Redstate

You'd think he'd want a prime time spot if he'd found another Roberts.  

A morning announcement does a few things. First, it gets all of the talking face morning shows off their memes and on to the coming announcement, then gives the President the first word, and does not give them sufficient time to get Neas or another of the same ilk prepared to rebut.

And I pray no stealthies. Too late now!

But if he were trying to get attention via talking heads, an 8pm spot would have worked for far better ratings.  And if he's worried about rebuttal, moreso than last time, it just reinforces my baseless speculation that it's going to be someone with a more established conservative history.

Or maybe he's trying to grab the news cycle away from some other pending announcement this afternoon?  Maybe Fitzgerald is wrapping up?  A guy can dream, can't he?

An 8PM announcement would not maximize the impact-- at least, not on Monday, not during football season.

How did they keep this from leaking? Astounding.

... and it does not really fit with the idea that things were in 'disarray'. I knew last week when that was floated that it was probably a head-fake.

on my complete failure to remember MNF.  Call it euphoric psychosis, caused by the unplausibly 4-0 Bengals.

foxnews reporting that ap says it is harriet miers

That's the pick.

LET HIM FEEL THE WRATH OF THE BASE

J. Michael Luttig she ain't! Talk about your missed opportunities.

I can't stand this crappy pick. I hope Dems filibuster and Rs join them. Kossacks will gloat and they have every right to.

She's not our first choice, but we're not the ones to chose.  Let's give it some time before we jump to conclusions.

I, for one, am not going to abandon the President over this pick, especially not until we know how reliably conservative she will be.

Bush picked Miers when he had Luttig and Williams available?

Two words: Jesus wept.

The Base will now tear the President a new one, and deservedly so.

If we were going to have a base-deflating pick, it might as well have been Gonzales so we would not have to deal with speculation over him next time (if there is a next time).

of squalid cronyism.

This is Abe Fortas in a dress. I just can't stand this.

Why did he do this?

"Not only does this keep total control of the announcement in Bush's hands, it also impacts how quickly the opposition groups will be able to get 'on message'."

Why do you say this? The MoveOn/DNC releases are already written:

• We are shocked that the President chose a far right radical instead of a moderate.
  
• This nominee would turn back the clock on decades of gains for women and minorities.
  
• Your constitutional right to privacy is at risk.
  

They may just need to fill in the name in a few places, but the rest will be the same regardless of whom it is.

I don't think I have seen her name mentioned at all.

Apparantly he caved to the O'Conner seat being a woman's seat.  

Where did this woman come from?

who know`s what this woman stands for ,seems to me she`s probably an o`conner clone, someone the right won`t be happy with but she has no record to

question  so she will have to answer a lot more

questions than roberts did.somehow a smell a souter!

But there was a lot more objectionable with Fortas than him just being a close buddy of Johnson.

she was his personal attorney in Texas and was his WH counsel. She has said she believe Bush "is the most brillian man I've ever met."

The person in charge of finding/evaluating candidates to fill a position ended up getting the position to be filled.

I kinda recall this pattern happening before in 2000: Some guy named Cheney was in charge of finding a Veep and ended up getting the job.  Worked out pretty well, if you ask me.

Then there was the search for a Secretary of Defense that somebody named Rumsfeld was in charge of - and ultimately eneded up as the President's pick.  That's also worked out very well, if you ask me.

This sort of track record bodes well, I think, and at a minimum means the President deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I have argued before, when Roberts was nominated, that it was not what he did or said beforehand that would make him 'a strict constructionist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas.' It is possible that, in the long run, it will turn out that way.

However, in the short term-- by the 2006 elections, it is very unlikely that we will have sufficient evidence to demonstrate this, so heading into those elections it will likely play as a broken promise of the magnitude of 'read my lips.'

But, speaking just for me, there is another reason that I am very disappointed.

I believe in excellence.

And while Ms. Miers may be a very smart lady and a good lawyer, I think it is very hard to make a case that she is the most qualified, most deserving person for the position. And that sticks in my craw. I know that finding "THE" most qualified person is difficult; you ask 50 people to do so and you will likely get a dozen different answers, if not more. However, I doubt that many, if any, lists beyond the President's would have had her at the top.

I expected more.

What probably vaulted her to the top was the behind-the-scenes role she played with appellate court nominations.

From what is emerging about her past dealings with the ABA, and the fact that the past selections of this nature (namely, Cheney and Rumsfeld) both turned out extremely well despite not fitting into the "conventional" notion of such selections, I'm just not upset about this.

I was at the Bears v. Bengals game last week-- by the 4th quarter there were more Cinci fans than Bears fans left (in the nosebleeds, admitedly).  Add to that the fact that our weekly Bengals bar contigency reached 15+ yesterday-- I'm feeling pretty good about this year.