Sometimes they get it right

[Tigermike 3,057]

"More Democrats should have complained that Miers was unqualified. But they didn't, apparently fearing an alternative nominee, and their silence speaks volumes about the timidity and intellectual cowardice of their party's current leadership." — Los Angeles Times editorial

[TexasTiger 13,048]

"More Democrats should have complained that Miers was unqualified. But they didn't, apparently fearing an alternative nominee, and their silence speaks volumes about the timidity and intellectual cowardice of their party's current leadership." — Los Angeles Times editorial

194585[/snapback]

You guys are funny. Had the Republicans been convinced that she would have decided cases the way they wanted, they wouldn't have cared about whether she was "unqualified". Then if the Dems had raised that issue, you would have posted about them "Borking" her and being obstructionists.

Face it-- she didn't get a hearing, didn't get an "up or down vote" because of the same conservatives who once said, and are now saying again, that the President's choice deserves an "up or down vote". She never got a hearing...She had no opinions to judge...What were the Dems supposed to get all worked up about?

[AURaptor 1,128]

"More Democrats should have complained that Miers was unqualified. But they didn't, apparently fearing an alternative nominee, and their silence speaks volumes about the timidity and intellectual cowardice of their party's current leadership." — Los Angeles Times editorial

194585[/snapback]

You guys are funny. Had the Republicans been convinced that she would have decided cases the way they wanted, they wouldn't have cared about whether she was "unqualified". Then if the Dems had raised that issue, you would have posted about them "Borking" her and being obstructionists.

Face it-- she didn't get a hearing, didn't get an "up or down vote" because of the same conservatives who once said, and are now saying again, that the President's choice deserves an "up or down vote". She never got a hearing...She had no opinions to judge...What were the Dems supposed to get all worked up about?

194593[/snapback]

One axiom of politics : If your opponent is going to hang himself, let him.

That's just what the Dems did. Harriet was an unknown quality to both Dems and Republicans. W felt that his 'political capital' would allow him to keep the Dems silent and not attack a woman, while his base would blindly trust him. But as shown, the GOP base does not cater to one man alone. This appointment was too important to take on blind faith, when so many other candidates w/ proven track records were available. Harriet wasn't impressing the Senators she met with, and even Arlan Spector ® was openly critical of her answes on the questionnaire. She mgiht be a fine lawyer and a trusted friend of W's, but not a Supreme Court candidate.

[Tigermike 3,057]

"More Democrats should have complained that Miers was unqualified. But they didn't, apparently fearing an alternative nominee, and their silence speaks volumes about the timidity and intellectual cowardice of their party's current leadership." — Los Angeles Times editorial

194585[/snapback]

You guys are funny. Had the Republicans been convinced that she would have decided cases the way they wanted, they wouldn't have cared about whether she was "unqualified". Then if the Dems had raised that issue, you would have posted about them "Borking" her and being obstructionists.

Face it-- she didn't get a hearing, didn't get an "up or down vote" because of the same conservatives who once said, and are now saying again, that the President's choice deserves an "up or down vote". She never got a hearing...She had no opinions to judge...What were the Dems supposed to get all worked up about?

194593[/snapback]

So you are saying there is no difference in her removing her own nomination and the democrats filibustering a nominee? Huuuummm, Ms. Miers withdraws her name and you dems are now wanting to say she didn't get an up or down vote. That is the most convoluted illogical thinking I have ever heard. I thought you were brighter than that.

[TexasTiger 13,048]

"More Democrats should have complained that Miers was unqualified. But they didn't, apparently fearing an alternative nominee, and their silence speaks volumes about the timidity and intellectual cowardice of their party's current leadership." — Los Angeles Times editorial

194585[/snapback]

You guys are funny. Had the Republicans been convinced that she would have decided cases the way they wanted, they wouldn't have cared about whether she was "unqualified". Then if the Dems had raised that issue, you would have posted about them "Borking" her and being obstructionists.

Face it-- she didn't get a hearing, didn't get an "up or down vote" because of the same conservatives who once said, and are now saying again, that the President's choice deserves an "up or down vote". She never got a hearing...She had no opinions to judge...What were the Dems supposed to get all worked up about?

194593[/snapback]

So you are saying there is no difference in her removing her own nomination and the democrats filibustering a nominee? Huuuummm, Ms. Miers withdraws her name and you dems are now wanting to say she didn't get an up or down vote. That is the most convoluted illogical thinking I have ever heard. I thought you were brighter than that.

194597[/snapback]

Not convoluted at all. The Dems didn't take the position that the President's nominees deserve the benefit of a hearing and an up or down vote. The Republicans did. Until they didn't like the nominee and urged her withdrawal without the benefit of a hearing.