The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (Review)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's some interesting material this week, but hardly any movement at all from the Senators on Harriet.
Schumer was all smiles on MTP, saying that if the Bush Administration withdraws the Miers nomination, they are admitted that they are commanded by the far right extremist hardline out-fo-the-mainstream-etc. He also suggested that the Bush Administration do what he perceives the Reagan Administration as having done when Iran-Contra was in the news: cleaning house and bringing in some fresh faces.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, same show, advised that Pat Fitzgerald should indict only for material crimes, not for perjury or obstruction. On FTN, Robert Ray argued that Fitz had better indict for perjury and obstruction if he finds it, as that's his duty.
Sam Brownback on FNS still wants to know more about Miers. He asked the WH to release those papers concerned with "policy discussions," not her legal work.
Arlen Specter on FTN said that he meant nothing bad when he suggested that Miers had to take a crash course in Constitutional law before her hearings, admitting that he had consulted with a dozen law professors before the Roberts hearings.
Host Bob Schieffer on FTN concluded that the Bush Administration had botched the handling of the Miers nomination because it was so distraught by Fitz investigation of the Joe Wilson scandal™. Feinstein on FTN declared that the Miers confirmation hearings would be "dispositive."
Also on FTN, Newt Gingrich declared that this was no big deal for the White House, as he himself had to endure bumps on his road when he was Speaker. (He didn't mention, though, that he was forced to resign.)
Florida Senator Bill Nelson on LE mentioned that he was an astronaut and that Senators Inouye and Stevens were "big Max Mayfield fans."
Howard Dean said, in many words and in several ways, that BUSH LIED™. He wouldn't talk about "Merlot Democrats."
(read the show-by-show summary below the fold)
HUTCHISON, ALLEN, AND SCHUMER ON MTP. On NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert sat down with Senator George Allen (R-Virginia). Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York), were there via satellite, if not in spirit.
Russert asked Hutchison about alleged Administration hints of a possible withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination. Hutchison doesn't think so: "I think they have complete faith in her, as I do." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter had commented that Miers needed a "crash course in Constitutional law." Russert confronted Hutchison with that, and the Texas Senator replied: "Absolutely not." She then spoke of "commerce cases" and "property rights" and Miers's "practical experience."
Russert asked her about the charge of sexism. Hutchison replied: "I don't think we even have to talk about that." Miers brings "a great diversity" to the Court.
Russert asked Senator Allen about Miers's support for set-asides and racial quotas, and the Virginia Senator responded that being a judge is different from holding elected office or being the President of a bar association. It is important to "calm down… then make a decision" on whether Miers will sit on the Court.
Schumer was smiles. Smiles was Schumer. The burden of proof, he said, was "on the nominee to prove she's capable." She does not know Constitutional law, he observed from meeting her. "We have to know her judicial philosophy." We know less about it, he said, than of "any nominee of recent memory."
Schumer: "Will she have an independent mind?" (Beholden to the White House?)
Asked if the President should withdraw her nomination, Schumer replied: "I don't think George Bush will" withdraw it. It would be a loss for the President, he explained, a sign that he is controlled by the radical and extreme right wing out-of-the-mainstream lockstep fringe – language like that – of the Republican Party. No Republican Senators have called for her withdrawal, he noted.
Asked if she would be confirmed, Schumer said that if the vote were held right now, she'd lose in committee and on the floor. "The hearings are going to be make-or-break for Harriet Miers," he said, in a way they have not been for another nominee "in recent memory."
Russert asked Allen if he would have preferred that the President had nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Allen responded: "Yes, I would have liked Janice Rogers Brown – and others."
Russert tried to document his case that the White House had pledged to fire anyone even tangentially involved with the Joe Wilson scandal™. Senator Allen said he did not know the facts of Fitzgerald's case: "I've been more focused on Harriet Miers and reducing gas prices."
Hutchison reminded: "An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict." If there is an indictment, she wants to be for a crime, not for a peripheral issue such as perjury, conspiracy, obstruction. Those things, she suggested, a prosecutor might pull out to "justify" the time and expense of his investigation,
Schumer said he is willing to accept Fitzgerald's decision. Russert asked him if he regretted his vote for the Iraq war knowing what he knows now, and Chuck said: "No, Tim." His vote in favor of the war, he explained, was a vote in favor of "an active war on terror."
Schumer reminded us that President Reagan brought fresh faces into his Administration "when he was in a similar situation" – Iran-Contra – and Bush should do the same. Allen disagreed and said that the President would not take advice from Schumer.
RAY AND LOWELL ON FNS. Former Whitewater prosecutor Robert Ray and former Dem counsel for the Clinton impeachment House Judiciary Committee Abbe Lowell – also Gary Condit's lawyer – were host Chris Wallace's second batch of guests on FNS. (I'll get to the first momentarily.) The most interesting thing here is another take on Hutchison's sentiment that any indictment should be for a crime – the leak itself – not for such things as perjury and obstruction.
Ray indicated on FNS that it is the duty of prosecutors to indict for perjury and obstruction as things which hinder prosecution. Lowell fretted the "scary moment" when we risked giving too much power to the prosecutor.
BROWNBACK AND LEAHY ON FNS. This was the moment I was waiting for this morning: Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday (the aforementioned first batch of guests). Pat Leahy was there, as well, and he told Wallace that he and Specter had to demand of Miers: "Look, answer the questions" on the questionnaire returned last week.
For his part, Senator Brownback is not breaking any White House hearts just yet. He said that he needs more information about Miers, not just what is "dribbling out." He needs the "full picture." He wants some of Miers's White House documents, he said, as they represent her professional life over the last five years. He acknowledged the White House's reluctance to turn over these docs, but said that this is "a risk you assume when you nominate someone [from] inside the White House." He wants documents only of a "policy nature," dealing with the "policy discussion," not her legal advice given "as a lawyer."
Wallace asked Senator Leahy what would happen if the President withdraws Miers but then offers a more conservative nominee. Leahy said he does not "play that game." Each nominee, he averred, would be taken as an individual, not as related to some other possible nominee.
SPECTER AND FEINSTEIN ON FTN. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and committee member Diane Feinstein were the first guests on CBS's Sunday Bob Schieffer vehicle, Face the Nation. Off the bat, Schieffer wanted to know how much trouble Harriet Miers's nomination was in.
Specter: "I don't think the nomination is in trouble." He advised everyone to let this follow the Constitutional process and to let the Senate decide.
Of Miers, he said he thinks she has the capacity to handle Constitutional law, and "if she makes the case, she can be confirmed." As to his comment about Miers having to take a crash course in Constitutional law, Specter shrugged this off. It's something everyone must do, he said: "I consulted with a dozen professors before the Roberts confirmation hearings." So Arlen also boned up, and this might give us a clue where he found the notion of "Super Duper Incredo Precedent."
Feinstein quipped that Harriet's hearings will be "dispositive." She is concerned about where Miers stands on our obligation to uphold international treaties we've signed.. She is upset that Miers refused to say that she would recuse herself from cases involving this President, asserting that Miers was in it up to her neck. Feinstein glibly proclaimed that a number of things have crossed Miers's White House desk, including matters "with regard to torture." She repeated that the hearings would be dispositive.
Schieffer: "You're a woman, she's a woman, some people – including the President's wife – have said that they'd hoped the President would select a woman." Feinstein praised Miers's "resoluteness, a firmness of character."
Asked if Harriet had the votes to be confirmed, Specter shot back that the "uniform reaction among Senators" is to give Miers a chance: "People [Senators] haven't made up their minds."
Schieffer asked Specter if the White House had botched the nomination because it was distracted by Fitzgerald's possible indictments in the Joe Wilson scandal™. (Schieffer loved that notion.) Specter doesn't think so, and he hinted that they may still call James Dobson to testify at the Miers confirmation hearings. He said that abortion is a contentious issue.
Schieffer asked Feinstein if they committee should call Dobson and others to testify. Di Fi responded: "In my view, very strongly yes." For his part, the chairman noted that the witness were split "50-50" and the American people have a right to know.
NEWT ON FTN. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich was Schieffer's next guest on Face the Nation. Newt declared that the Republican Party was at its "biggest intersection since the nomination of Ronald Reagan." The party, he argued, needs to refocus on "real change." He said otherwise, it is "defending the indefensible," like Brownie and Katrina. Schieffer asked him if the White House was falling apart and he laughed knowingly. He's been through this himself, he said, and everybody goes through it.
Newt is forgetting that he was forced to resign. He did not survive his dark days.
Newt agreed with Specter on Harriet: "She does well in the hearings, she is a slam dunk for the nomination."
Newt said that Tom DeLay was right to step aside, and that he should be replaced if his lawyers don't clear up the Ronnie Earle thing before January.
Newt told Schieffer that the Republicans were becoming like the Democrats were when he swept to power in the '94 elections, thus the Republicans have to refocus and become the party of change.
That's Newt for this week.
BILL NELSON ON LATE EDITION. Wilma was everywhere on LE, and Blitzer spoke with Florida's Democrat Senator Bill Nelson. About Wilma. He road around in a plane, chasing it. He said that the FEMA would do a better job with Wilma than they did with Katrina, since "they have a professional" (not Brownie) in charge. The Florida National Guard, he said, was "pre-positioned."
He explained the storm chaser airplane, how it gathers data and beams it to Max Mayfield at the hurricane center. "You're looking out the window, you're looking down at the soup." He contrasted this with the "beautiful sight I saw as an astronaut."
He is "going to help get them another aircraft, Wolf."
Blitzer complained about lack of federal funding and asked if Nelson were going to change that. The Senator said that he's spoken to Senators Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), "big fans of Max Mayfield," and they are going to stop the cuts in the National Weather Service. (They are the co-chair and chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee.)
He said that he's going to make people purchase flood insurance "or else they'll have to face the consequences."
HOWARD DEAN ON TW. Host George Stephanopoulos spent his time chatting with DNC chairman Howard Dean. ("Will Republican stumbles lead to gains by the Democrats?")
"It's hard to say" whether or not Dems should vote for Harriet Miers, Deans says, as they have "no clue as to what she believes." Steph argued that they had "some clue," and he cited that Right to Life survey she filled out in Dallas a decade ago. Dean finds it "disturbing," but he wants to wait for the hearings. He demanded that the President "waive executive privilege" and turn over Harriet's WH docs. (NOTE: This would be a goldmine for the Dems, the President's private communications with his lawyer.)
"This is the most mismanaged nomination I've ever seen by the White House," Dean said. And he said he had no opinion on Harriet, although he felt that John Roberts "had no idea what its like to be a woman." (Can Dean explain?)
"What has she been doing for the past four or five or eight years?"
"My guess is that if we don't get these documents, she doesn't get confirmed." Steph asked what he would advise Democrat Senators, and Howard said that he doesn't advise Democrats Senators.
Dean compared this "incompetence in the White House," the handling of Harriet Miers, "with their incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina."
Steph brought up the Democrat debate about a certain date for truth withdrawal and asked Dean if he sided with Feingold or with Hillary. Dean said that Bush has botched Iraq. He accused one Iraqi of having voted several times. ("An ABC correspondent saw it and talked about it on television.")
Howard declared that if the elections were a success, we're finished by the President's criteria, and we should leave. He interjected, though, that President Bush '"has made a terrorist nest where there was none." This means, of course, that the Democrats as represented by Dean have no particular criteria for success in Iraq other than getting out of there.
Dean promised a Democrat platform of honesty in government and free stuff, and he said that they've been working with mayors, governors, and Senators to come up with a united message. They're close to that, he said, but it is difficult because the party has been divided for so long.
Dean had said in a speech that the Democrat Party's base is "Merlot Democrats." Laughing it off, he would not define the term for Steph, but he might mean that he thinks the Democrat base is either comprised of drunkards or currently drunk.
"We're not a pro-gay marriage party," he said. "We're for equal protection under the law for all."
He used Newt as an example, picking up 50 seats in '94 by nationalizing the elections and setting up Republicans as an alternative. He said that the Dems are doing the same thing, like Newt, hanging on corruption.
He said that the Joe Wilson scandal™ comes back to BUSH LIED™ when we went to Iraq. All scandals, he asserted come back to BUSH LIED™.
Even if Patrick Fitzgerald does not come back with indictments, it won't matter to Dean "because I do not believe there are honest people running this government." Read: BUSH LIED™.
~~~~~~
Have at it.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | President's Weekly Radio Address (and Dem response) — Comments (35) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows (Review) 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I don't see Brownback supporting Miers, he also expressed concern for her views on affirmative action and quotas.
As much as it pains me to say it, I think Schumer is right, the votes just aren't there. I don't see her getting past the committee, if she even gets that far.
Pretty bold thing to say, isn't it? Maybe conservative senators are feeling their oats a little and getting ready to take some sort of action.
"Senator Allen said he did not know the facts of Fitzgerald's case: "I've been more focused on Harriet Miers and reducing gas prices.""
Ahem. Sen. Allen is more focused on reducing gas prices?
I didn't hear this quote, but assume it's accurate and not taken out of context.
So, what, exactly, is Senator Allen doing specifically to reduce gas prices?
gas prices. He didn't elaborate at all.
That's what I figured. Just wanted to make sure.
I always get a big kick out of politicians when they say, "Oh, I'm not paying attention to that controversial stuff over there. I'm focused on the more "important" stuff over here."
Like, um, reducing gas prices. As if Senator Allen is working every day to solve the near term gas price problem. How on earth is Senator Allen, or any individual senator, going to reduce gas prices?
Strange that the one thing Congress can do to reduce gas prices, namely a temporary elimination to Federal gas taxes is never proposed.
Hasn't Dean seen "Sideways?" Does that make Miles an anti-Democrat?
Bush can't withdraw Miers and Schumer won't vote for her, unqualified you know. Liberals can't lose.
In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen him so happy.
For the GOP to win this one, Harriet Miers will have to perform brilliantly enough at her hearings -- even in the shadow of John Roberts -- to convince her detractors that she's the one. This is going to be almost infinitely difficult, meaning nearly impossible, and all the indicators warn us that the opposite will be the case.
Chuckie knows this.
He'll be witless when Stevens's replacement is selected. (I don't think this was Bush's strategy, and if it was, it is a bad one.)
that gas prices are down? Whatever the Senator is doing, it's working.
I keep watching the clock go tick, tick, tick heading towards the hearings. my sense is that it would be vastly preferable to short circuit the hearings - a withdrawal, as artful as possible (how Bush does this, as she was the "Best Qualified Person" he could find, is unclear), and a relatively quick nomination from the Deep Conservative Bench.
So, "let's wait to the hearings" hurts the cause, in my view. Whatever Senator Allen is saying in public, I hope in private he, Brownback, and others are pressing to get a withdrawal and a submission of a legitimate SCOTUS nominee.
I must give Chuckie credit on his support for thr Iraq war. Perfect answe to Russert:
"Schumer said he is willing to accept Fitzgerald's decision. Russert asked him if he regretted his vote for the Iraq war knowing what he knows now, and Chuck said: "No, Tim." His vote in favor of the war, he explained, was a vote in favor of "an active war on terror." "
That makes up for a lot of sins with me, and while I don't agree with his preferred activist judicial philosophy, I DO agree that it is the proper to vote up or down on that issue.
Roberts was the egghead choice, who could dazzle the crowd when it came to legal legerdermain. He didn't really like Roberts, probably didn't trust him too much because he's a little smarter than the Prez.
That's why he fell back on Harriet, who is dumber than anyone else we might have wanted, but she's a good soldier, a solid pro-business choice.
It really isn't any more complicated than that. Bush isn't capable of thinking any more advanced than that, which is why the intellectuals in the Conservative movement, including George Will and Bill Kristol, want to put guns to their heads.
In the Bush family. Dan Quayle was probably the stupidest individual ever selected to be the Vice President of the United States. Bush gets enough of that brainy talk fron Cheney, and has a lot of secretaries to get new Sharpies to circle the Big Points™ for him, and he wanted a loyalist. Miers is that "You're No Jack Kennedy" choice among Bush's inner circle.
Bush's father deliberately chose a stupid man to be his Vice President because he knew that everything Quayle would say would be, well, stupid. But now the situation is reversed: Bush 'chose' Cheney to be the Veep, and Cheney is about 100x smarter than the President is. After all this time, Bush is just sick and tired of all that, and Roberts practically made his head spin, so he picked someone who he "knows" is "the right choice" -- someone on his level. Harriet Miers is the Peter Principle choice. IMHO, YMMV, All Disclaimers Apply, Yadda Yadda.
Ah, so "the" Senator has done "something", and gas prices are now down.
Can you explain what specifically Senator Allen has done that has led to a decline in gas prices?
Or are you just arbitrarily assigning credit to "the" senator (Senator Allen) for the current, and possibly temporary, decline in gas prices?
Please explain.
"That's why he fell back on Harriet, who is dumber than anyone else we might have wanted..."
The last person I remeber being vilified in such a way was The Gipper and then the Dubya himself.
Gipper beat the the USSR, tamed inflation and rivals FDR.
Dubya's tax cuts saved us from a post 911 recession and leaves dead terrorists in his wake...
last laughs go to....
Aren't you glad unknowns, like say, you and I aren't being pre-judged by the likes of Will, Kridtol and, well buddy....you.
plus
hide the gun from Will before he reads this
Unlike the Gipper and Dubya, we're not talking about someone who has charisma, and we're not talking about someone who is running for President.
Harriet Miers is the wrong choice for this position precisely because she's been so manifestly unimpressive among the senators who have met and talked with her. Even the most positive people have been absolutely lukewarm -- none have been dazzled. Her inability to keep herself on the Texas Bar by paying her dues is just inexcusable. Her understanding of the Constitution is murky. The best anyone can say about her is that she dealt with some legal issues while working on the Texas Lottery commission.
The only person so far in the Universe that I can think of who have been dazzled by Harriet Miers is the President. And I think he's a man who is easily amused.
The Gipper didn't beat the USSR any more than Al Gore invented the Internet. My father did more to beat the USSR than the Gipper ever did. The Gipper carried the achievements of other people forward and made them palatable to the American People. He was a great President, let's make no mistake about it, but Ronald Reagan alone didn't beat the Soviet Union -- it took the actions of millions of people who were much less concerned with their haircuts and much less concerned with their legacy than Ronald Reagan to beat the USSR.
Harriet Miers is a choice who is positively uninspiring me to work for this party. There were so many better alternatives, even you have to admit that, if you can get past your pugnaciousness and just say it.
that the Berlin wall would have fallen if Carter had won a second term...if Mondale had won a first. I'll check back in a week.
The cable bill got lost below the junk mail....
By the way, see Reagan's War (the book)
Gorby and other soviets' records from kremlin discussions do credit reagan with bancrupting them, and especially with the star wars threat as potentially rendering their ICBM's obsolete and the ICBM advantage was all they has they kept them from 3rd world status.
The enemy credit Reagan, not just educated, informed observers, incl the dem at the time who hated reagan at the time 'cock that intuitively knew that Reagan was quite different from the detent/appeasement crowd.
Reagan, and no one lese called the evil empire out and for the wall to come down and for defense spending to soar and for missiles in Europe and told Gorby to go jump at Rekyavik (sp?).
Yes, a lot of good people brought us to the point where Reagan won from. But it was Reagan that said we can WIN, not just co-exist. And when he took office, we were dangerously behind and the USSR was on t eh march all over the world, even in this hemisphere.
2nds to the Pope and Lech
and your Dad!!! truly
"bone up" comments.
I expect a senator to have to bone up on constitutional law, but I don't expect the nominee to the SCOTUS to have to do so. They should already have a pretty firm grasp of constitutional law, and know exactly where their philosophy is based.
I kind of agree though with the idea that Miers is the "good soldier" pick. Only problem is we weren't looking for a "good soldier" for the scotus, but an originalist.
Also, I have said it before but there is something that just tees me off, when Russert tries to cover the Wilson/Plame story. He is smack dab in the middle of it, he is not an objective observer, but a part of the story. He really, really shouldn't be covering this story, it just has smarmy written all over it.
She seems to be saying that either a)Fitzpatrick would stoop to bringing a bogus indictment, or b) that perjury, etc. is not a crime. Both don't wash.
Fitzgerald has a great resume and people speak highly of him. If there he thinks a crime of any sort has been committed he should do his job. Then we will have a trial to see if he is right.
Kay should think of something more intelligent to say.
others on another show-one of them Clinton's defense attorney during the impeachment said pretty much the same thing-that if there is not actualy a "crime (ie if the revelation of Plame's name wasn't a crime)" then the perjury/obstruction type charges shouldn't be filed.
I am not sure I agree with her, but this was essentially the argument made with regard to Martha Stewart and why her charge and conviction didn't seem fair. I don't think public officials should have free reign to lie during testimony-but I admit that I will have a lot more sympathy for those charged, if the charges are solely related to the investigation rather than an actual primary crime being committed.
My father voted against Carter. He's been a pro-Nixon man since 1962, and very proudly. And to be honest, if most people in the media were polled today, they would be prouder of Nixon than they were in their yoof, because Nixon accomplished more than Carter, and he probably accomplished more than Reagan (at least tangibly -- symbolism is different, and I don't expect anyone now to start waving Nixon posters around.)
We were right then, and we're right now, and that is why I'm arguing that Miers is a lightweight choice and someone that we shouldn't be proud of or accept without a lot of criticism. Nixon would never have appointed Miers. I cannot believe it.
And this is my final word on this subject for tonight:
I've met a lot of law professors and legal theorists, and more than my fair share of lawyers and scholars. I haven't been impressed with Miers as an intellect, despite what the President has said regarding her devotion to conservative priniciples. We can vote for someone who makes the President feel good right now, or we can implore him to choose someone who will be a justice we can all be proud of on the bench in twenty years. Dick Cheney says that in ten years we'll all change our minds, but Rush was more correct: We can't see any evidence of that right now.
The evidence that's been coming out about Miers, combined with her lackluster showing with Senators, has been anything but reassuring. She strikes me as someone who, yes, is probably a good lawyer, yes, is probably a pioneer for women, and yes, who is probably a very capable choice for the position of, say, general counsel of a University. But for the Supreme Court? The President has given us a myth surrounded by a riddle wrapped up in an enigma, so to speak.
I'm with George Will -- this was a disappointing choice and someone who has a long way to climb, all uphill, before I'll feel comfortable with her nomination.
As I've said before, I don't think the cronyism charge holds any water. I don't care about her support for the Raggio Lecture Series. I don't think her Affirmative Action stuff is really that terrifying -- those are all positions that any woman lawyer would have been forced to take during the 1990s, or lose their careers.
I just don't believe in the rest of her legal scholarship or her intellect. And the more evidence that comes out, the more that becomes shown to the world. Her questionnaire responses were almost juvenile. She hasn't intereviewed well with Senators. Aside from being the "President's woman" -- who is she?
The Supreme Court is too important for the next 20 years to entrust to a President who is currently in decline and will only sit in his office for the next three without being extraordinarily careful. I'm still waiting for the hearings, and I'll be able to tell you in the first couple of hours whether she's a drip or not.
Actually, Allen is probably doing the most effective thing about gas prices any Senator can do: stay out of the way & let markets work.
if you argued that Reagan knew his role was pivotal and he played it properly. What follows naturally is that GWB either does not know his role is pivotal or is not playing it properly. For what it's worth, I don't enjoy crossing my fingers and hoping GWB is right.
Reagan absolutely knew that his time in history and his role as the President was the most pivotal moment in the latter half of the 20th Century.
I wish Bush realized that after eight years of the Clintonista retrenchment that what we needed for every selection he makes for the Court is just as imperative. Dividing this party right now is a horrible, terrible idea. We're all sitting here prepared to FIGHT and I know that Mike K. knows what I mean.
Perjury is a crime, not a mere technacality. I believed Clinton perjured himself & needed to pay the price. Same with anyone in this administration, no matter who may commit the crime. Accountability for all.
According to tradesports.com:
The "market" has Miers having a 28% chance of being confirmed.
I hope the President's anger at his base doesn't make him choose Gonzales. I'd love Garza, Jones, or Owen...
Is there any non-judge who would make a good nominee? How about Mel Martinez? I think he's pro-life, and being a senator, he'd be confirmed easily.
"Her legal background, her absolute leadership in the legal field when she was a practicing lawyer are unqualified. "
There must be better things to do on a Sunday morning than listen to people who for the most part are not that bright.
I see that the originator of this post found it prudent to note that Newt does not have a perfect record. Hmmmm... I challenge ANYONE to try to say that have a perfectly clear consciense. What was it that Jesus said? 'let he who is perfect throw the first stone' something to that effect, eh? I think we should remember that we are, none of us perfect, all we may do is our best. On that note, is this a Rebulican blog or a conservative one? Newt is quite likely our best bet for a national speaker with some backing, so why is it that this post-er finds it necessary to critique him? W is obviously not our first choice, P. Buchanan is, but seeing as his rep. is horrible with this nation, Newt is out BEST chance for some sort of consensus. If we are to stop tearing at our own underbelly, why not start somewhere simple like supporting a REAL conservative. To H*** with Miers (she can't come close to knowning con law), with W (who has abandoned the cause), with Cheney (who lost the will to fight), with Rice (whose reputation is tarnished by affiliation), with Mehlman (he cares about nothing but advancing the party, not the cause), and all the rest who dont have the stomach to hold the line. I would rather stand on the losing side with the idealists than on the winning side with the sell-outs. I am tired of 'my party' not havin the stomach to support it's cause in the face of moderates. I am a conservative, I believe abortion is wrong, I believe the second amendment is without limit for law-abiding citizens, I believe privacy is a right when it doesn't infringe on others, I believe small government is more effective and cheaper for tax payers, I believe a welfare state is the bain of our nations existence, I believe a welfare state would have Thomas Jefferson commit suicide, I believe in the right of a person to suppor themselves, I believe that a person willing to sacrifice freedom for security will recieve neither, I am not afraid to admit that our laws are based on Christian tradition, I am a conservative, and I am unashamed. If you are not than shame on you is my moral warning; dont mess with this is my physical warning...
I think you are taking this quote out of context. KBH was speaking in support of Miers. Either this was a verbal stumble, a transcription error, or a Freudian slip. The most you could hope for is the latter.
I don't appreciate it when people try to hold folks to a literal interpretation of obvious verbal stumbles, even if they may provide a window to the subconscious.
Martha Stewart basically went to jail for several months for making a misstatement under oath. Compare to Clinton, who knew d*** well what he was saying, and never did end up visiting the Crossbar Hotel.
What I haven't figured out is why, after she went to jail, does anyone talk to federal prosecutors voluntarily any more?
Would you voluntarily talk to someone where if you made any misstatement, you could end up spending months in jail? I wouldn't.
There is no doubt that Martha Steward got screwed. The only reason that she went to jail at all is to stop the damage to her company.
Frankly, I'd rather see her on the SCOTUS than Miers if Bush wants someone with real world experience. I think she's a Dem, but I'd still sooner trust her with my rights and freedoms than Miers.
Kelo - NOT a good thing!
That was the advice of Sen., Leahy on FOX Sunday. I'm sorry that I'm so cynical, but I think the reason that all the Senators go on about waiting for the hearings is because they want their chance to pose and preen before the cameras.