Provided all the high-profile conservative opposition doesn’t sink her nomination, of course.

I hope Harriet makes it.

What the SC needs is more concurrence, less “brilliant nuance”, it needs fewer separate opinions, not more.

As an NT (Myers-Briggs), who knows lots of NFs (like you?), there is a LOT of intellectual elitism behind the criticisms.

I do think there are more brilliant judges Bush could have chosen — but I don’t think the SC needs another brilliant judge. I’m sure there are more clearly anti-Roe candidates, and my biggest hesitation is that Miers would be pro-Roe.

I would prefer more an honest Roe as litmus test, with the Dems trying to fillibuster and the Reps ending their power to stop a judicial nomination from getting voted on. But the Reps of the Gang of 14 don’t seem willing, much less eager, to fight and win a Bork type battle.

I think that, besides conservative anger at Bush’s / Rep excessive spending, there is also anger that Bush is failing to do good Public Relations. I know the media is an enemy, so he should treat it as such; and try harder to get good messages out. Through bloggers, local newspapers, better Press Releases. I don’t know how.

Your own “blood-smelling shark attack” comment is also right on; many pundits are more interested in being witty/ snarky than in getting Roe overturned, given the present elected politicians.

I’d like such pundits to be more anti-Pork (PorkBusters!) against specific politicians, but it’s easier to just focus all the anti-energy against one Pres. than against 85 (or 41 Reps) Senators who want to keep their pork.

This is a reason the Pope will always get more credit/ blame for Christianity, too — focus on the top person rather than the much larger group.

1.Take a look sometime at the list of Reagan administration officials indicted. Still #1.

2.But what is really striking about your post is the language:

“…even more corrupt and evil pack of leftist hounds with blood filled eyes and blood soaked hands.”

I hope you’ll get better soon.

“With charges expected as early as Wednesday, federal officials investigating the exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame conducted last-minute interviews with her neighbors … lawyers said on Tuesday.

Marc Lefkowitz, who lives across the street from Plame, told Reuters two FBI agents asked him on Monday if he knew about Plame’s CIA work before her identity was leaked to the press in 2003. Lefkowitz said he told them: “I didn’t know.” “

So even the FBI didn’t ask the neighbors until yesterday??

Now the next, even simpler question is: Prior to July 2003, did or did not Ms. Plame drive daily to her job at CIA in Langley, where anyone at all could stand at the intersection of the public road and the CIA access road and observe who regularly goes in and out?

If she somehow was spirited into the CIA HQ each day, perhaps hidden under a blanket or whatever, then there might have been a leak.

If she drove herself (or carpooled) everyday just like the rest of us normal people, no Leak. That is, if anyone can see you go enter the CIA access road on a regular basis, anyone can figure out that you work for CIA, no?

As someone who lives and has traveled in Democratic circles all my life here in Washington D.C., I’ll just say you are all wet. It may seem pathetic and sad to you and perhaps others, but this Administration is by far the most honest and staight shooting in my lifetime, save perhaps the highly imcompetent Carter.

Also, don’t let the fact that Republicans are more self policing and accountable to not only themselves, but they also carry the burden of a one sided prejudiced MSM that is an even more corrupt and evil pack of leftist hounds with blood filled eyes and blood soaked hands.

Also, don’t kid yourself as to what stink really festers in the Democratic Party, the Republicans are, even if it is a sad fact, angels by comparison.

Lastly, the implication that both parties play the game to the same degrees is off by miles, their is no comparison. Keep saying it if it makes you feel better, proving the other guy is also bad has always been the Democrats means of attempting to save themselves, let this former Clinton friend and lifelong Democrat say… THAT IS FOLLY! If the Republicans weren’t more ethical and responsible they would have been out years ago (if it were on issues alone). The MSM and Democrats unwittingly play into this sterotype by holding Republicans to higher standards, it does send the reverse message about Democrats…

terrye

BINGO ON EVERYTHING! I am sickened by the presumtions and outcome based denigrations going on all for the sake of what? Bush was elected president not the pundits, they have hurt themselves and others unecessarily, but the arrogant putz’s will never fully admit to their arrogant follies, they are to arrogant and full of themselves. It would serve them right to get another Souter, (but hey I am a moderate). While I am no longer a Democrat, I now can’t see me ever becoming a “movement conservative” as they have worn their asses on their shoulders during this and shown an ugly side I won’t soon forget. But I will repeat, this is nothing compared for the contempt I hold for the left.

neo-neocon

I’ve been reading much lately, not much time to comment these days, but I will say that who have easily moved into my two or three blog “must reads”.

Yes this has been a shark frenzy indeed and as I said on another blog, Bush has taken enough arrows in the back for this nation, he certainly doesn’t deserve them from his friends.

Keep up the great work!

Terrye, keep posting!

If you do not know by now that Wilson is a fraud there is no point in talking to you. This is not debatable.

Kerry dumped him from his campaign after the Senate got through with him.

You know I remember the 1998 when Clinton passed the Iraqi Liberation Act and said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and guranteed us he would use them. Richard Clarke was judith Miller’s source back then. The Times and WaPo were writing articles on Saddam and his weapons and his human rights abuses. When Clinton left office the WaPo wrote an oped about how he was dumping Saddam and his weapons on Bush.

Nobody doubted it. Now all that has gone down the memory hole along with Democrats who are trying to cover their asses for a decade’s worth of mistakes.

I think the CIA screwed up and Wilson was part of a scam.

If someone in the Bush administration did something they should not have, indict them. That does not change the fact that Wilson is a liar and the CIA screwed up.

I have no problems with people raising valid objections, and there are plenty possible. What I see, though, is what I can only refer to as a feeding frenzy of picayune irrelevancies mixed in with valid objections and then hammered home with a viciousness that’s offensive and uncalled-for, and using standards that have not been applied to any other nominee. And there’s no need for it–unless you call the need of the pundits to show us how very clever and tough they are a need.

It’s also a feeding frenzy because, as in a real feeding frenzy, the sharks end up hurting each other and themselves. But they don’t see that, because they are maddened and excited by the smell of blood in the water.

1. Why not read up a little on Wilson’s background?
2. What’s bothering you–that he’s “urbane” and “jaguar-driving?” Why? No, he’s not pretending to be Texas-folks on the farm. So?
3. These recurring bouts of indictments (from the record number under Reagan until today)are
-fun to watch
-hiding a bigger picture of the power of big money and the history of how it has made our “governmental process” into a game of Family Feud.
-Both parties play the game.

After each flurry and a couple of indictments, editorial writers proclaim that “the system works.”
As you put it so eloquently–“my behind.”
Yours for better government–as they used to say.

I would like to propose that we each send something like the following questionaire to both Senators Specter and Lehy:

Dear Senator,

In the interested of ascertaining your ability to convey to the American public your qualifications for sitting as [Chair/Ranking Minority Member] of the Judiciary Committe, it is important that you fill out the following questionaire:

1. Please state the purpose of the questionaire which you required to be filled out by recent Supreme Court nominees. Your answer should include detailed responses to the following questions:

a. What aspects of your Committee’s work does this questionaire address that could not be better served by the confirmation hearings themselves?

b. Why are you asking questions for which, if you are truly concerned about completeness of the record, your staff is surely competent to research more thoroughly?

b.(1) In light of (b), above, please justify, in detail, the duties and responsibilities of each member of the judiciary staff and provide a detailed justification demonstrating the need for each such staff member.

c. Please explain in terms intelligible to those Outside the Beltway under what circumstances, and how, a simple, one-word answer to a straightforward question could be percieved as either “insufficient” or “insulting.”

Important Note: Please limit your answers to *specific* responses to the above questions. Answers that include extraneous verbiage such as “… the Senate owes is to the American people…” or “…nobody gets a pass…” will automatically be disqualified. Two such disqualifications will require renedering an “inadequate/insulting” grade for the entire questionaire.

Thank you for your cooperation in this important civic endevor.

Respectfully,
Stephen Rosenbach