Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So, they nominated Miers after Roberts was confirmed and that's how Roberts was confirmed? Aye yi yi. Spree, that's the theory of the Flux Capacitor. Roberts was already sworn in at the end of Sept. Miers was nominated this month.
Originally Posted By Spree It was an agreement made between the two. Reid knows that Bush doesn't lie.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Reid knows that Bush doesn't lie." Oh c'mon, you said this on purpose, didn't you?
Originally Posted By Spree Ok, let me change that to Reid is arrogant enough to think Bush wouldn't dare lie to him..
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 This may sound cynical, moonbatish or dead on accurate.. But I find it interesting that Miers withdrawl comes on the heels of Karl Rove possibly being indicted today. Could this possibly draw attention away from that?
Originally Posted By Spree ^So Bush nominated her nearly a Month ago in anticipation of indictments just so he could have her withdraw on the eve of the indictments? Wouldn't be easier just to bomb an Asprin factory somewhere?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer It was already announced that there will be no indictments issued today, if there will be any issued, they will be done tomorrow.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How does Reid benefit from Meirs withdrawing her nomination?? Listen to the democrats this morning, they are pissed. Now things can finally get back to normal and Bush can consider Meirs a " mulligan " once he nominates someone the entire conservative base can get behind. In other words, Bush can't blow this upcoming nomination or it IS over for him and he will be a lame duck for 3 years as far as conservatives are concerned.
Originally Posted By Bruiser "How does Reid benefit from Meirs withdrawing her nomination?? Listen to the democrats this morning, they are pissed." Oh, I get it. You believe the Democrats when it fits your own agenda. How convenient.
Originally Posted By Bruiser "^So the Democrats are faking their displeasure? Why?" Faking in politics???? Say it isn't so!!!!
Originally Posted By Spree ^That's not an answer. Really; why would the Democrats fake displeasure regarding this issue?
Originally Posted By Bruiser "^That's not an answer. Really; why would the Democrats fake displeasure regarding this issue?" I'm still reeling from the suggestion politicians fake it. Anyway, look at what has already been said here. Publicly, Reid loves her. Look at the discord it caused within the Republican party. For that reason alone, never mind her background, the Democrats had to have loved her. Now that she's withdrawn, they can make their support appear that much more genuine. I'd be willing to bet a quarter that Reid knew all along she wouldn't pass, but said all the right things anyway. You can go to various places to find lists of potential nominees. Miers's name doesn't appear anywhere on any of them. When she was brought up as a possibility, Reid probably got a hernia from stifling the laughter.
Originally Posted By Spree Why would Reid want this though. If he knew that she didn't have a chance he also would know that Bush would be left with the only option of nominating someone much, much more conservative. Reid must have thought she had a chance otherwise he would have suggested someone else that would have been more acceptable to both him and Bush.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Like I said earlier, Bush can now claim he tried to nominate a moderate that the other side could go along with, but since it didn't work out he is now going to be true to his word and nominate a conservative from the short list.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 One interesting thing to come of all this is that both liberals and conservatives assumed that she wouldn't have been a far-right ideologue on the bench, but there's no way to really know that, due to her lack of any sort of judicial experience, let alone a paper trail. Who knows - her born-again conversion may have been more extreme than we knew, and/or she may have just ended up calling her buddy George before making any decision; she might have been more lock-step to Bush policies than even Scalia and Thomas. Or not. How can we have known? I wonder how the far right will react if it's Gonzalez. Something tells me it won't be, since the "leading candidate" wasn't named either of these last two times, but let's just say it is Gonzalez. How would the far right react? It would be hard to call him unqualified, yet I've read that the far right considers him suspiciously "moderate" (like that was a dirty word). Yet I know many in the GOP are hoping it's him, because they think it might provide electoral benefits among Hispanics. And some Democrats are angry over his role in redefining US policies towards the Geneva conventions, etc. It would be interesting to watch, anyway.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I wonder how the far right will react if it's Gonzalez." I think it will be. If memory serves, the far right doesn't like him and the Democrats can tolerate him, but barely.
