WND: "Guaranteed:" Miers to withdraw

MicroBalrog

New member
Guaranteed: Miers to withdraw
Posted: October 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Harriet Miers is never going to be grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She is going to withdraw her name from consideration before such hearings ever begin.

You can take that to the bank.

Why? Because, even though Democrats in the Senate seem more pleased with the choice of Miers than do Republicans, the questions that must be asked of the nominee for Sandra Day O'Connor's Supreme Court seat would be among the most embarrassing ever raised about her boss, President Bush.

Most of the attention on the nomination so far has focused on her lack of experience, her track record, her opinions on abortion, etc.

But the silver bullet that will do in the nominee is her cozy relationship with Bush – one that likely placed her in a position of covering up scandals in the Texas Lottery to keep secret the preferential treatment the president received as a young man to enter the Texas Air National Guard.

All it will take is a subpoena or two to get the whole sordid story on the public record – in front of a national television audience.

I don't think George W. Bush, already experiencing unfavorable public opinion ratings, will allow that to happen.

Democratic senators will overcome their apparent enthusiasm for the Miers pick when they realize they have an opportunity to embarrass Bush over the way he avoided Vietnam service.

All they would have to do is to subpoena two witnesses – former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes and former Texas Lottery director Lawrence Littwin.

It was Barnes, also a former House speaker in the state, who testified under oath in 1999 in a lawsuit brought by Littwin that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to put in a good word for Bush. Barnes later parlayed that favor into multimillion-dollar leverage as a lobbyist-consultant with a company called GTECH that won the business of running the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery.

After Littwin was hired by the Texas Lottery Commission, he made the unfortunate decision of questioning why GTECH should get Texas' business without facing competitive bids. He also questioned why the company should be paying former state officials like Barnes and contributing money, perhaps illegally, to other Texas politicians.

As a result, the commission headed by Miers fired Littwin. GTECH paid him off with a $300,000 settlement and bought out Barnes' contract for $23 million. The unusual settlement required Littwin to destroy all of his lawsuit documents, and Harriet Miers, the chairman of the Lottery Commission and future White House counsel and Supreme Court nominee, avoided testifying as to her knowledge of the whole sordid affair.

Does anyone really expect President Bush will allow this can o' worms to be reopened in Senate hearings?

No way!

In fact, every day Bush allows this nomination to remain on the table is another day he risks embarrassment over a scandal everyone thought was dead with the retirement of Dan Rather as CBS anchorman.

Can you imagine John Kerry's friends in the Senate passing up an opportunity to revisit the high-water mark of the Democrats' 2004 presidential campaign? I don't think so.

Frankly, I'm amazed the Democrats have been able to keep still as long as they have. They are keeping their powder dry for a reason: They want Harriet Miers to testify.

Somehow, this story has remained largely below the radar screen of the national press. Maybe they, too, can't wait for the real fireworks to begin in televised hearings.

So, now it's back to the drawing board for President Bush. Maybe Harriet Miers will decide she can't put her favorite client through this ordeal. She may suddenly decide she doesn't really want to be on the Supreme Court, after all.

In any case, mark my words, Bush is looking for his third choice to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat right now.
 
You know, somehow I just don't buy this.

You think Bush would knowingly put someone who supposedly is privy to misdeeds and damaging information about the person in a position where she can be asked?

Bush may be that stupid, but I don't think his handlers are.
 
You think Bush would knowingly put someone who supposedly is privy to misdeeds and damaging information about the person in a position where she can be asked?

Bush may be that stupid, but I don't think his handlers are.
He doesn't have to be stupid. He only has to be "loyal" to the point of cronyism. He only has to show a pattern of depending on and trusting, primarily women who have worked with him for years.

To assume that ego, loyalty, cronyism or grandiosity could not cause this President to make a major mistake for the country or himself....now that's well, not "stupid", but I think it's truly naive.
Rich
 
That horse is STILL dead...

Ah, yes - more moronic "angus feces" about the military service record of Bush. What a surprise. The liberal/leftist/demosocialists just won't stop beating that dead horse.

The fact remains that Bush released his service records to the voting public before the 2004 election.

Kerry, the "war hero":barf: :barf: :barf: refused to make public his service records until after he lost the election, when they would be a non-issue and the Kerry-loving media news outlets could ignore them as "old news," letting them disappear into obscurity.

Time to move on to something relevant, folks...:D
 
Oops, sorry, my b.s. detector just went off. Pardon the noise.

WARNING! :eek:

WARNING! :eek:

AIR POLLUTION REACHNG CRITICAL LEVEL! :eek:

SUGGEST IMMEDIATE EVACUATION OR IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF GAS MASKS! :eek:

WARNING! :eek:

et cetera. :D
 
"Please post your GPA from Harvard" etc. ad nauseum...

Stick it in your socks, folks.

You should, by now, recognize the fact that I've been a Bush supporter for a long time.

It's called a euphamistic turn of phrase.

Jesus... :rolleyes:


The point about his "handlers," for those of you who don't grasp that concept, either, means that the President, ANY President, has around him a cadre of close advisors/confidants. Part of thier job is to vette out such problems. Sometimes they do it well, sometimes they don't. But I don't for a moment believe that were Harrier Miers to have such a plethora of damaging information based on her long association with the President that it wouldn't have set off ENORMOUS warning bells among the cadre, or that she'd be given this nomination -- rampant cronyism or no rampant cronyism.

Double dip Jesus... :rolleyes:
 
But I don't for a moment believe that were Harrier Miers to have such a plethora of damaging information based on her long association with the President that it wouldn't have set off ENORMOUS warning bells among the cadre....
Of course not. They never do.....before the fact.

After the fact, I give you Michael D. Brown. Elevated to one of the most crucial posts in this administration, as head of the all-knowing FEMA, and his credentials were.....what were his credentials again? Never mind that. What were his accomplishments in office?

The warning bells? They were quite silent as the CongressCritters searched for pork nuggets amidst the rubble of a crumbling Republic.
Rich
 
Kerry, the "war hero" refused to make public his service records until after he lost the election
Incorrect, Kerry never did make public his whole military record:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip09.html

He carefully maneuvered the process to selectively release only those documents that supported the few he released during the campaign. We still do not have a full and uneditied record of his service.

And on a related note, it looks like Kerry will run again in 08:
Sen. Edward Kennedy said Wednesday he would back fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 - even if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also pursues a White House bid.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12884626.htm
 
Dems and the Left show time and again how they are such POOR LOSERS.

You lost, twice, to someone you still call all sorts of names and label as "stupid" an "idiot" etc. What does that say about your candidates who've drifted into obscuritiy....

LET IT GO>>>>>>

Much like the anti-gunners, the left and dems seem to take twisted glee and pride when there are bodybags in Iraq or a miscue in the administration... like vultures awaiting death they hover and then point and say "SEE" as though no other president has ever made a mistake....

That is anti-American and disgusting.
 
Welcome to the 2008 has-been circus

And on a related note, it looks like Kerry will run again in 08

Maybe Gore will run again, too; hell, why should they stop there? Let Dukakis and Mondale give it another shot. Get Carter in the loser parade, too. :D :D

Incorrect, Kerry never did make public his whole military record:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lip09.html

He carefully maneuvered the process to selectively release only those documents that supported the few he released during the campaign. We still do not have a full and uneditied record of his service.

Right you are, Rebar - the details had slipped my mind. IMHO, if a person is running for President and they were in the military, ALL of their military records should be released to the voters - that should be mandatory.
 
I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am for the best qualified gets my vote. Having said that can anyone point to information where Bush, or Kerry released their miltary record? Frankly all I remember is Bush dodging the issue for so long, and people saying that Kerry didn't earn his medals.
 
Frankly all I remember is Bush dodging the issue for so long...
Bush released his full military records during his run for Govenor of Texas, the liberal/left has been picking through them for over 12 years looking for something embarrasing. In the end, they had to forge documents to try to make him look bad. This is despite that Bush never ran on his military record, he just said he served his term honorably. And he did.

Kerry specifically ran on his military record, yet never released even half of his records, even though he promised he would. The records he did release, are controversial to say the least, there is a lot of creditable evidence that he exaggerated his service, and outright lied about it. What he did after the war, there is no controversy about it, and it sickens most veterans and other patriotic Americans.
 
Bush's Miers Predicament Forces GOP Split or Nominee Withdrawal

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush prides himself as a man who never runs from a fight and as a leader who pays careful attention to his political base. Harriet Miers has put those qualities in conflict.

A growing number of Republican activists say Bush blundered in naming Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, failing to anticipate the firestorm it would ignite among conservative backers and leading opinion makers who question her qualifications. Bush now may be forced to choose between an embarrassing withdrawal of the nomination or accepting a fissure among conservatives that could jeopardize the party's hold on power.

``Right now the base is completely fractured and people are very concerned about the impact on the 2006 elections,'' said Manuel Miranda, who heads a coalition of 150 conservative and libertarian groups and opposes Miers. ``The troubling thing is that the Supreme Court was the gold ring and the president's thinking appears indiscernible, unless you're willing to take it as a matter of faith.''

Miers, 60, was nominated by Bush on Oct. 3 to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on the court. Miers, the White House counsel and a close Bush confidant, was co-managing partner of a law firm in Dallas and president of the Texas state bar association who has never been a judge.

For conservatives who are seeking to turn the court to the right, she has a scant paper trail on issues like abortion, affirmative action and separation of church and state.

Conservative Rebellion

The White House, seeking to tamp down the internecine rebellion, is defending Miers as a judicial conservative and touting her 25-year membership in an evangelical Christian church whose members are opposed to abortion. Bush has rejected calls to pull back the nomination and said earlier this week that Miers's credentials would be clear after she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, probably next month.

Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, yesterday dismissed the idea that Miers might drop out if she decides that she can't withstand the uproar. ``No one that knows her would make such a suggestion,'' he said.

Public opinion polls also haven't done much to bolster the nomination. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released earlier this week found that just 29 percent of Americans thought Miers was qualified to sit on the high court, while 24 percent said she was unqualified and 46 percent said they didn't know enough about her to decide. The poll of 807 adults had an error margin of plus or minus 3.4 percent.

Editorial Opinion

This week the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette called on Bush to drop the nomination ``to spare the country any more embarrassment.'' And the columnists have been scathing.

Peggy Noonan, who wrote speeches for Bush's father, this week urged Miers to ``take the hit'' and withdraw so the president could pick ``one of the outstanding jurists thoughtful conservatives have long touted.'' She mentioned federal appeals court judges Edith Jones, Edith Clement or Janice Rogers Brown.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer was similarly blunt in an Oct. 7 article. ``If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her,'' he wrote.

Miers's nomination contrasts with Bush's choice for chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., who was embraced by conservatives, many of whom knew him as a Washington appellate lawyer. While Roberts also didn't have publicly known views on social issues, the right took comfort from his work in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

`Saliva Test'

Democrats, meanwhile, have been conspicuously silent on Miers, preferring to watch the Republican sniping.

The party's schism over the nomination threatens the Republicans' control of Congress, said former Senator Alan Simpson.

``This will be the demise of the majority, sadly enough,'' Simpson, a Wyoming Republican, said in an interview. ``Once they start giving each other the saliva test of purity, they lose.''

Even Miers's supporters acknowledge that Bush is in a tough and unusual position.

``It is a rare instance of the base being displeased with a major decision of this president,'' said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group that backs Miers. Rushton predicted that the conservative carping will abate and that Miers will win confirmation.

``I don't see this president backing down from this fight,'' he said. ``He will do more to define her in the coming days, and she will define herself at the hearings.''

Senate Hostility

Whether the Senate Judiciary Committee will oppose Miers remains an open question. Two Republican senators on the panel, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, have been publicly skeptical about the nomination. The nomination also encountered hostility during a recent private meeting of Republican aides on the Senate panel, the New York Times reported this week, citing committee staffers.

Douglas Kmiec, a former assistant attorney general under Reagan and the first Bush, said he isn't surprised by the palpable anger emanating from much of the conservative community.

``The public conservative mind expected a name from a specific list and, when the president went off-list, he caused that level of discomfort,'' Kmiec said. ``It is the discomfort of having to think of new things and the disappointment of not having your favorite person get the nomination.''

Although he hasn't yet made up his mind on Miers, Kmiec said he supports the `idea'' of having a non-judge on the high court.

``I think the base will be relieved and satisfied once Harriet Miers is heard from,'' he added.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Robert Schmidt in Washington at rschmidt5@bloomberg.net.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTjbZvUB7vaQ&refer=us
 
"After the fact, I give you Michael D. Brown."

That's comparing apples and Volkswagon Beetles, Rich, and you know it.

Michael Brown was never a Bush confidant.

Brown never served as Bush's personal attorney.

Brown doesn't possess intimate knowledge of Bush's personal motivations/movements.

It's pretty apparent that Brown padded his resume, and while it should have been caught, it wasn't.

No President is immune from the actions of candidates or officials coming back to haunt them for the candidate/official's actions. As exhibit A, I give you Kimba Wood. As exhibit B, I give you Zoe Baird.
 
Back
Top