Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

the_mad_poster's Journal: BREAKING NEWS: MIERS' NAME BEING WITHDRAWN 18

Journal by the_mad_poster

It appears that Bush has "reluctantly" accepted the withdraw of Harriet Miers' nomination. No complete sources just yet. (Update: NPR News just reported the withdraw).

Last I had heard on NPR, Miers' questionaire had not been resubmitted by the close of the day yesterday, and it was unclear if the White House had met the midnight deadline at all.

Apparently not.

lol How do I exhausted political capital?

More bad news: Rove and/or Libby are probably going to get indicted. Is this out of touch America?

Update 2:
Heh, of the withdraw, Bush said:

It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel

Yea, right. I guess the fact that she couldn't even fill in the preliminary take-home, open-book test without screwing it up had nothing to do with their reservations, right Cmdr. Assmonkey?

This discussion was created by the_mad_poster (640772) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BREAKING NEWS: MIERS' NAME BEING WITHDRAWN

Comments Filter:
  • as well. Hmmm. I guess I need some text here too. Hey mambo, mambo italiano, hey mambo, mambo italian-O
  • Hell, I was thinking that if all those assholes didn't like her so much she must not be that bad then. Anything that sticks in the craw of the right that harsly must have something behind it, no?
    • The right has been variously willing to back Bush's mental breakdowns in the recent past, so perhaps it's best to look on this as an example of how deep the fractures run in his support base.

      Bushy Boy's second term fell apart. That's what happens, I suppose, when your "mandate" consists of a 51% to 49% election victory.
    • I was hoping the same thing until she promised the evangelical fucktards an anti-Roe vote.
  • In a column called "The Only Exit Strategy" [washingtonpost.com] from last Friday:

    Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents.

    For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any

    • I'm illittereight, so I saw him say the same thing on the telebision on 'Inside Washington'.

      And I still think it is horseshit, given that questions of Presidential privilege are *exactly* the type of thing that SCOTUS hears.
  • at least not all the time:

    from a 1993 speech: "The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. The more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."

    She added later, "When science determines the facts, and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

    Which seemed at odds with the views she expressed in a 1989 candidate's survey on abort

  • First off, the main reason I didn't like Miers was that she was too closely tied to Bush. Her statements that he was the smartest man she's ever met and the best Governor that Texas ever had were so stupid that they could be nothing other than asskissing. As a result, it scared the shit out of me to think that such a close friend (aka crony) would be in a position to legislate in favor of some of the ridiculous nonsense that this administration has pulled in the past 5 years.

    OK, rant over.

    Now what scare

    • Nah. The Dems will filabuster. Which is what the Republicans want. Going into the next election cycle, 2006, by spreading the image that the Dems are trying to destroy the judicial process.

      If the Dems play their cards right, they can win the next election based on the message, "Republicans are trying to overturn Roe V. Wade by hook or crook. And notice how many crooks there are in the GOP."

      • Nah. The Dems will filabuster. Which is what the Republicans want. Going into the next election cycle, 2006, by spreading the image that the Dems are trying to destroy the judicial process.

        Although I doubt the Republicans would pull such a move in the midst of all of their problems, this would be the ideal time for them to pull out their "nuclear option" card. They have everything they want to gain, starting with the overturning of RvW.

        • That's an interesting idea, but I think that trying to pull the nuclear option right now would cause more harm than good. The President has no coat tails right now, and the Democrats are riding higher in the polls. If they can get a consistent message out, they might find themselves doing well.

          So if the Democrats get control of Congress in '06, the nuclear option would actually harm the Republicans, as the Democrats could send bill after bill into the House, and claim that the Republicans are doing harm

          • All good points. My worry stems from the fact that this is a permanent position - something that could very well be worth the fallout from going nuclear (or should we be saying nucular?).

            I think your scenario is more likely, as it is more reasonable - but my faith in reason is waning.

    • I think the Right is running a bit scared right now. They've got more things to deal with than they'd like, so nominating someone moderate would be in their best interest.

      Of course, they could act like a cornered animal and lash out, nominating the most right-wing nutso they can think of so that the Dems will cry "Foul!" and they'll have to say "See! Them Dems is all about the partisan!" and hope that it takes the heat off the Rove-Libby-Leak stuff.

      And then the tinfoil hatters would say that Miers was a

      • I think the Right is running a bit scared right now. They've got more things to deal with than they'd like, so nominating someone moderate would be in their best interest.

        I'm not so sure I agree. Their behavior in the past few years suggests that they think they're above reproach in anything they do. Will they let recent setbacks temper their position? I hope so, but again, I'm not optimistic.

    • We could be seriously screwed here, folks.

      Depends if the Senate Democrats grow a collective set of balls. Someone 'out and proud' against Roe or another right wing nutjob should be a perfect case for a filibuster. What gets interesting here is the timing and height of potential indictments against the staff.

      Indictments and resignations from Libby and Rove will make it much harder to corral Specter and others.

      Interesting times indeed...
      • Hmm ... very interesting as they say.

        From what I've seen Specter is going to demand Miers replacement not be too much of a wingnut.

        If Bush does nominate an extremist there is a good chance that the Democrats will have at least some support from moderate Republicans in shooting them down. OTOH if the nominee isn't too much of a wingnut the base is going to bitch and the more conservative senators won't vote for them
  • It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel

    I don't mean to make too challenging a suggestion here, but if confidentiality is a concern maybe the President should consider not nominating his personal counsel to the freaking supreme court!
  • I guess the fact that she couldn't even fill in the preliminary take-home, open-book test without screwing it up had nothing to do with their reservations, right Cmdr. Assmonkey?

    She actually did submit her answers, today [scotusblog.com]. God only knows why.

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...