Withdrawn!
And the Rebel Allaince wins as this morning, Harriet Miers withdrew herself from the nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Below are exceprts from news services.
Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."
The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.
That's the White House spin--the document part--but we know why she stapped down. She was taking the worst beating of her life, and it was because the president made a mistake. He made a huge mistake in nominating a close friend, and someone unqualified.
And the Democrats had better shut up over this. We aren't radical. We looked at this nominee closely, and made our stand. She didn't fit. She wasn't qualified. Thyis is the part I dislike because they went after her, too. Not as hard as we did, but they still went after her. Sen. Schumer told FOX News this weekend that she didn't have the votes on the committee, and she didn't have the votes in the Senate. So, should we also chalk a bit of the opposition to the "radical" left-wing of the Democrats?
Democrats and Republicans braced for a political brawl over Bush's third Supreme Court pick in seven weeks. With Chief Justice John Roberts in place, Bush had two pools of candidates from which to choose: Conservative jurists who received serious consideration last time or somebody outside what Bush calls the "judicial monastery," perhaps a current or former senator who would be welcomed by the GOP- controlled Senate.
Bush promised a new nominee "in a timely manner." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he expected a replacement within days and wants to hold hearings by Christmas. Equally likely was that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would remain on the court until early next year while her replacement is sought, a prospect that concerns many conservatives.
For the conservatives concerned over Miers, maybe they should remember that had the preisdent made this nomination properly, O'Connor would be gone by Thanksgiving. But he decided that Miers would be stealth enough to pass through the Senate--the GOP in loyal support, and the Democrats left with nothing to grab onto. Too bad that did not happen. As of 8:30 EST last night, it's reported that she handed in her resignation in terms of the nomination. She will maintain her spot as White House Counsel.
Bush may have his pools to choose from, but maybe he should pay attention to some of us "lay advisors" out here. Thomas and Marcie put together a stellar list, along with reasons why they should be backed, why the Democrats couldn't oppose them. The problem as we have seen is that the president has little faith in his party. Well, Mr. President, you are the de facto leader of the Republican Party. If you can't keep the kids under control, then it's time for you to utilize some of that political capital you claim you possess, and start cracking skulls. Luttig, Williams, Garza, Brown, Jones, Alito...One after another, and each one is equally good and qualified. Each one is anything but "extreme" or "extraordinary." There should be no desertion or retreat from the GOP over a nominee like them. If there is, you know those are the ones that get no help from you at all come election time.
The Democrats are giddy this morning as they continue to blame the Miers defeat on the extreme right wing. There wasn't an extreme side to this debate. This debate was between two solid factions. Loyalists, and the Rebel Alliance. And I'd like to address a point that irritated me during this running debate.
There was an awful lot of name-calling in this debate. We are conservatives, not liberals. We don't call each other names. That kiddie-crap arguing that Democrats engage in constantly. The Loyalists were not "shills." They wanted to support the president. Likewise, the Rebel Alliance were not "extreme hate-mongers." We had concerns. This is something that had to be new to Democrats. Unlike them, and their continued meltdown, we can move on from this point, and still respect each other.
Did some of the debate get extreme? Yes, it did. But we recognized it quickly enough, and called for a return to civility. Democrats have no knowledge of civility, so they'll never change. We can. We did. And now that she's gone, we can move on. The president has promised a prompt replacement, and I hope it will be a good one; one that we can all agree on. (Not the Democrats though; they're going to hate whomever he chooses.)
This debate showed the nation that we can be honest with ourselves. Thomas, Marcie, and I are staunch conservatives. We voted for President Bush in 2004, and Thomas and I voted for him in 2000. (Marcie was not yet 18 in 2000.) We respect some of the commentators out there both in favor of and against Miers. Hugh Hewitt led the Loyalists. Charles Krauthammer and George Will led the charge against. In all the exchanges we heard, there was no disrespect between either side. Every one of Hugh Hewitt's interviews were cordial. Agreeing to disagree was commonplace on his shows. I'm sure this morning Hewitt is unhappy. I'll be watching his site to see how he reacts to this.
But the point is that either she did this herself, or she was asked by the White House to do this. Frankly, who cares? She is stepping aside. We have the awesome opportunity to have a good nominee named, and take this fight to the Democrats. Don't back down from this. He can't make nice with these idiots. Take the fight to them, stick a new backbone in the Senate GOP, and finish off the Democrats absolute control of the high court. Mr. President, nominate someone that will make us happy and proud.
Mistress Pundit
And the Rebel Allaince wins as this morning, Harriet Miers withdrew herself from the nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Below are exceprts from news services.
Under withering attack from conservatives, President Bush abandoned his push to put loyalist Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court and promised a quick replacement Thursday. Democrats accused him of bowing to the "radical right wing of the Republican Party."
The White House said Miers had withdrawn because of senators' demands to see internal documents related to her role as counsel to the president. But politics played a larger role: Bush's conservative backers had doubts about her ideological purity, and Democrats had little incentive to help the nominee or the embattled GOP president.
That's the White House spin--the document part--but we know why she stapped down. She was taking the worst beating of her life, and it was because the president made a mistake. He made a huge mistake in nominating a close friend, and someone unqualified.
And the Democrats had better shut up over this. We aren't radical. We looked at this nominee closely, and made our stand. She didn't fit. She wasn't qualified. Thyis is the part I dislike because they went after her, too. Not as hard as we did, but they still went after her. Sen. Schumer told FOX News this weekend that she didn't have the votes on the committee, and she didn't have the votes in the Senate. So, should we also chalk a bit of the opposition to the "radical" left-wing of the Democrats?
Democrats and Republicans braced for a political brawl over Bush's third Supreme Court pick in seven weeks. With Chief Justice John Roberts in place, Bush had two pools of candidates from which to choose: Conservative jurists who received serious consideration last time or somebody outside what Bush calls the "judicial monastery," perhaps a current or former senator who would be welcomed by the GOP- controlled Senate.
Bush promised a new nominee "in a timely manner." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he expected a replacement within days and wants to hold hearings by Christmas. Equally likely was that retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would remain on the court until early next year while her replacement is sought, a prospect that concerns many conservatives.
For the conservatives concerned over Miers, maybe they should remember that had the preisdent made this nomination properly, O'Connor would be gone by Thanksgiving. But he decided that Miers would be stealth enough to pass through the Senate--the GOP in loyal support, and the Democrats left with nothing to grab onto. Too bad that did not happen. As of 8:30 EST last night, it's reported that she handed in her resignation in terms of the nomination. She will maintain her spot as White House Counsel.
Bush may have his pools to choose from, but maybe he should pay attention to some of us "lay advisors" out here. Thomas and Marcie put together a stellar list, along with reasons why they should be backed, why the Democrats couldn't oppose them. The problem as we have seen is that the president has little faith in his party. Well, Mr. President, you are the de facto leader of the Republican Party. If you can't keep the kids under control, then it's time for you to utilize some of that political capital you claim you possess, and start cracking skulls. Luttig, Williams, Garza, Brown, Jones, Alito...One after another, and each one is equally good and qualified. Each one is anything but "extreme" or "extraordinary." There should be no desertion or retreat from the GOP over a nominee like them. If there is, you know those are the ones that get no help from you at all come election time.
The Democrats are giddy this morning as they continue to blame the Miers defeat on the extreme right wing. There wasn't an extreme side to this debate. This debate was between two solid factions. Loyalists, and the Rebel Alliance. And I'd like to address a point that irritated me during this running debate.
There was an awful lot of name-calling in this debate. We are conservatives, not liberals. We don't call each other names. That kiddie-crap arguing that Democrats engage in constantly. The Loyalists were not "shills." They wanted to support the president. Likewise, the Rebel Alliance were not "extreme hate-mongers." We had concerns. This is something that had to be new to Democrats. Unlike them, and their continued meltdown, we can move on from this point, and still respect each other.
Did some of the debate get extreme? Yes, it did. But we recognized it quickly enough, and called for a return to civility. Democrats have no knowledge of civility, so they'll never change. We can. We did. And now that she's gone, we can move on. The president has promised a prompt replacement, and I hope it will be a good one; one that we can all agree on. (Not the Democrats though; they're going to hate whomever he chooses.)
This debate showed the nation that we can be honest with ourselves. Thomas, Marcie, and I are staunch conservatives. We voted for President Bush in 2004, and Thomas and I voted for him in 2000. (Marcie was not yet 18 in 2000.) We respect some of the commentators out there both in favor of and against Miers. Hugh Hewitt led the Loyalists. Charles Krauthammer and George Will led the charge against. In all the exchanges we heard, there was no disrespect between either side. Every one of Hugh Hewitt's interviews were cordial. Agreeing to disagree was commonplace on his shows. I'm sure this morning Hewitt is unhappy. I'll be watching his site to see how he reacts to this.
But the point is that either she did this herself, or she was asked by the White House to do this. Frankly, who cares? She is stepping aside. We have the awesome opportunity to have a good nominee named, and take this fight to the Democrats. Don't back down from this. He can't make nice with these idiots. Take the fight to them, stick a new backbone in the Senate GOP, and finish off the Democrats absolute control of the high court. Mr. President, nominate someone that will make us happy and proud.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:52 AM
2 Comments:
I predicted her nomination and I predicted that she would withdraw. She did the right thing. I have nothing against Harriet Miers personally. I'm sure she is a patriot American. One difference between conservatives and the liberals is that we think for ourselves. We don't always agree. I have no idea who the President will point. I hope it's one on Thomas's and Bunny's list. That would really show that the USSC is but one branch of our three branches of government and it's not to violate the constitution by amending it. That only weakens it. I also voted for Bush-four times. I would vote for them again. I will continue to support our President. I have no idea who is radical right wing of the republican party. I compliment the bloggers on a job well done. Rawriter
Mr. Raw, you are quite correct. She needed to withdraw.
With a little hope, and maybe some better intestinal fortitude, the president will nominate a more qualified person; one that his base will accept and defend.
The attacks on Miers were more than warranted. The White House said "Trust us." As Thomas pointed out--as we pointed out--that no longer is acceptable.
Any reasonable nominee must be proven. Especially when it comes to the court. No more ad hoc law, no more revocation of our rights and liberties through judicial fiat. AMERICA won't stand for it any longer. He is our president because we chose him, but we're not going to tolerate the activism so prominent in the judiciary in recent years.
And Miers showed more colors that she would lean that way than not.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home