Meiers Withdraws!

Remove all ads!

Wow - this is somewhat surprising, as she certainly discussed this with GWB first. Here's the article.

 

Hmm, I wonder what the atmosphere is like in the Oval Office at the moment. Bush's most hardcore handlers likely have their hands full with the Fitzgerald investigations, and to have the Miers nomination thrown back in their faces, by the conservative wing of the party no less... it must seem like the walls are caving in around them...

 

I heard that this may happen yesterday. It's acutally a smart move - politcally. George II is cutting his loses and shoring up his base. Expect to see the "faithful" return to the flock and turn on a "prosecutor run amok" in the CIA case. The flames against this man, personally, will be almost unbearable, despite the fact that his integrity and good record are unassailable.

 

Bwahaha! Look how politics works There were speculations a couple a days ago that the Bush intransigence on releasing documents related to Miers' period in the White House means exactly that he's trying to find a face-saving way out of this. From the article linked by Aldeth

ROTFLMAO

Also, given this administration's modus operandi, I would not be surprised to see a Rove/Libby resignation later today (in advance of indictments coming tomorrow). Trying to get all the bad news out at once...

[ October 27, 2005, 16:35: Message edited by: khaavern ]

 

Libby they will cut-loose; he is really Cheney's guy - Rove....????

[ October 29, 2005, 04:01: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Agreed. Word is that there will be between one and five indictments coming out of the Fitzgerald investigation. Regardless of the final number, Libby is taking a hit. In other words, even if it's only one, he's that one.

What is more interesting is Bush's previous comments regarding this. Initially he said that he would fire anyone who was involved in wrong-doing. He later revised this statement to he would remove anyone who was proven to have committed a crime. At the time of his initial comment, he was unaware that the leak came from his administration. On the second comment, he understood that possibility, but still didn't think it was likely to be Rove or Cheney.

So the short answer to all of this is - yeah - stick a fork in him - Libby is done.

 

I think she was chosen as a decoy. Whoever is next is going to look great compared to her.

 

The world is full of suprizes

 

I really wonder if the WH has it's stuff together enough to effectively push their next nominee.

That is, if they end up, as is likely, trying to satisfy the conservative wing of the party with the next nomination, will they be coordinated enough to ward off attacks from the democrats and, potentially, moderate repubs.

The Nat'l Review is trying to put a brave face on the whole issue (pretty much ignoring the potential indictments to come tomorrow), trying to say nice things about Miers ("we're sure she's a very nice person, too bad she was put in such an awkward situation"), and coming up with their own nominations, such as Ted Olsen (the 9/11 sympathy vote).

They might actually get their wish, and the nominee might even go through. But the whole thing will likely be hugely contentious, and I think they're ignoring how damaged the WH will be at this point. Without a strong WH, we'll likely see some serious infighting between moderate and conservative republicans, between socalled paleo- and neo-conservatives etc: all these groups that reluctantly stood together because they felt they had to stick with Bush.

So I say: advantage Democrats (that is, if they can capitalize...)

[ October 27, 2005, 20:44: Message edited by: Bion ]

 

The nomination was doomed from the beginning. The libs were outraged that someone unqualified was being nominated and the cons were terrified that they wouldn't get what they wanted.

I'm sure she is a terrific lady, but not one of the President's finest moments.

 

'Bout frickin' time.

 

Good lord - I must say I am genuinely very surprised. I truly didn't think it would come to that. I figured she would weather it and squeak by with a close vote. They must have got wind that she was going to lose, and lose bad.

edit: Any bets on who Bush's next nominee will be? He/she will have to pass the crony test, of course - but will hopefully be much more qualified and easier to confirm. My money is on Alberto Gonzales. Any takers?

[ October 27, 2005, 21:23: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

As I undestand it, George Bush said one of the reasons he picked Harriet Miers for the supreme court was that he knew her so well. Dropping her after repeated personal endorsements, in the face of rancorous opposition from some in his own party, seems an unprecedented humiliation.

Seeing as Bush is faced with multiple scandals tainting senior Republicans, and the serious prospect of indictments against at least top aide today. Would you describe Geoerge Bush as a 'lame-duck' President or is there still life in the old dog? I am particularly interested in the insight of any Americans.

 

Well, it depends on how you define "lame duck president". According to the Constitution, GWB powers would not be reduced to lame duck status until November 2008. Teechnically, the term "lame duck" only applies when there is a president-elect who has not yet taken office. This happens whenever a new president is elected, and goes from early November to late January when the president-elect is inaugerated.

That's how it's supposed to work anyway. For all intents and purposes however, a president enters the lame duck phase following the mid-term elections of his second term, or in this case, November 2006.

With GWB suffering defeat after defeat with all of his programs recently (most notably nosediving support for the war in Iraq, and next to zero support for SS reform) I think it will be very difficult for him to get much of anything done for the rest of his term. When he goes to cash his check for his "political capital", it may be returned to him marked "insufficient funds".

 

No way is Bush going to nominate Gonzales after what he went through with Miers (hint: the righ wing does not like G. either. Nor does the left ). I would say maybe Janice Brown or Priscilla Owen - the right likes these. Of course, Bush had trouble with the Democrats over Brown and Owen already, so it is not clear if he can succeed with these either.

 

Well, nobody thought Bush would nominate another crony - qualifications be damned - so soon after the catastrophic incompetance of "Brownie," but then along came Miers. So never underestimate GWB's poor decision making. Still, I think George wanted to nominate Gonzales all along, for two reasons. One, he "knows him," and two, he'll want someone in the court to cover his ass for him and protect his legacy in the years to come. I think he only nominated Miers because he was getting pressure to have a second woman on the Supreme Court, not because she was his first choice. I'm sure she was his first choice as a possible woman candidate, however.

I still think it'll be Gonzales, and if it is, and I think he'll be a sure thing for confirmation. The right knows he's better than a moderate and actually stands a chance of getting confirmed (unlike a far-right hardliner), and the left won't stand in the way of the first Hispanic nomination to the Supreme Court. But I may be wrong, Khaavern. We'll make it a friendly wager then. If anyone but Gonzales gets the nod, I'll mail you a shiny new 2005 nickel.

 

DR: you're on

I don't know enough about the possible candidates to have a specific name, but I think Bush will nominate a woman again. His ideal choice would be somebody in the mold of Roberts; with sterling credentials, but not very well known. Brown and Owens would not fit this profile entirely (since they are quite controversial; also I can easily imagine that they were confirmed on the Appeals court on the understanding that they would not be nominated to the Supreme). OTOH, the search comitee already contacted several other women before Miers, but they declined (!). So, it is possible that Bush will not have too many choices.

 

It's Alito.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html

 

Or as he is more commonly known, Scalia-lite. This is going to start an all-out war for the confirmation hearings. No doubt that Alito will very much please the conservative base, but the Dems are already throwing fits over this.

Here's another thing to consider. With the Meiers nominations, Bush did take some advice from some Dems, who said that Meiers was an OK selection. Could the Dems actually have been clever enough to be "OK" with the nomination knowing that she would be bashed by the right? I'm probably giving them way too much credit over this, but how wonderfully devious if they did so.

 

I'm with you on this one Aldeth. Why take advice from people who very openly do not have your best interest in mind?