Times (UK) Online: Goodbye, Harriet. Come on down, Attila.

[funflower]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1846664,00.html

WHEN President Bush shocked supporters and opponents alike a month ago by nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, an intriguing conspiracy theory did the rounds in Washington.

Ms Miers, so self-evidently unqualified for a seat on the nation’s highest court, was a kind of stalking horse, the theory went. The real Bush plan, masterminded no doubt by his Machiavellian amanuensis Karl Rove, was to put an extreme conservative jurist on the court, someone who would vote to overturn abortion rights, outlaw affirmative action and break down the barriers between Church and State.

The problem was that someone like that would have a very tough time getting confirmed by the Senate. Though the Republicans have a majority in the upper house of the Congress, which must approve Supreme Court candidates, the Democrats, who would obviously oppose such a nominee, have enough votes to block his (or her) confirmation.

The best way to proceed, then, was to put up first a candidate the White House knew would get knocked down. Having “regretfully” and “humiliatingly” withdrawn that candidate, the President could then, with heavily orchestrated reluctance and irritation, put up the suitably-qualified favourite.

The Democrats would have a hard time in the court of public opinion if they now took exception to someone who was, whatever their judicial intentions, at least smart, capable and experienced. They wouldn’t want the potential opprobrium of throwing out a second nominee.

Goodbye Harriet. Come on down, Attila.

(more)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1846664,00.html

[AX10]

1. WRONG! The Dems didn't oppose Miers. The Right Wing did.

The Democrats did no wrong here.

[...of J.Temperance]

7. The Times obviously got Junior's Talking Point Memo

Pigs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Did you read the whole article?

The very next paragraph after the excerpt given above is:

It was always fanciful. Democrats did not, in fact, have much to do with the defeat of the Miers nomination. It was Republicans who most objected to her. The theory is further undermined by the fact that Mr Rove has been otherwise engaged for most of the past month or so, desperately trying to avoid the indictment that many Washington observers think will be handed down to him today by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor.

Now, Gerald Baker is a faithful Bush supporter, writing in a Murdoch newspaper, so the tone of the article isn't "Bush is an evil genius" or "Bush is a complete failure"; it's "Bush got that wrong - he can regroup".

[zonmoy]

2. so who are they going to nominate next

judge roy moore or are there even worse possibilities.

[HockeyMom]

4. Brown, Owens, or Clements

So the BASE will give support.

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Edith Clements is a moderate...she WON'T be accepted

It's going to be Edith Hollan Jones or Janice Rogers Brown.

On Edit: My eyes are playing tricks with me.

[zonmoy]

6. So are they bigger fundie nutjobs then moore

or what else qualifies them for the rights approval.

[...of J.Temperance]

9. Go to Google and check them out

That's what I do.

[datadiva]

3. I emailed them

and told them the error of their ways. I don't expect a response.

[...of J.Temperance]

8. The Times is a Murdoch rag

But well done for giving it to them anyway.

[roguevalley]

10. Completely wrong. The pugs neutered themselves over this one.

No up and down vote for Harriet. Litmus tests? She was litmused to death. They can't hide behind not answering nor can they carp about voting. They took all their own tools of destruction and used them on her. We can filibuster and nuke to our hearts content. Dimbulbs. Idjits.