ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Finally... Now What?

I have kept quiet, for the most part, about the Miers nomination out of respect for the president, the nominee and because National Review etc have been carrying the water on this situation.

Frankly, though she seems to be a capable lawyer, a lovely lady and a loyal friend of the president, she was an just awful nominee.

We can only hope that the next nominee the president sends up to the Senate is someone who more closely approximates Roberts and not Miers.

In the meantime, I can only express relief that this gracious lady has done the right thing.

***UPDATE ARC:St Wendeler***
See this post as well... While we're a conspiracy and all, we're not a monolithic conspiracy. ;-)

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Comments (2)
larwyn said...

What if Harriet, a rather humble lady, was part of and a volunteer in plot to put some backbone into the
wimpy R senators.

No amount of money could have been spent on any advertising/education programs that would have put the issues of the SCOTUS
as front and center in

If O'Connor votes for partial birth abortions, it will be more than clear to America what is important.

The wimp R's weren't afraid
of GW any longer but they are afraid of their voters.

I have been commenting from
start that when the Senators
told GW they didn't want a
knock down drag out fight, he gave them a Reid suggestion, knowing the base
would go crazy. First one leading charge was former
GW speechwriter, David Frum
of the "axis of evil". Hmmmm.

Recall that Miers is not one
who does the cocktail circuit in DC. She will not be humiliated, she will
be laughing all the way to the bank.

Hey Libs and RINOS - Gotcha!

By LARWYN, at 11:49 AM

St Wendeler said...

SSSShhhhh... don't give it away!

Actually, I think Occam's Razor applies in this matter. Bush knows Harriet and thought she'd be good. I think when Reid suggested her, Bush thought it would be a slam dunk nomination and he'd have someone on the court who would overturn Roe. Unfortunately, while she may produce the correct result on Roe, she may not reliably be considered a strict constructionist on other matters (given some of the samples of her thoughts from 10+ years ago).

I think the ultimate issue was that Bush relied on his gut and his sense of loyalty, but Harriet wasn't properly vetted... Did Bush know about her speeches back in teh early '90s?

I think this was a misstep... At least, that's what Rove is telling me to say right now, so I'm sticking to the story. (Don't want to give the Left a clue that they've been duped.)

Thanks for commenting!

St Wendeler