by Karl Rove’s leash. Report back in two weeks on the Moron assessment, as it may need to be reassigned to the lefties.
Hey moonbats – Tell me… does it suck to be totally out of power? Does it suck to have no say at all in who goes on the court? Does it suck to be just stuck on the sidelines where all you can do is throw rocks?
Just wondering… let me know…
Proud leftist @20
Though she had no business being considered for the Supreme Court, Harriet seemed like a nice enough (though overly-fawning) person, and I was almost feeling sorry for her because of the viciousness of the religious right’s attacks on her.
I was feeling very sorry for her, too. She seemed to be a deer-fawn in the headlights most days…
If GW now gives the religious right what it so aggressively demands–a Christian Taliban Justice, then GW will have completed the castration of the Republican Party.
Um, I disagree…there is no reason to conclude that GWB will abandon wits entirely by nominating Bork.
The party will become the eunuch of the James Dobsons, …
James Dobson was vociferously in favor of Miers…
…Pat Robertsons, and Ralph Reeds who already have way too much pull in American politics. GW, who forfeited his balls to others long ago, will surely give them what they want.
You actually believe that? Just a question of faith…or balls.
For myself, Ted Olson or Edith Clement. Sorry, yearight, but Fitz is busy for the moment…
LOOCEY!
re 26: It’s all about lieing to a grand jury, remember?
No way I’m going to comment on that. Reminds me too much of a previous administration…
yearight @ 54 I read 51 I laughed a bit, but could not take it seriously. They destroyed their argument against the “up or down vote”. No wingnut has a chance in hell of being thenext supreme court justice. The Neo-Con age is over. You are just the nerves still firing while the head has been cut off.
Remember the last Supreme Court nominee, from the far right, his name was Bjork, and despite no say, the Dems prevented confirmation, hence the verb: to bjork, you might even say Harriet was pre-bjorked, she never got off the drawing board, yeah that sucks big time (if you are an R)
I love the headline…… “Bush Administration Crumbles”. You liberals can be so entertaining. Best laugh I’ve had all day. Thanks!
Comment by the hapless liberal— 10/27/05 @ 7:00 pm
“Remember the last Supreme Court nominee, from the far right, his name was Bjork, and despite no say, the Dems prevented confirmation, hence the verb: to bjork, you might even say Harriet was pre-bjorked, she never got off the drawing board, yeah that sucks big time (if you are an R)”
I wouldn’t consider the singer Bjork to be from the far right. I’m pretty sure she wasn’t nominated for the Supreme Court by Reagan.
I suppose you mean Judge Robert Bork.
You do also realize that the Democrats had a majority (54-46) in the Senate in 1987, so they controlled both the Judiciary Committee and the overall Senate. Contrary to your belief the Dems had the ultimate in “say”, in regards to the Bork nomination.
Karmalyzed @ 59, I a sure you would chuckle at the headline: Karmalyzed’s Whole Belief System Crumbles: Neo-Cons Found to be Unpatriotic Hypocritical Anti American Liars.
Keep laughing Karmalyzed. You amusement amuses me.
Oh Donnageddoverit. You liberals are always accusing others of that which you yourselves are guilty of. It don’t fly, sistah.
63
Why do Republicans always have to throw in a racist remark? What’s your problem, Karamel fer Brains, is your bedsheet tight in the crotch?
ROGER RABBIT FOR SCOTUS!!! TURN THE EXTREME COURT INTO A WARM AND FUZZY COURT!!! :D :D :D
while all this dissing of one side or the other is somewhat entertaining, i think this is what both parties actually want. americans that can’t see the forest for the trees and are confused by the issues. this leaves our elected officials to do whatever serves them best, screw the tax payers footing the bill. we are a nation divided, and when you divide you can conquer.
You know what would be funny? When Bush was asked by reporters if Miers was “The best and most qualified person to be nominated for the SCOTUS”, Bush replied “Yes, or I wouldn’t hae nominated her.”
When Bush makes his next nomination, some crack reporter should ask: “So is the the second best and second most qualified person to be nominated for SCOTUS?”
Now that would be funny!
wish i was a reporter
Donna @ 52
Flip-Flop??? When did I ever come out in support of Miers? Ohhh… I get it. I forgot about the Lefty Hive Mind. Let me explain something to you. Republicans, unlike Democrats, are a party of diverse opinion (not phony “diversity” window dressing like you guys). We can actually remain in the party while disagreeing with its leadership and/or with other members. We can even publicly grumble that moderates or at least more classic Conservatives need to take back the leadership from the Christian Right. I know that the idea of independent thought is new to you, so I’ll cut you some slack this time. Unfortunately, a software upgrade is unlikely from your nightly MorOn.org mental download.
The Far Right cut its own throat by forcing Miers’ withdrawal.
For decades, our country has been governed by give-and-take politics — i.e., negotiation, compromise, accomodation, middle-road policies and appointees, etc.
The Far Right is having none of it. With them, it’s “our way or no way,” and “you’re either with us, or against us.”
In this case, Democrats were willing to go along with putting a nobody mediocrity on the nation’s highest court because they calculated any alternative from this radical administration could only be worse.
By scuttling Miers’ nomination because she wasn’t in lockstep with their radical agenda completely enough to satisfy them, the Far Right has made its base happy — and given everyone else reason to vote against them and their candidates.
You see, by turning American politics into a “you’re with us or against us” proposition, the Far Right is going to learn that a majority of Americans are against them. And they’ll be out — totally out — because voters will decide there is no place in public life for the Far Right’s uncompromising candidates and agenda.
OK, Bunny Boy, how about your opinion on Maureen Mahoney for SCOTUS?? (BEFORE you get the talking-points download from your Fearless Leaders.)
You can spin it whichever way you want, but as far as I can tell Miers didn’t make it becaues she really didn’t have the credentials, qualifications and record to be on the SCOTUS.
Sure there were extremes on both sides that wouldn’t support her (do we really expect anything less these days?), but the real reason she couldn’t pass muster is because she couldn’t get enough support based on her credentials.
And even if I’m wrong and she was nuked by a combination of hard core right wingers and left wingers, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is in the end, she just wasn’t good enough.
Turn the page
Boy, oh boy….
This trainwreck just keeps getting better and better.