Redstate

It seems critics got their facts wrong again - from the linked post by Hugh Hewitt:

In fact, I am increasingly confident that the charges against Miers on the issue of affirmative action are based on a single Washington Post article to which conservatives overreacted in the absence of hard evidence of what they believed Miers to believe. Roger Clegg now has the resolution, and will fax it to me tomorrow, but it seems to me that arguing that the Bar's position was a "quota" when the Bar's resolution says "goal (not a quota)" leaves the question open.

One question is plainly being answered though: The critics of Harriet Miers have gotten the facts wrong again.  And certain people have the gall to claim she is not being borked?

I just figured we should lay our markers down now and explain why 2006 and 2008 won't be so grand for the old party.

to a party prepared to spend like there's no tomorrow, concede everything to the wrong side of the aisle on education reform, push halfheartedly, if at all, for promised reforms on taxes and entitlements, only to receive a stone when I asked for the bread of a new direction from the SCOTUS.

I apologize for my frankness, but I've given a wayward tramp of a party a lot of undeserved love over the past five years, and it's high time she started returning the loving, as promised.  If she doesn't, she'll likely be a good bit colder come '06 and '08.

I'll add that I also do not believe the president will withdraw the nomination.  I voted for him because he's hard headed, but I realize he's hard headed about everything.  Even poor SCOTUS nominees.

Having said that, I do not believe she will be confirmed.  Either she will withdraw herself (doubtful) or she simply will not be confirmed. At this point I'll be amazed if she makes it out of committee.  

My rejection of this nominee has absolutely NOTHING to do with her personally or professionally.  The simple fact is that Bush 43 made campaign promises to conservatives to appoint people similar to Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the court and then failed to do that just as Bush 41 said "read my lips; no new taxes" and then raised taxes.  Now Bush 43 says, "trust me."  Why should we trust him when he has already proven himself a liar?

I'll trust, but I and other conservatives want verification.  We want a known and verified Constitutional constructionist, and if we don't get that, this will be the second, and I hope the last, Bush to be the cause of the Republicans loosing the White House.

Miers has given up a tremendous amount of income at the height of her career to serve Bush.

Perhaps someone can help me on this one, as I'm clearly confused. Was President Bush referring to:

• Harriet's savvy real estate transactions that nearly rival Hillary Clinton's stock portfolio gains?
  
• The amazing sham tax shelter Harriet's firm helped defend, earning her big attorney bucks from tax avoiding clients?
  
• Harriet's cushy job at the Texas Lottery Commission, where she clearly was on a path to management success?
  
• Or quite simply, the cost of all those cards, cookies and candies Harriet so thoughtfully sent her patron all those years.
  

Since the White House Counsel salary certainly isn't slim pickings for a run-of-the-mill second-tier school attorney, hopefully someone can help me understand which remarkable financial sacrifice the President is referring to. Thanks!

scoove

to have been a great investment.  It's gotten her a nomination to the Supreme Court.

Could you post this exact same comment in Pejman's thread? You're losing me a bet.

Thanks.

Hugh, not surprisingly has his facts wrong. The central piece of evidence thus far has actually been her work on the amicus brief in Grutter v. Bollinger. Mehlman was specifically asked about it on the last conference call, and his evasive answer was as good as an admission.

Then there was also the bar thing.

THen there was also the city council thing.

So no, it's not just one piece of evidence.

If you think I'm inclined to bail your butt out of a stupid bet at this point, you're probably not in danger of becoming a rocket scientist any time soon.

Would have requried I join a high-tech lynching with no regard for facts, I feel no sense of loss.

That quote was by the writer of Two Minute Offense.

You seem to toss off certain phrases, apparently without understanding them, on cue.

I'm sick and tired of folks denigrating the President by calling him a liar. Time to put up or shut up. Cite cases and prove that President Bush told intentional falsehoods with the intent to deceive anyone. Otherwise, please shut up.

I agree - Bush is hardheaded.  he will plunge ahead and make her go through the hearings.  she will not impress.  a number of Republicans will not support her (Brownback, Kyl and Coburn - at least -on Judiciary), citing lack of information available to them.  the Dems in the end will be tempted to push her through, to spite the movement conservativies.  but they will fear she will be the anti-Roe and will feel pressure of their base.  the nomination will die a natural death.  

If I'm ging to go to The Pile for not joining the lynch mob, honesty to say so.

She could be a strict constructionist and Bush still broke his promise.  Saint Scalia and Saint Thomas are not only strict constructionalists, but also possesed stellar credentials pertaing to knowledge of constitutional law.  HM has to "bone up" on conlaw before going to the committee.  She is not only not stellar, but completely lacking conlaw experience.

As to losing the White House:

My nerd hobby is trying to outpick US Senate races versus the experts every 2 years.  Someday I'll launch my own site.  I have a great record versus Sabato, Campaign and Elections Magazine, and the Cook Report.

We (republicans) came roaring towards '06 with so much in our favor I would have to write a lengthy diary to explain it all.  Suffice it to say that two variables have been head shots to the republicans.

1. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's (NRSC Chair) complete failure to recruit candidates in states that would have been slam dunks or at least toss ups (but are now strong dem), and
   
2. This nomination.

Other factors (immigration, excessive spending, etc) may depress turnout too.  But the two listed reasons are cutting sharply against us in inside NRSC discussions.  (I'm out of political work now, but used to assist candidates in state and national elections with debate prep).  We should be at plus 3 or 4 for '06.  Dole has eroded that to no gain/loss, and the HM impact (with everything else secondary) makes us -2.  That's just for now, and there is time for change.

The divisions we're seeing at Redstate are at the RNC level too.  Some want HM to go away, but that camp is worried that the clamor for a qualified candidate might open the door for Bush to appoint Gonzalez.  Republicans then might be stuck having to vote for a well qualified candidate who is not conservative enough.  Our only hope is that HM withdraws or fails in committee AND Bush nominates a Luttig or (fill in your pick).  This can get '06 to at least break even.

I agree.  No way Bush turns on HM.

Pray for HM to either go down or be a solid vote (even if a terrible justice) AND for a strong '08 condidate to fix things for the White House.    

More on the Miers calamity here at Confirm Them.  Miers is quoted on judicial activism: "My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue."

Call me incredulous.  This is a perfect example of extreme Left-wing jurisprudence.  A judge perceives a problem that the legislature is not "solv[ing]," then the courts are obligated and entitled to intervene and "solve" it.

Perhaps...just maybe...it might be possible that the failure to "solve" a problem is an accurate reflection of the legislative will of the people. This is, after all, a government "of the people." The so-called failure to pass legislation to solve a problem is in all likelihood a very strong indication that the problem is, in fact, not a problem at all, and represents a state of affairs desired by the population.

The arrogance of Miers is stunning. Maybe she should consider the failure to pass laws or the failure to amend the constitution to suit a particular policy outcome means exactly one thing...that the PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  Full Stop.

This nomination is a full Richter Scale 9.0 disaster. She is advocating positions identical to Brennan, Douglas, Goldberg and other unsavory jurists. This philosophy is anathema to conservatism. Why are conservatives so willing to embark on cruises on the Titanic (i.e., HMS Souter, USS Kennedy)?

Oh no, the perl scripts are evolving! They've begun fighting each other!

Somebody quick, ask them to compute to the last digit the value of pi! (TOS rocks...)

All I was saying is that you use stock phrases without understanding them, almost on cue.

I don't ban for disagreement, cutie.

Good God. Let's add "oversensitive" to the description.

I agree that liar was not the word that should have been used (I wouldn't have).  But here's the proof that we were mislead.

The president promised a Scalia or a Thomas.  

This candidate has no constitutional law experience.  She has to "bone up" before going to committee.  This is utter lack of Scalia or Thomas credentials.

The president didn't lie.  He DID mislead his supporters.  Or do you seriously believe HM is well versed in constitutional law.  Now where's YOUR proof.

Or at the very least speculated that I was a spambot.

You have only yourself to blame. You have two choices.

1. Get off the couch and the leave the party, but please stop crying.
   
2. Stay and change the party from within. Be productive and positive on ways to move the party.

If you thought a party can be a majority with all parts thinking the same and having the same goals then you do not live in the real world.

Either we are a large party with different ideas and opinions or we need to pass the majority mantle back to the DEMS and break apart.

I don't think Ms. Miers is versed at all in constitutional law, nor do I think she needs to be. The constitution is not hard to decipher, even for ordinary mortals. No requirement for a law degree (or pedigree) is required for a Supreme Court Justice. I think we need more scientists, business leaders, and others with fine minds on the court. If they can't decipher laws Congress puts forth, they can just nullify them for being too vague. This would have the fortunate result of letting the public know what the law is all about without having to consult a lawyer.

he's not still here... somewhere... lurking...

Wooohhaahhaahhaahhaahhaahhaahhaahh!

This speech is startling.  It's worth the read.  Given at a time and (apparently) to a group for which there was no incentive to slant her view this way, one can only conclude that this reflects her real views.  Having gone through all the stages, all I have left is to laugh at what a colossally bad decision this nomination is.

Me?  This IS a big tent party.  As a conservative I contribute time and money to support my party and I've earned the right to be critical of it.

If it's not the "my way or the highway" party don't give people their two choices.  Debate and may the best arguments win.

Don't be so sensitive.  Debate is healthy.

And went on at length about it. So as not to speak ill of the man, I never figured dishonesty for the problem.

I don't believe there is a lot of crying going on here.  In fact, I believe many of us are heeding your advice.  We're getting off the couch to voice our displeasure and move the Party, or in this instance, the President, in the direction we want.  Yes, we disagree with the President, but, as you state, this is a big tent party where dissent is allowed.  So, all in all, this is a perfectly good and healthy situation -- it demonstrates vitality and concern by the faithful.

Should we also have lawyers performing surgery and should MDs practice law?

If you want to hire a tax attorney to work on your criminal murder case you go right ahead.  I for one want a constitutional lawyer (or judge or professor) to serve on the court.

You can still bring much diversity in those parameters.

As to the constitution's requirements you are correct.  One doesn't even need a high school school diploma to be a scotus justice.  But if that's your bar I hope you never appoint a justice in your life.  : )

It's telling that HM supportes have sunk to arguing why appointments shouldn't have to know what they are doing to get on the court.  Many lawyers well versed in conlaw make a point of stating that they would not be a good enough pick.

Take Laura Ingraham.  She clerked for a scotus (Thomas), which is more than HM did in the conlaw field.

...but even Laura admits she (Laura) wouldn't make be a good pick.

If you think this is crying, you are mistaken.  These are the words of a man on the edge, staring into the abyss that awaits a party that delivers on very little of what it promises.  And if you think that the invective has been laid on a little thick, let me promise you that you ain't seen nothin' yet.  Let this nominee be confirmed, and should she fail to be anything other than the second coming of Scalia - or, better said, when she proves to be an O'Conner two smidgens to the right, as the evidence suggests - you'll hear invective that will peel even the skin of Thomas Fleming.  And as for changing the party from within, let me be blunt: this is just one more of those Lucy-Charlie Brown-football arrangements.  Time and time again, we do just that, and those who we support, who profess to espouse our principles, betray us.  Lucy needs a good, old-school whipping to learn her a lesson about etiquette and respect.

a big tent party though?  While the Republicans get votes from many places, it seems to me that the SoCon's cannot tolerate a fiscal conservative like me (who is relatively pro-choice and somewhat liberal on other social matters) and that is where the party will break up.  When the fiscal conservatives (who are not very socially conservative) see the party spending like crazy and only acting to appease the SoCon's, the difference between voting for the other side is not very large.

1. Shut up and get in line, or
   
   
2. Don't let the door hit you on your fat, couch-enhanced arse on the way out.

Yep - that's an effective strategy for a governing coalition.

Silly us for believeing that the Republican Party was actually the center-RIGHT party of the United States.  And to think that some of us have actually worked quite a long time to build that very perception...

There are times or issues when the argument that we should shut up and get into line is appropriate.  This just ain't one of them.

I have been a ping pong ball on the whole Miers thing so far, I have that you have SpectatorGirl have been positive advocates who have done so in a well reasoned manner.

Snipes from mike and leon not withstanding.

Oz

I'm not really on the fence so much as jumping back and forth across it.

Two points:

1. The party in power is generaly cursed with being divided, while the party out of power unites to block things.  PoliSci 101.  (However, the dems are fighting between the DLC and MoveOn crowds as they seek their future in a majority red nation, so we are catching a rare break).
   
2. Fiscons aren't getting what they want (see spending) and socons aren't get what they want (Strict constructionist AND qualified justices, thus abortion / church state / affirm action quotas, etc).  We are in the same boat.  If you want to be a fiscon/solib you might try the libertarians.  But I hope you will fight within the republican party for your goals and mine.

Btw, I consider myself socon/fiscon.

Whatever.  I am voicing my objections through whatever venue I can (here, and by phone calls and emails to my Senators - Cornyn and Hutchison, who are both, sad to say, signed on to the cheerleader squad).  The only alternative 'strategy' I see would be to shut up.  

I think most of us are aware that the conservative reaction -- which is indeed millions of individual reactions -- will not move Bush on this.  But by God it's still a free country, and whether I'm heard or not, I will have my say.

You have a link to the full text of the speech (it didn't appear in the speeches CT linked)?

I'm Thomas, not Mike.

I agree on SpectatorGirl.

That is all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/miers/EWDSpeech.pdf

Ms. Miers has leveraged her income considerably by working so closely with President George W. Bush in the White House. Not only will she be in great demand for jobs paying a lot more than she was making prior to working in the White House, she can supplement such a windfall by writing a book about her White House tenure that will bring her even more treasure.

I never thought I would feel this way, but I kind of hope the GOP does get spanked in either 06 or 08.  Nothing bloody mind you - perhaps the loss of the House or Senate, but not both.

I hope that a little loss might remind Republicans - particularly in Congress - to be Republicans.  It is pretty scary when you have people like Ms. Pelosi sounding more fiscally responsible than guys like Mr. Young.  I don't believe her, but the Dems will get traction with the issue if the GOP keeps on keeping on.

When you see his mouth moving.  

In any case, circumstances and other political considerations may void agreements or apparent agreements.  

What exactly was Bush's committments on judges?  Nominate someone like Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas.  A strict constitutionalist.  The main idea is to 'vote against Roe'  

But the details of this is in the head of the hearer.  Or the devil is in the details.  

Even a vote against Roe is a bit vague, is it to overturn Roe or to vote against some piece of it say LTA.  

How tough is Bush really?  He has bailed on other nominees that got in trouble (Chavez and the first head of DHS).  He caved on the highway bill (remember the first ever veto threat?)

I don't know what Bush will do anymore, or any less, than the rest of you, but I can speculate with the best of `em.  There is no need to pull the nomination right now, so he won't.  He can, however, go all guns for her in the hearings; or he can provide pop gun support and blame any defeat on "disloyal" Senators.

Your point about doctors interpreting law or lawyers doing operations is way off target and banal. Would you prefer to elevate folks to the Court that use the Constitution to push tort cases; even frivolous ones like those attacking the gun industry, or the fast food industry? Or would you prefer lawyers that tell us that flag burning is free speech? Or that gay marriage is O.K.? Or that we can't comment (but the press can) on politicians just before those same politicians are to face elections? Folks other than lawyers would be less likely to invent ways to circumvent the very document (Constitution) they were supposed to be interpreting.

Well, he chose her in order to avoid a fight, so we can't say he masterminding this.

I think his statement two days ago warning congress that he couldn't give up her related documents was an invitation for congress to ask for those documents, providing a pretence for withdrawing her.

He's actually a get along, go along kind of guy when it comes to congress (maybe he believes in the idea of equal power between branches), and that's where the anti-Miers people should be focusing their efforts.

Rocket science had too much math. Lawyer math is easy once you grasp the concept of 20 billable hours in each day.

This is exactly why we have dozens, if not hundreds, of Protestant denominations, and millions of divorces every year in America. Something like today's Miers controversy serves to bring up to the surface some big, but hidden thing that we thought we agreed on, but obviously don't--deference to a President, Head of the Party--our eyes see the same image and our brains process it so differently that we just can't imagine what happened to that other person that we used to know, and like. I see it from Hewitt's side, but neither side has changed overnight. They just didn't know how different they always were.

You're just being told that - in my opinion, of course - the current methodology adopted by those opposed to the Miers nomination isn't particularly working.  Mind you, at this point there probably isn't one that will work, but that's 20/20 hindsight talking.

But at some point a lot of people are going to have to face the fact that they can: a), as you say, 'shut up'; b), keep digging a hole for themselves with their current political party (which would be a waste and a shame); or c), find a new one (which would be an even bigger waste and a shame).  Amusingly, I'm pretty sure that either side is convinced that it's the other one that will have to do this...

Here you go.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."  President Bush (09/01/05)

"And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops."  President Bush (11/04/04)

"By the year 2042, the entire system(Social Security) would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs"

-- 2005 State of the Union Address

"President Bush: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us.  I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people."  (03.25.04)

And we will see about:

"do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so," to which the President responded "Yes. (06/10/04)

have a pretty elastic definition of lying which takes into account mistakes and truthful statements. I'm sure you will find a venue that appreciates your incisiveness, this isn't it. Toodles.

Thank you for your efforts.  

I still believe that the principle rift that has been exposed by the Miers nomination is one between Hamiltonian and Jacksonian conservatives.  

Sadly many of the Hamiltonian opponents of Miers are would be philospher-kings who have been deeply insulted by the Miers nomination.  First she wasn't on their approved list of prospects - thus Bush shunned their council (when a pundit/prophet/color commentator misses a call their credibility is really on the line); Second he attacked the whole philosopher-king rubric by putting forward a ("non-constitutional lawyer") candidate from outside the academic/judicial solon; and third he suggested that you could form a cohesive, rational and valid interpretive philosophy from "real world" and (non-heavens forbid) religiously acquired knowledge/wisdom.  

I don't think even George Will realizes Bush is taking Will's advise (not to seat another philospher-king like Wilkinson) but to try out "cheap rookies."  Will famously wrote that, after a particularly disasterous season, Baltimore determined that it could lose 100 games with cheap rookies as effectively as with seasoned (expensive) pros.  With seven Republican appointments on the Court still failing to move the Court back to originalism, Bush is abandoning the big money free agent fix and reaching down to the minors to get what he sees as a promising 60 year old rookie unspoiled by years of bad major league habits and coaching.  

Naturally the fans in the stands have a hard time seeing any wisdom in this.  

Especially those who always wanted to play in the big league and fancied themselves one break away.    

Thanks

Harriet Miers could have been making millions running a big Dallas Law Firm for the past 5 years if she had been interested in making money.

She gave away much of the money she made before she went to Washington, to her Church!

Disagree with her nomination on principle if you want (and I don't). But please, don't accuse a humble public servant like Miers of maneuvering for financial gain.

Even setting aside what I think is a very good nomination, Bush can't back down at this point. In any field you have to pick your battle wisely, but play to win once the battle is joined.

Some may carp at the wisdom of this particular battle, but once the battle has begun Bush can't leave it. Simple as that. The whole "tool of the right wing" meme is too close to the surface to walk away at the first bit of controversy. He won't stop until the 51st 'Nay' is cast, nor would any good leader. His reputation and ability to function is too valuable.

to Mike .. those darn taglines.  Guess that happens when people get famous like MK :-)

and that's not my point (my say being denied) -- merely the exclamation point on a rousing 'free speech' tirade.

What I am saying is that I don't think what 'we' are doing has been based on any strategy at all -- but 'as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.' (hat tip to Obi Wan)

I guess the net effect on the public discourse has been as if we had all colluded on a strategy to make a big stink over the HM nomination and work very hard to get it withdrawn or possibly voted down.  And in that vein I have no real disagreement with what you're saying.

Once the name came off GWB's lips in making the announcement, I truly wonder if any strategy at all might have worked to get the nomination withdrawn.  W's famous bulldog-stubbornness has served us well on Iraq, the GWOT, tax cuts, and other issues.  But it comes back to bite us now.

"and that's not my point (my say being denied) -- merely the exclamation point on a rousing 'free speech' tirade."

Far be it from me to interfere with another person's tirade.  :)

Moe

PS: I take your other points, too.

Sean Payton for something and get him out of Dallas.

I think we're pretty much on the same page.  The difference being that you went to all the trouble to write, source, and gameplan a pretty good line of reasoning.  I just took the opportunity to moon the other team's cheerleaders.  :)  Good article, BTW.  Darn frustrating topic.

is the head of the DHS.

You  might as well tell Bush that his current strategy isn't working because the conservative masses are outraged and inflexible.

Why is it that you assume that millions of people can change their minds but Bush can't?  You obviously don't have much respect for the man.

Self-flattering fantasies.

Us social conservatives are just thrilled that the government is buying bridges to Alaska.  

It's not like the government's money is being spent on child subsidies or something.  It's being spent to reelect people.  What's socially conservative about that.

We're not talking about her subjective motives at all.

We're saying that, objectively, going to the White House has not been a big sacrifice for her career-wise.

makes such a valuable contribution to his reputation and his ability to govern.

Every single leader, including Bush, cuts their losses sometime (Bernie at DHS?  Fema? Social Security?).  People who never back down are probably pathological in some way or other.

"You obviously don't have much respect for the man."

...that you can read my mind.

On the off chance that you can, feel free to access it again in the future to get my further opinions about your opinions.  I'll make it easy for you: I usually leave them metaphorically wedged between my general opinion of Pat Buchanan and my opinion on the merits of having a root canal without anaesthesia.

Moe

PS: If you're still looking for a baseline for when I'm actually being condescending, well, there you go.

PPS: This is me deliberately not answering your point about Kerik.  Because we value our commenters here at RedState, and I'd hate to think that I was denying you the chance to get your scorn in.

Because I care.

1. Off target and banal?  Not at all.  Your point seems to be that people become qualified for a position the more unqualified they are.  Talk about non sequitor.  By your reasoning I should be on scotus because I will bring a fresh perspective to the court.  Well then again, with this president I guess I have a shot at it, but I would be bigger than HM and would turn down the nomination.  She should too.
   
2. No, I wouldn't want those things.  Where did you get such silly ides?
   
3. Non lawyers less likely to circumvent the law?  No.  They'd be less likely to know how to write an opinion, how to do the research, etc.  Circumventing the law can be done by non-lawyers and lawyers alike.  How about this for a novel idea rchdmess:

Give us a president who nominates someone who is qualified and has demonstrated his/her commitment to not circumventing the law.  HM (or your folks with no law background who would have no track record) give us no such indications.

And that's the point.  If you want someone who will rule the way you seem to indicate, then you should be asking for someone more qualified.  Then she would have that record.  Strict constructionists don't make those rulings by definition because the opposite of a constructionalist is an activist.

The reason we have the losers on the court we have is because presidents have either trusted their own opinion or the opinion of advisors.  The constitution (and You and I) would benefit from presidents taking the advice of those in the legal field who have fought all of their professional lives for originalist intent.  The federalist society as vetters for for example.  Because presidents haven't (and have followed your course of getting those not drenched in constitutional law and with a record of textualism) we have had the results we have today.

Austin Powers, "C'mon.  Really now.  Who throws a shoe?"

Dude please.

1. The levees.

   a) where's your proof this is a lie?  Are you saying Bush anticipated it?  Did he blow it up (as the nation of islam asserts) or did he fail to act (you'll recall he pushed for mandatory evacuations against the wishes of the mayor and gov. of LA.

2. The commanders.

   a) You are clearly confusing on the ground with pentagon brass.  The in theater command NEVER requested more troops.  Pentagon and DOD generals (pencil pushers) differed on troop levels and some went on the news circuit to express their views.  But there is no documentation of the theater command requesting those troops, and it's that command's call.

3. Soc. Security.

   a) This one is laughable.  This view has been expressed by everyone from Clinton to Carter to Reagen to Bush.  It is supported by the congressional budget offices of both republican and democrat houses through the years.  Ask your moveon buddies where this crock came from.  Sheesh.

4. Had I known.

  a) This demonstrates that you aren't being serious or are so mired in conspiracy buffoonery that you aren't worth the time to respond to.  Other than Michael Moore's bizzare little movie, where is your proof that the president allowed or conspired to cause 9/11.  We can all use a good laugh on this site today.

5. Pledged to fire.

  a) Plame had not been undercover for years.  Novak reported that Plame was known by most of the socialites in DC to work at CIA.  It's no big deal or secret when people work at the Langley office.  It's no crime because she hadn't been covert for at least the previous five years.  Perhaps you are embarrassed that Valerie pulled strings to get her husband the job to go to Africa.  And that his report was so incomplete and full of error it was rejected.  And that his report was countered by reports that stated yellow cake was being sought by Iraq (France, UN, UK, Russian, Israeli, etc).  And that they both have raised and donated funds for and been active in dem politics.

It says a lot that you expect lies and can't prove any.  You might have more fun over at KOS where a few people might not laugh at your examples of "lies".

Put up.  Prove those statements are lies.  We're waiting.

I promised you an update from my sources for today and for what its worth, here it is....

I communicated with two of my regular sources this morning, one of which is very close to senate "information". What I'm hearing is that conservative senators, or at least one senator, has tried to communicate the message to the White House that the Miers nomination should be pulled. But as of today they believe the White House is still holding firm. My source also said that numerous senators not only are concerned about Miers philosophy, but are convinced she is not a conservative. The problem senators have is that they cannot yet prove it in a public manner, and don't want to be put in the position of humiliating the president and the party.

One source went on to say that some conservative senators and their staffs have reached a boiling point with the White House. The reason being they should never have been put in a position to oppose a nominee based on judicial philosophy, particularly a nominee from the republican party. (Since this site does not allow profanity, I will not use the exact language which was used to describe the conversation that took place) Furthermore, conservative senators are angry that they didn't have more input into the decision making process on the nomination. My source said that one senator suggested that if the White House "invited him to breakfast instead of Harry Reid, they wouldn't be in such a pickle now".

Finally, I tried to get the sense from my sources where the actual vote count is right now. They feel that its entirely dependent on what goes down in the hearings. If Brownback, Coburn and a few others can put up a united front, the nomination is doomed. But if there is a split among conservative senators, they feel Miers would get just enough democratic support to slip through...

When in doubt, vituperate.

I desperately want this to die in committee. It involves the least amount of bloodletting and bad feelings.

Moe Lane, Thanks again for an interesting take on Miers.  

It's clear most folks are so dug in that there's little chivalry on this battlefield of ideas and a fair amount of bombast and dirty war.  But we must not give up on seeking productive argument and sink instead into dissmissive invective.  

It was a pleasure (and instructive) to read the productive resolution of differing ideas between you and E Pluribus.  Thanks also to him for finding the shared unity of civil discourse that has made Red State different from most of the political discussion Blogs.

My dream ending this nightmare of a SCOTUS pick come true. I fancy this outcome more than any others except for her to yank her own ticket.

Does anyone really want to see...

1. The Prez have to yank her nomination?
   
   
2. The expected horrid hearings?
   
   
3. The battle to scrape enough votes to confirm her?
   
   
4. The spectre of the Dem's voting FOR her to get her confirmed?

Which will be scarier... any of these things or Holloween?

Truth is that which is; falsehood is that which seems to be, but is not.  The truth is Bush promised conservatives a Saclia or Thomas.  We got Miers, and she is certainlly no Scalia or Thomas. By definition, Bush told a falsehood. Telling a falsehood is telling a lie. Check your dictionary. Anyone telling a lie is a liar. Check your dictionary. Bush is therefore a liar if you accept common definitions in Webster as the unit of measure.

It's clear most folks are so dug in

I'm still dug in because is nothing has come forth to alter my stance at all.. quite the contrary. My personal Anti Mier stance is listed in order of displeasure. The first ones (1-3) are also nigh but immutable!

1. She is a crony first and foremost. This is indefensible and inarguable. It just looks bad all around and its insufferable for anyone else that was qualified that they got passed over because... George Bush "doesn't know their heart". A plausible conspiracy theory would be that she has something over the Prez and is blackmailing him for this seat. How worse does this cronyism look now?
   
   
2. She is an affirmative action pick. We did not have to have a woman for this pick... we never have to have a woman for any pick. You pick the best person for the job. The prez said that she was the "best person he knew". Well maybe the search perimeter should have been a bit wider than a few rooms on the West Wing. Affirmative action is not a conservative principle and it shouldn't be enacted for a so-called conservative supreme court pick. She also seems to believe in affirmative action herself. I despise AA! It's so clearly unamerican and sex/race/___ist.
   
   
3. She is old. Some people have argued that as a woman this doesn't matter as a younger man will live just as long. Well I counter your 'agism' charge with a 'sexism' defense. Pick a younger woman then!
   
   
4. She appears to not be a reliable conservative and certainly not a reliable republican. My aunt (who is about the same age) vociferously doesn't believe in abortion and she is a huge democrat. Of other conservative principles.. little has been found. This is a one-trick pony (that may not even perform) on the one issue she seems to have been selected; on Abortion.
   
   
5. Barely qualified. Oh wait... I'm not a lawyer at all and I'm barely qualified as well!Yes, she is a lawyer and hasn't been disbarred. She's more qualified than a lot of americans and Bill Clinton. Still, we all could throw both  shoes out the window on the freeway and manage to hit a non-disbarred lawyer in the head. Unless we were George W. Bush, that probably would not have hit Harriet Miers (now cycle back to point #1 and repeat as necessary).

Assuming that Bush promised conservatives a Saclia or Thomas, what exactly did he promise?

We can assume the he did not promise to nominate justices named Saclia or Thomas so he meant something like he promised a conservative justice, which HM is.   So he kept his promise, just not what the folks out in the peanut gallary thought they heard or what other leaders told them.  

When in doubt, put one hand on the wall - left or right, it doesn't matter - and never let go; you're assured of getting out of the maze that way, although it'll certainly take you a while.

Really.  What do they teach in school these days?

(pause)

Well, to be fair I was going to give the "always turn one way advice", but my usual routine check with my fiancee before I try to impart wisdom cleared that up.  So I suppose that you couldn't have known it, either.

But still.  You could have at least used Robin William's rule of thumb.

This is an approach I can get on board with.

:)

Particularly in these somewhat trying domestic times.  If it's any consolation, these days I would cheerfully pick up Sen. Ted Stevens and use him as a club with which to beat the rest of the Senate into a state that dimly resembles fiscal sanity.  Of course, what with all that pork I probably couldn't get him off the ground, but it's the thought that counts...

"When in danger, when in doubt/Run in circles, scream and shout!"

Telling a falsehood is not a lie. It only becomes a lie when it is told with the INTENT to deceive.

If not banal, your examples were silly. My only qualifier for the court is intelligence. The "silly ideas" came from lawyers, not from scientists or business leaders. And most of the examples were to show how lawyers have stretched the meanings of words, like tort, to enrich themselves or to stifle free speech. The Constitution is easy enough to read and interpret by anyone smart enough to understand its meaning. And if original intent is important, then maybe a historian could serve. I'm not saying don't have any lawyers.