I agree with sigmund here, I think the conclusion was arrived at prematurely(not saying it was wrong, just that now we will never know).
Unfortunately I think the lesson here is that if you want to push something forward, the way to go about it is to shout first and drown out everyone else.
She wasn't SCOTUS material and she knew it. Say what you want about the influence of political pressure, but Miers would have not even been on the radar screen if she had not known the President.
I fully agree with Stan. And even past tense, Miers was an awful choice. Yes, the Dems will play with it/poke at a few eyes. Bur their arms still fall short.
Hewitt, SC&A and Tommy genuinely fear/predict a fractured party. I can't see it at all. Hewitt the most outspoken "big tent" Republican. He wrote a book about it, identifying three subspecies:
1) Social Conservatives/Evangelicals.
2) Big Business conservatives.
3) Libertarian conservatives.
The three strains cooperated before anyone heard of Harriet--why should that change? Which brings me to my questions for SC&A and Tommy (Hugh too):
1) In predicting friction, are you anticipating that "my side" will be nasty to "your side?" and
2) If not, do you anticipate an increased in your nasty quotient?
3) If we make a non-aggression pact, and our NQs each are static, what's the threat?
4 comments:
It isn't often I'll disagree, Carl, but I don't see todays news as boding well for the future.
I agree with sigmund here, I think the conclusion was arrived at prematurely(not saying it was wrong, just that now we will never know).
Unfortunately I think the lesson here is that if you want to push something forward, the way to go about it is to shout first and drown out everyone else.
She wasn't SCOTUS material and she knew it.
Say what you want about the influence of political pressure, but Miers would have not even been on the radar screen if she had not known the President.
I fully agree with Stan. And even past tense, Miers was an awful choice. Yes, the Dems will play with it/poke at a few eyes. Bur their arms still fall short.
Hewitt, SC&A and Tommy genuinely fear/predict a fractured party. I can't see it at all. Hewitt the most outspoken "big tent" Republican. He wrote a book about it, identifying three subspecies:
1) Social Conservatives/Evangelicals.
2) Big Business conservatives.
3) Libertarian conservatives.
The three strains cooperated before anyone heard of Harriet--why should that change? Which brings me to my questions for SC&A and Tommy (Hugh too):
1) In predicting friction, are you anticipating that "my side" will be nasty to "your side?" and
2) If not, do you anticipate an increased in your nasty quotient?
3) If we make a non-aggression pact, and our NQs each are static, what's the threat?
Post a Comment