Miers Gone

[Annie]

Mind you, this comes from National Review, for those wondering about GW being a 'nice guy.':

http://conways.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2Q2ZGQ3ODdkZDg2MjM2YzA4YjVmYTFmYzI3N2E0MzI=

George's Take
Replacing Miers
01/05 05:14 PM

Bush and his supporters once told us that Harriet Miers was a great pick for the Supreme Court because she is an experienced, top-notch litigator. Now they are telling the Washington Post that they are getting rid of her because they don't think she is good enough for the job she already has:

Miers, a longtime Bush loyalist whose nomination to the Supreme Court was withdrawn in 2005 as a result of conservative opposition, led an office that will oversee legal clashes that could erupt if Democrats aggressively use their new subpoena power. Bush advisers inside and outside the White House concluded that she is not equipped for such a battle and that the president needs someone who can strongly defend his prerogatives.

In other words, Bush was willing to entrust the future of the Supreme Court in Miers, but he doesn't trust her enough to handle a bunch of subpoenas. That's just ludicrous. Can this White House get its story straight on anything? Does anyone there even care about conserving whatever piddling credibility Bush has left?

Miers was not the right choice for the Supreme Court, but it's disgraceful for the White House to be dumping on her like this—not to mention pointless.

 

[Emmett]

she might have just really quit because she can't hack it! I was never impressed with Harriet. She donated money to Al Gore, favorite news man was Dan Rather and had less experience on the bench than Gretta Van Sustren. Hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

she might have just really quit because she can't hack it! I was never impressed with Harriet. She donated money to Al Gore, favorite news man was Dan Rather and had less experience on the bench than Gretta Van Sustren. Hmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She might have, but didn't. It's house cleaning time and she is out. There's more:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI1MmM1MDQ0YThmNDU1NzFmZWFiNWQxZDk4MDlkMzk=

Could have been a separate post, but seems cool here:

tate of the Republicans [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Yesterday, I spoke to a smart, well-connected Republican strategist who has been out of step with his party for the last few years. I agree with most of what he had to say, and thought you might find it interesting.


He has never seen as much of a “power vacuum” as he does now. Who has more power, he asks, Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell? Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi or Steny Hoyer? John Boehner or Mike Pence? Neither party, he notes, has particularly strong front-runners. “One thing I do know: this vacuum will be filled.”


The problem is worse for the Republicans. “There is no consensus on why we lost.” The division over the issue hasn’t fallen on moderate vs. conservative lines. Rather, it pits Congress vs. the White House. The congressional party emphasizes Iraq, and especially the decision to keep Rumsfeld on through the elections; the White House blames scandals and earmarks. (Can’t they both be right?) “We went down the wrong road and now we are wandering, and we aren’t wandering together; we’re wandering individually.”


He adds, “There is little trust [on the part of congressmen] in President Bush. There is zero trust in Karl Rove.” The congressmen feel that the White House is looking backward—trying to come up with a plan for the next two years that redeems the previous six—while they want a plan that will set the stage for the following few years. This strategist thinks that some presidential vetoes will rebuild trust.


Much of the congressional party remains wedded to earmarks. Republicans run the risk of becoming a caucus of complainers if they don’t offer conservative alternatives—if they can come up with them. “I don’t know what we stand for,” he concludes. "I know we're for big business, and I know we like spending." He’s glad the party lost.
Posted at 5:42 PM