Robert Bork Calls Miers Nomination "A Disaster On Every Level"

Bench Memos

The Corner

Dynamist Blog

David Frum

Harriet Miers's Blog ;D!!!

Insults Unpunished

Professor Bainbridge

QandO

RedState

Rebutting The Harriet Miers Crowd

Why Pulling The Harriet Miers Nomination Would Be The Best Move Bush Could Make

How A Miers Withdrawal Scenario Might Go

The Problem With The "Wait & See" Approach On Miers

Harriet Miers: This Far And No Further

Harriet Miers And A Basketball Analogy

The Political Ramifications Of Bush's Supreme Court Cronyism

Karl Rove & George Bush: An Imaginary Conversation About Another SCOTUS Opening

Charles Krauthammer: Withdraw Miers!

George Will: Miers Is The Wrong Pick

Peggy Noonan: The Miers Misstep.

David Frum: What Now On Miers?

William Kristol: Harriet Miers Should Prove Her Loyalty To The President By Withdrawing Her Nomination

Ann Coulter: This Is What Advice & Consent Means

Robert Novak: Bush's Unpleasant Surprise

Randy E. Barnett: Cronyism & Miers

Mona Charen: A Timid, Tepid Pick

Question: Here is a Legitimate (not LW&P) question: How will this affect the internet in general and sites like this one in particular?

Breaking America's grip on the net

After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments

You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd.
But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come.

Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet." -- Kermit_H

Answer: The original story is from the ultra-left wing Guardian and it's complete bilge. Here's the crucial detail about how the UN is going to takeover the internet:

"(T)he world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control (of the internet). It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce."

Oh no! Not "international consensus". Anything but that! Why, how could we ever bear the shame of standing against international consensus? Wait a second -- there won't be any angry letters written, will there? If there is a scrap of humanity left in any of these foreign governments, one tiny scrap, they won't unleash that horror on us on top of their searing scorn!

Please.

Here's the US position on letting the UN take control of the net's root servers:

"The US coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department, Ambassador David Gross was quoted as saying, "We will not agree to the UN taking over the management of the internet. Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

We invented the internet, we developed it, we're running it, and we're not giving up control of it, especially to the ninnies at the UN. The rest of the world can like it or lump it, whichever they prefer, but that's how it is and how it will continue to be -- at least as long as there is a Republican in the White House.

On October the 14th, the White House announces that Harriet Miers has asked the President to withdraw her nomination. The Sunday Morning talk shows talk incessantly about how Bush's crony pick was withdrawn, the split in the conservative movement, and how this is the worst thing that ever happened to Bush. What a triumph for the left...or is it?

On the following Monday, October the 24th, President Bush announces that he is nominating Edith Hollan Jones to the Supreme Court. The left wails & gnashes their teeth in anger. The same conservatives who bitterly attacked Bush over the Harriet Miers nomination, praise him to the skies for his selection. Right wingers who previously said that they wouldn't donate money to the GOP in 2006, open up their checkbooks to donate money to conservative special interest groups that plan to run ads to defend the Jones nomination.

On November the 7th, Jones goes before the Senate. Every Republican plans to vote for her, but the Democrats aren't happy. There is even some talk of a filibuster. But, after just seeing the terrible "wrath of conservatives scorned" over the Miers' nomination, Republican members of the "Gang of 14" become terrified of the consequences of a vote against the nuclear option. John McCain understands that going the wrong way means his presidential campaign in 2008 is doomed. Mike DeWine knows he'll lose his Senate seat if he votes with the Democrats. Lincoln Chaffee has a tough primary coming up and he knows going the wrong way means defeat. Lindsey Graham, who has already been stung by criticism over his role in the "Gang of 14" deal, doesn't want a repeat performance.

Harry Reid then sees that there are 52 votes for the nuclear option and figures that he may not be able to stop Jones, but if the conservative base is less motivated in the future, he may still get a chance to block a nominee down the road. So, knowing that he can't win, he decides to keep his powder dry in case there is another Supreme Court opening later in Bush's term.

Then, on December the 2nd, Edith Hollan Jones comes up for a vote which she wins: 55 - 45. The public at large? They've heard the Democrats' spiel about Republican extremists a thousand times before. They just don't pay much attention to it. Besides, Edith Hollan Jones seemed so competent in the confirmation hearings.

The Democratic base? They're demoralized and angry. They had the best nominee they were ever going to get with Miers and somehow it all slipped away from them.

The Republican base? They're energized & ecstatic because they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. The Miers nomination? Well, since Bush proved himself by selecting Jones, it must have meant his intentions were good with Miers. Maybe she wasn't a great candidate, but at least things did turn out OK in the end. Heck, OK is an understatement! We got Edith Hollan Jones on the Supreme Court thanks to Bush!

Question: "Iraq seems to have been put on the back burner with the Miers debacle. You, no doubt, agree with Bush in his recent speech to stay the course in Iraq however given the growing concern with domestic issues ie Katrina is there anything you might add to his argument? I mention this because I believe the President is under tremendous stress with the hurricanes and Iraq and a show of support for his foreign policy would certainly be welcomed." -- libliever

"..a show of support for his foreign policy would certainly be welcomed."

"I concur and second that, libliever." -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: To say that I'm down on George Bush right now over the Harriet Miers nomination is like saying that the sun is hot, but I'd still give him high marks for his foreign policy.

Iraq: By the summer of next year, it's likely that the Iraqis will have voted their Constitution into law, they'll have had another election that'll have an even higher level of voter participation than the first one, there will have been a trial of Saddam (and hopefully a hanging), and it's also likely that a significant number of our troops will be headed home as the Iraqis start to police their own country. So not only are we moving in the right direction, we seem to be picking up momentum. If all goes as expected, that should become more and more apparent over the next few months.

North Korea: We've made some progress here as well, but it's hard to say how much. Six party talks about getting rid of North Korea's nukes start next month, but when you're dealing with a kooky Commie regime, it's hard to say how serious they actually are or how long they'll want to dicker. So, we probably shouldn't get our hopes up yet, but again, we're going in the right direction.

Iran: It's hard to judge how much progress we're making in Iran because so much of the key info and action is occurring behind the scenes. You have to wonder: how close are they to getting nuclear weapons? The European talks with Iran seem to be going nowhere, but are they making any progress in private? Are we sending aid and weapons to Iranian groups that oppose the regime? Is the CIA working on a coup? Have we talked about who's going to have to bomb their nuclear facilities -- if it comes to that -- with the Israelis? There are just no reliable answers to those questions, so it's hard to say for sure how we're doing.

Israel & The Disputed Territories: Pulling out of Gaza and building a wall was a bold step for the Israelis and it has the potential to improve their security situation long-term, significantly lessen the drain on their military, and put the onus of responsibility for the conflict back where it belongs: with the Palestinians. That's not to say that there aren't negatives as well or that peace is on the horizon, but again, things have improved.

Then there's a now democratic Afghanistan, Syria's pull out from Lebanon, Libya giving up their nukes, the first (admittedly flawed) multi-party elections in Egypt, a weakening of the UN, and the US pulling a lot of troops out of Europe. All in all, when you look at the big picture, Bush deserves an enormous amount of credit for what he has accomplished on the foreign policy front and it's entirely possible that the best may be yet to come: the flowering of democracy and death of terrorist organizations with global reach across much of the Middle-East. It's too much to hope that we'll see progress of that magnitude before Bush leaves office, but like Reagan, the seeds he's planting abroad today are going to eventually bear fruit and he'll deserve credit when they do.

"Thousands of words have been written, but no one has said "This far and no farther," which makes me think that opposition to Miers is not that deep." -- Hugh Hewitt

Let me make it absolutely clear if it wasn't already: I am saying, "This far and no farther."

Ideally, I'd like to see George Bush withdraw her nomination.

If he doesn't do so, I would like to see Miers defeated in her confirmation hearings.

If Miers is confirmed, I don't think that Republicans should threaten to stay home on election day or throw their vote away on a third party. But, I will say that if you're considering whether to vote for a Republican Senator in a primary or give him a donation, then how the Senator voted on the Miers nomination should be one of the things in the forefront of your mind as you make your decision.

Note that I do not say this out of vindictiveness or out of a desire to lash out at the Republican Party. To the contrary, I want us to add more seats in the Senate and the House in 2006. But the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a rare and incredibly precious opportunity that shouldn't be squandered on a 4th tier crony candidate who cannot even be counted on to move the court to the right. This must be pointed out at every opportunity if conservatives are to have a chance to stop Miers from getting to the Supreme Court.

But what about party loyalty you may ask? Party loyalty is fine and conservatives certainly shouldn't erupt over every little thing. But a Supreme Court appointment is just about as important as it gets in politics and if this isn't the right time to fight for conservative principles, then when will that time ever come? If this isn't an issue worth fighting over, then what is?

If the party loyalists are worried about the long term results of this intra-party brawl, then let them encourage George Bush to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers for the good of the party so a more qualified nominee can be selected. Otherwise, prepare yourself for a couple of months worth of nasty, internecine, political warfare on the right.

One way or the other, there is going to be a fight over the nomination. If Bush sticks with Miers, then he's going to have an incredibly damaging fight with his own base. But, if he withdraws Miers, the right can join together and fight against the left for a candidate who's truly worthy of being selected to the Supreme Court.

If Bush acts soon, he can turn a nomination that has been a political nightmare into a nomination that will unite the right. If he doesn't, then the blame for the enormous political fall-out from this nomination will rest squarely on his shoulders.

How about helping out by clicking on just a few of my advertisers? Puh-lease? No seriously: please?

Newsmax: A Harriet Miers Poll
Ann Coulter's "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)
Bet On Iraq
Conservatives: Fill Out Our Survey!
Freedom Stone T-Shirts
Jack Lewis
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Patriot Blog
SIRIUS Radio Silences Christian Voices
Stingray Conference Calling
Stop the ACLU

PS: I still have two banner ads available. They're $60 each and the technical details are here.

Question: "Do you see a possibility of there being a strong third party or maybe fourth party in the near future? Would this be a more realistic possibility if it were initiated from a grassroots level or from within the current political 'moderate players' of each party?

I would invite a new credible party just to create a truer environment for a free market place of ideas.

As a southern demo, I have been feeling very alienated from my own party within the past few years. And seeing the new debates rising within the Rep party, I can see where the same feelings might be true for some Repubs. The environment may be ripe for change." -- southern_demo

Answer: For it to actually work and not just be a parasite that siphons votes off of one party or the other, leading to defeat for both, there would have to be a platform that would appeal to large numbers of people who currently lean to the left and the right. Moreover, the issues the party ran on would have to be ones that the other two big parties couldn't or wouldn't "steal" because their constituency groups wouldn't allow it. In my opinion, that's too fine a needle for any third party to thread.

Then there are the problems of raising money, getting organized nationally, getting skeptical voters who normally vote Republican or Democrat to switch parties, and coming up with an effective counter to the whole "you're throwing your vote away by voting for those guys because they can't win" argument. Again, those are almost insurmountable obstacles to overcome.

Let me also add that in my experience, many of the people who are unhappy with their party are upset not because they don't like the agenda, but because the politicians don't have the guts to actually carry it out once they get elected. Keeping that in mind, even if there was a successful third party, would its members think it was all worth it when the compromising began?

As a side note, I think this is one of the things that a lot of people who actually vote Libertarian don't really think about. The reason Libertarian politicians can be so ideologically pure is because they're not in power. If the Libertarians were to ever actually start to win a lot of elections, they'd start compromising their principles on a regular basis to stay in office, just like the Republicans and Democrats do.

So a strong third party just doesn't look to be in the cards.

Question: "Have you seen the latest BURGER KING ads? the burger king guy gives all meat sandwich to a LOGGER who cuts down a tree wow that will upset the enviromentalist wackos but screw the eco-freaks this is a real ad." -- lonsome_loon

Answer: The creepy looking Burger King guy has actually replaced Ronald McDonald for me as the most hated corporate mascot.

You have this weird, masked, freak who doesn't talk, appearing in odd places and offering people food. Why are these people even taking his sandwiches? Didn't they have parents who told them not to take candy from strangers when they were kids? Personally, if it came right down to it, I'd take a snickers bars from someone before I'd take a sandwich. At least the candy bar is wrapped.

The particular commercial you mention is typically freaky. Imagine this: you're alone, in the woods, working hard, doing your job, cutting down trees with your ax. Then, when a tree falls, there's somebody standing right there. In and of itself, that would freak anybody out. Now on top of that, the guy is wearing a mask, a crown, a costume, is holding a sandwich, and won't talk. Are you going to tell me visions of the "Friday the 13th" wouldn't be going through your head?

In the ad, the guy just takes the sandwich from him and then they hang out together. In real life, a normal person would start slowly backing up while thinking: "If he jumps at me while I'm trying to get away, I'll hit him with the ax."

Like I said, I'm just not a big fan of those commercials...

*** Update #1 ***: I just saw a new BK ad and it was so deliberately sinister that they had to be doing it on purpose.

You have this construction worker, way, way up working on a skyscraper. He sees someone working on the other side of a steel beam, but he can't tell who it is.

Suddenly, the "burgary" face of death comes slowly peering around the side of the beam. Here's the worker, trapped and vulnerable, while some weirdo with a bizarre mask is leering at him. It's like the climax of a horror film.

Then, the Burger King guy hands the construction worker a glass of coffee, which he quickly drinks down. Of course, it could have been full of sulphuric acid for all he knew, but why not trust the masked stranger who has you cornered 500 ft. off the ground?

Now here's the real kicker: the two of them are standing there, way up in the air, and the Burger King guy gives the worker a little push. The worker staggers a little bit, almost falls, and barely regains his balance. Then he looks at the Burger King guy and laughs uproariously as if to say: "You almost murdered me, you sly devil!"

You know what would be really hilarious? A horror flick featuring the "King" murdering people for refusing to take his free sandwiches. Now that would be entertainment.

Question: "As a rightwinger in Australia, I just don't understand why U.S. conservatives hate "RINO" McCain. Anti-abortion, pro-Iraq, anti-pork, war hero ... sure, McCain-Feingold is stupid and the Gang of 14 was annoying, but why is he so unpopular? I wish we had more like him here." -- Nick Palgan (email)

Answer: There are plenty of policies and things McCain has supported that grate on many conservatives.

He's incredibly soft on illegal immigration. McCain-Feingold campaign finance not only failed in "getting the money out of politics" & should have been ruled unconstitutional, it actually helped the Democrats gain a big 527 fund raising advantage last year. The Gang of 14 compromise was more than just "annoying." It allowed the Democrats to have extra leverage which they then used to cow Bush into selecting a spectacularly awful candidate like Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. I could go on, but let's just say that McCain seems to take an almost perverse delight in becoming prominently involved in legislation that conservatives detest.

Then there's the fact McCain isn't necessarily considered to be a loyal Republican. Back in 2002, there were some people who seriously thought McCain might switch parties. In the 2004 election, even though he turned him down in the end, McCain actually talked with Kerry multiple times about being his veep in the 2004 campaign. Can you even begin to imagine someone like George Allen or Sam Brownback switching parties? What about John Cornyn talking with John Kerry about being his vice-president?

On top of all that, McCain is an egomaniac who seems to crave approval from the press and he has no qualms whatsoever about attacking other Republicans to get it. What McCain loves to do is trash other Republicans on issues that conservatives hold dear and then sit back and wait for the liberal press to rave about what a "straight talking maverick" he is. If this happened here and there, it might be forgivable, but it's a semi-regular thing for McCain.

Put it all together and you can see why there are so many conservatives who genuinely don't like McCain.

Question: "Honestly now... have there ever been any movies, TV shows, books, or video games which made you choke up a bit at the end?" -- maledicta

Answer:There are several movies that have moved me, but the only two that actually choked me up were "Old Yeller" when I was a kid and "The Passion of the Christ" as an adult.

As far as books go, the only thing that comes to mind is "Where the Red Fern Grows." Again, that was from when I was a kid.

With video games, I'd have to say the cut scene in Starcraft when the lone marine is overwhelmed by the Zerg and eaten alive far from home...Ok, I'm kidding about this one =D

Question: "Will the Reps split into two factions, one much more conservative than the other?" -- D-Vega

Answer: Ahem...NO!

Charles Krauthammer: "If Harriet Miers Were Not A Crony Of The President Of The United States, Her Nomination To The Supreme Court Would Be A Joke, As It Would Have Occurred To No One Else To Nominate Her"

Dobson Admits Doubt. Focus Founder Questioning Early Endorsement Of Miers

Republican Activists Slam Miers Nomination

Right Sees Miers As Threat To A Dream

Senate Sets Standards On Detainees. Lawmakers Defy Bush To Overwhelmingly OK McCain Bill In Response To Abu Ghraib

Police Investigate New York Subway Terror Threat

Rove Said to Testify in CIA Leak Case. His Attorney Confirms He Still Is Not A Target Of The Investigation

Other Jury Declined To Indict DeLay. Texas Prosecutor Described As Angry

The United States And Its Allies Have Thwarted At Least 10 Serious Al Qaeda Terrorist Plots Since Sept. 11, 2001, Including Never-Before-Disclosed Plans To Use Hijacked Commercial Airliners To Attack The East And West Coasts In 2002 And 2003, President Bush And His Aides Said

Bush Hits 'Islamic Radicals'

Clinton: Iraq War's 'A Quagmire'

Peggy Noonan: The Miers Misstep. What Was President Bush Thinking?

David Frum: Responses On Miers

Richard Miniter: Laura Ingraham For Scotus! She’s Got More Going For Her Than Harriet Miers

Robert Novak: Bush's Unpleasant Surprise

Johnathan Turley: What Qualifies One For The Supreme Court?

Patrick J. Buchanan: Republican Senators Should Not Rally Around Their President

Jonah Goldberg: Bennett's Critics Prefer To Misunderstand Him

Stephen Bainbridge: The White House Considers Conservatives To Be A Nuisance

A Transcript Of Hugh Hewitt & Mark Steyn's Latest Chat

Betsy Newmark: Where Is The MSM On DeLay Now?

Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger

FBI Freeh Unloads On Clinton: 'Closets Were Full Of Skeletons'

The Seats Most Likely To Change Hands In 2006

Democrats Urged to Abandon Election Myths

Lack Of Hurricane This Week, Proof That Global Warming Is Subsiding

Humor: Bush Names New Agriculture Chief

Website Of The Day: Vote Miers Down

Tomorrow will be Q&A Friday #24 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

So ask away!

1) Opponents of Miers have said she's not qualified to be on the Surpeme Court. That's not true! Agreed. Harriet Miers is qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

That being said, she doesn't even come close to being the most qualified candidate. Nor could she be said to be a top tier candidate. In fact, if most of Miers' defenders were being completely honest, they'd admit she's not even a well qualified candidate. Instead, she is a minimally qualified candidate with credentials that are probably no better and no worse than those of hundreds of other lawyers. But, unlike those other lawyers, Harriet Miers is friends with George Bush, who obviously values friendship and loyalty more than finding the best person for the job.

If you don't believe that, ask yourself if Miers would have been one of the top 25, or even the top 50 candidates being considered if, let's say, George Allen, Sam Brownback, or even -- God help us -- John McCain were President. Face facts: she wouldn't have even been considered for the job if she weren't a FOB (friend of Bush).

That's not to say Harriet Miers is a talentless hack. She has probably accomplished more than 98% of the people in this country during her lifetime. Yet and still, to say she's not in the same ballpark qualifications-wise as candidates like Michael W. McConnell and Michael Luttig is an understatement. Not only is she not in the same ballpark, she's not in the same city, the same state, or even the same country. It's like she's on a boat somewhere heading towards the country. This is why so many people are disparaging her qualifications. It's because she is such a lightweight compared to the other people who were rumored to be in consideration.

Angry Miers' defenders have charged people who have pointed out these very obvious facts with elitism and snobbery. But, if believing that a Supreme Court nominee should be selected based on merit instead of cronyism now means you're a snobby elitist, then...wait a second, it doesn't mean that at all. This isn't about elitism, it's about getting a top-of-the line candidate for the most important job in America behind the Presidency and Miers just isn't up to snuff.

2) Miers will probably be easily confirmed. Yes, she probably will be easily confirmed if President Bush does not withdraw her nomination. But, given that there are 55 Republicans in the Senate and likely, enough votes this time around for the nuclear option, any nominee Bush sent to the Senate would have been highly likely to be confirmed.

For example, take Janice Rogers Brown, who was generally thought to be the most controversial candidate under consideration (other than perhaps Alberto Gonzales). Brown was just confirmed in June of this year with 56 votes. Every single Republican and Democrat Ben Nelson all voted for her. The idea that 6 Republicans who just gave her the thumbs up would turn around and go against her is ludicrous.

Furthermore, since at least 3 members of the GOP side of the "Gang of 14," Graham, DeWine, and McCain, have all as good as said they would vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats tried to block a GOP SCOTUS nominee over ideology, a Democratic filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee was highly unlikely because it would have led to the nuclear option.

So instead of getting a stellar nominee, we're getting a mediocre nominee because of -- what? She'll be confirmed with 80 votes instead of 55? Whether a nominee is confirmed with 51 votes or 100 makes absolutely no difference as long as he/she's confirmed.

3) A lot of conservatives are just spoiling for an unnecessary fight with the Democrats and that's why they don't like the nomination. It is true that there are a few conservatives who would have relished a savage fight over the nomination. However, it's also true that George Bush has apparently been so intimidated by Harry Reid and Company that he'd prefer to fight with his own base over a 4th rate candidate than take on the Democrats.

While picking a fight with Democrats shouldn't be the primary reason you select a justice, it also isn't a reason to shy away from picking a top notch nominee either. If Bush doesn't have the guts to go toe to toe with the Democrats on something as important as this, even when he has 55 Republicans in the Senate, it makes you wonder if he has completely lost his nerve. These Supreme Court appointments are 2nd in importance only to the war on terror and appeasing the Democrats in order to avoid a big fight is the wrong way to go.

4) Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian. **wink wink** She also went to some pro-life dinners. **nudge nudge** I think we know what that means *** cough cough -- she'll strike down Roe v. Wade -- cough cough ** don't we?

The way Harriet Miers' Christianity is being used as a primary selling point for her nomination is reminiscent of how John Kerry kept incessantly reminding everyone that he fought in Vietnam. It was great that Kerry fought in Vietnam and it's fantastic that Harriet Miers is said to be a devout Evangelical Christian. But, the fact that Miers goes to church is being touted so heavily tells you that she doesn't have much else going for her.

Moreover, have conservatives not ripped liberal judges up one side and down the other for letting their personal beliefs dictate their rulings? Since that's the case, isn't it hypocritical for conservatives to hope that Harriet Miers will overturn Roe v. Wade because she's personally against abortion? Roe v. Wade should be overturned because the Constitution doesn't address abortion, not because of the religious beliefs of a judge.

But, since Roe v. Wade is an emotional issue for a lot of conservatives, let's set that aside for just a moment. How will Miers' Christianity impact other key rulings? For example, what's the "biblical position" Christians should take on Kelo v. New London? What about Grutter v. Bollinger? Griswold vs. Connecticut? Oh, yeah, there is no "biblical position" on those cases and even if there were, it would be wrong for Miers to let her religious beliefs affect her decisions.

So why is the fact that Miers is religious supposed to be such a significant part of her appeal? Truthfully, it really shouldn't make much of a difference.

5) You shouldn't rip into the President on this nomination. It might hurt us in 2006 if you do.

President Bush knew how important this nomination was to the grass roots. And if I could predict beforehand that choosing Miers would be a "calamitous error" politically, then certainly the Bush Administration must have known it as well.

Yet, Bush still chose to select Miers and predictably, it's damaging the Party.

For those of us who oppose Miers to "put on a brave face" would, in my opinion, be exactly the sort of credibility-draining mistake that so many Democrats made during the Clinton years. That's not to say we shouldn't circle the wagons and defend "our guys" when they deserve it, but when the President of the United States makes a mistake of this magnitude, he needs to be called on it in the strongest of terms even if it exacerbates the political damage.

Even if it turns out that Miers can't be stopped, there are some political hills worth figuratively dying on, if necessary, and this is one of them.

6) You should just trust the President's judgement. He knows best and if he says Miers will be fine, that's good enough for me.

First of all, Republican Presidents have been notoriously bad at choosing Supreme Court nominees. Out of the 9 justices currently on the court, 7 of them have been appointed by Republicans. Out of that batch of judges we have:

1 brand new judge: Roberts
2 conservative judges: Scalia & Thomas.
2 "moderate" judges: Kennedy & O'Connor.
2 liberal judges: Souter & Stevens

Because well meaning Republican Presidents have picked so many duds in the past, most conservative court watchers figure: the longer the track record, the better. That's part of the reason why Miers is setting off so many alarms. You can trot out her friends and members of the Bush administration all day long to talk about what an originalist she'll be, but this is not something that can just be taken on faith after conservatives have been burned so many times in the past.

Also, it's worth adding that George Bush has many fine qualities, but being a good judge of people is not one of them. Remember when he partnered up with Ted Kennedy to promote "No Child Left Behind" and then Kennedy turned around and slammed him? Over and over and over and over again? How about helping to rehabilitate Bill Clinton's image by sending him out on these high profile fund raising trips with his dad? That really gave Clinton a lot more credibility when he unsurprisingly turned on the President and publicly ripped him on everything from Katrina to Iraq. How about Bush's friend and adviser Doug Wead who secretly recorded private conversations with W. and then played the tapes for the press? Was that really a guy Bush should have had as an adviser? Then there was the time Bush looked into Putin's soul and decided he could trust him. That's the same Putin who we believe is helping Iran build nuclear weapons right now.

After all that, "trust me," just isn't going to cut it.

The Anchoress, who I think is an excellent blogger even if I strongly disagree with her take on Miers, tells conservatives to wait for Miers' "job interview" before they make a decision about her.

"This woman has not even had the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary committee so that we can all get a sense of her, before she is either confirmed or dumped.

...The president has named a nominee. She will now have to sink or swim at her own “job interview.” If she is the incompetent boob, “cafeteria lady” some of you vaunt, she will embarrass herself and be rejected. If she is the “pitbull in size 6 shoes” the president characterizes, she will impress enough people to be appointed."

Here's the problem with that sort of thinking: we're not going to learn anything about the candidate at the "job interview."

Things she may have said or written as a lawyer? It doesn't mean anything because she's taking a position for a client. Her time in the White House? Bush is citing executive privilege and saying he won't release any documents she wrote in the White House. What about future rulings on important cases like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London? She won't talk about those cases on the grounds that she may have to rule on them as a Supreme Court justice.

So unless there's the equivalent of an Anita Hill hiding in the wings or Miers completely cracks under the pressure, we won't learn much about Miers at the hearings. In other words, it'll be a Rorschach test. There will be a lot of long speeches from Senators, some hostile questions, Miers will dodge them all, and then people will look at the inkblots and see what they want to see.

That was acceptable for a candidate like Roberts. Although he may not have had a long enough track record for many people's tastes, he was universally regarded as an absolutely brilliant lawyer and there were a few encouraging legal tidbits conservatives got to see from his time in the Reagan administration and on the bench. Moreover, before the nomination, Roberts was considered to be a highly regarded, top tier candidate.

On the other hand, Harriet Miers is feather light in the qualifications department compared to the other nominees that were being seriously considered. There was no one on the right before her nomination that considered her to be a great candidate and, quite frankly, few of the conservatives backing her today seem terribly enthusiastic about it.

As if that wasn't enough, while John Roberts was building his conservative pedigree up in the Reagan administration, Harriet Miers was apparently still a Democrat. While there's nothing wrong with selecting an ex-Democrat for the Supreme Court per se, it does create a bit of nagging doubt about how reliable of a conservative vote she'll be. Keep in mind that we're talking about a woman who was making campaign contributions to Al Gore and the DNC when she was over 40 years old. Now, we're supposed to believe she's another Scalia even though we know very little about her personal views on the issues?

Is Miers really a candidate conservatives can be confident in based on nothing more than Bush's say so and a few non-answers at a confirmation hearing? The answer to that question should be, "no."

*** The next to last paragraph has been edited slightly from the original version. ***

It must be fun for liberals to watch all the bloody infighting that's happening on the right these days. But, enjoy it while you can, fellas, because the future belongs to conservatism. Read these numbers and despair, you liberals!

"A national analysis of shifts in the black community shows that the move away from the Democratic Party and towards political independence is strongest among young African-American voters. According to a paper titled "The Political Orientations of Young African Americans" by David A. Bositis published in the journal Soul, this year, underwritten by the Institute for Research in African American Studies at Columbia University, one quarter of African American voters under the age of 35 now identify as political independents, in contrast to 10% of senior citizens.

The growing trend is broad as well as deep - in 1998 only 5% of African-American voters between the age of 51 and 64 identified as independents, but by 2002 that number increased fourfold to 21%. This analysis shows that 25% of young black voters are self-described conservatives, while 31% are moderates. On education policy, 66% support school vouchers for public, private or parochial school - a major point of policy difference between the Republican and Democratic Party - while nearly 80% favor partial privatization of Social Security. This is in sharp contrast to African-American elected officials in particular, of whom 70% over the age of 40 oppose school vouchers."

Granted the GOP isn't reeling all these black conservatives and moderates into the Party...yet. But, eventually, it will happen. The Democrats can only keep tricking people with their "Republicans hate black people" propaganda for so long. As the GOP continues to reach out to black churches and as more black conservatives become prominent on the right, it'll become harder and harder to keep up the lies.

It may not happen in the next Presidential election or even in the one after that, but eventually the day is going to come when a Republican President will be pulling 25%-35% of the black vote, instead of 8%-12%. When that day comes, today's Democratic Party will have to move significantly to the right on a number of issues to avoid fading into irrelevance.

Conservatives may lose some battles before that day comes, but we will win the ideological war and pull the country to the right.

Here are some key quotes from the latest David Frum column about Harriet Miers. As you read Frum's devastating comments, keep in mind that he used to work with Miers:

"So if I don't dislike Miers and want the president to succeed, why am I speaking out? Aside from all the substantial reasons I have cited to date, I am speaking out because there are so many others who want to speak but cannot. I have spent many hours of the past three days listening to conservative jurists on this topic - people who have devoted their lives to fighting battles for constitutionalism, for tort reform, for color-blind justice, people who fought the good fight to get Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts onto the high Court.

Their reaction to the nomination has been almost perfectly unanimous: Disappointment at best, dismay and anger at worst. Here's the tough truth, and it will become more and more important as the debate continues: There is scarcely a single knowledgeable legal conservative in Washington who supports this nomination. There are many who are prepared to accept, reluctantly, as the president's choice. Some still hope that maybe it won't turn out as bad as it looks. But ask them: "Well what if the president had consulted you on this choice," and the answer is almost always some version of: "I would have thought he was joking."

"Inside the White House, Miers was best known, not as a conservative, not as a legal thinker, but as a petty bureaucrat."

"Some NRO readers have challenged me: Why should we trust you when you say that Miers is not qualified rather than trust the president when he says she is?

My answer is: Don't trust me. Trust your own eyes. The woman is 61 years old, a lawyer for more than three decades. Can you see any instance in this long life and career where Miers ever took a risk on behalf of conservative principle? Can you see any indication of intellectual excellence? Did she ever do anything brave, anything that took backbone? Did anyone before this week ever describe her as oustanding in any way at all?

If the answers to these questions is No, as it is, then you have to ask yourself: Why is a Republican president bypassing so many dozens of superb legal conservatives to choose Harriet Miers for the highest court in the land?"

The Kelo backlash (and yes, I know many of you do not like it when I use the word backlash) continues, with Kevin Drum highlighting another outrage:

THE BEST KELO CASE YET….For those of you who felt that I was insufficiently outraged over the Kelo eminent domain decision, I’ve got just the story for you. This isn’t about a city condemning blighted land for redevelopment. It’s not even about a city condemning good land for redevelopment. It’s about a city condemning good land for a project that’s almost identical to the project the land’s current owner wants to put up himself. The city is Union Township in New Jersey and the owner is Carol Segal:

On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal’s land through eminent domain and name its own developer.

“They want to steal my land,” Segal said. “What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?”

.... Segal…signed a contract last week to sell his property to Centex Homes for about $13 million, contingent upon local approval. Centex, a nationally known developer with projects in Middlesex, Morris and Monmouth counties, would then build 100 townhouses on Segal’s property….

Florio and Capodice [the mayor and deputy mayor] said they preferred AMJM because it is a local company.

“I’ve never heard of Centex,” Capodice said. “They’re not Union County people.”

It’s worth noting that the Star-Ledger story quoted above strongly implies that there’s some fairly sleazy political corruption involved in all this, and it’s possible that this might be a bigger factor than the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo. Hey, this is Jersey we’re talking about.

And here is another one for you:

"Florida’s Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

“This is a community that’s in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year,” said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is “using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers.”

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.

“Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections,” Mr. Brown said. “But if we don’t use this power, cities will die.”

Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.

“This is a very [racially] mixed area that’s also very stable,” she said. “But no one seems to care … Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there’s got to be another way.”

The city is going to confiscate 2000 homes in the name of economic development (my soulmates at Q and O covered this yesterday). For those of you who remain unconvinced, here is another tale for you:

"While planning for a new Dallas Cowboys stadium, Mayor Robert Cluck said the city would use eminent domain only as a last resort to assemble the needed land.

But condemnation has become the rule rather than the exception.

The City Council has condemned or sought to condemn more than three-quarters of the properties it has acted on in the past four months, an analysis has found.

“We were hoping that this would be the last resort,” Dr. Cluck said last week. “We were hoping there would be more willing sellers.”

He said that before the land acquisition started, city officials had no idea what percentage of property owners would sell willingly.

Although the number of condemnations is much higher than he would like, Dr. Cluck said, the city is making fair offers, and sometimes eminent domain is the only option.

Glenn Sodd, an attorney representing some people in the affected area, said the high percentage of eminent domain cases shows that the city has low-balled residents and business owners and that its incentive program is inadequate.

“The offers obviously aren’t sufficient otherwise they wouldn’t be hiring lawyers and forcing condemnations to be filed,” Mr. Sodd said.

In comparable cases, he said, he would expect three-quarters or more of the property owners to sell and the rest to go to court, not the other way around."

In fairness, the last story can not be traced directly to the Kelo decision, but it is a shocking display of what governments will do- to give away land and money to billionaire sports team owners.

"The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he's indulging a desire to show them who's boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn't all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he's totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

Whatever the answer, history is being revealed here by the administration every day, and it's big history, not small." -- Peggy Noonan

New Questions From The Right On The Court Pick (Free NYT Reg Req)

Conservatives Confront Bush Aides. Anger Over Nomination Of Miers Boils Over During Private Meetings (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Trent Lott: 'Not Comfortable' With Miers' Nomination

Weyrich: Grassroots Not Happy With Meirs

Confusion Abounds in Pro-Family Camps Following Bush's SCOTUS Nomination

Espionage Case Breaches the White House

Prosecutor Reveals Third Grand Jury had Refused DeLay Indictment

DeLay, Successor Blunt Swapped Donations

Report: Plamegate Indictments May Be Soon

OU Bomber Had Bigger Plans, Ties To Norman Mosque

The Pakistani Roommate Of A Man Authorities Said Died When He Detonated An Explosive Device Outside A Crowded Football Stadium Was Led In Handcuffs From A Party Shortly After Saturday's Explosion

Was The Oklahoma Suicide Bombing A "Work Accident"?

Iraqi Poll: 79 Percent In Favor Of The Draft Constitution And 8 Percent Opposed

N. Korea's Kim Jong Il May Name Successor

Terrorists Video Shows Beheading Of Two Iraqis

Senate Will Probe Saudi Distribution Of Hate Materials

Terence Jeffrey: Why Should Conservative Senators Support Miers?

Ben Shapiro: President Bush's "Trust Me" Pick

Stephen Bainbridge: The Case Against Harriet Miers -- The Baseball Analogy

David Frum: The Rule Of Reason & The Supreme Court

Ann Coulter: This Is What Advice & Consent Means

Fraters Libertas: Harriet Miers -- The Deck Analogy

Bulldogpundit: Ronnie Earle - The "Keystone Kop" Prosecutor

John Avlon: Black Voters Declaring Independence

Jacob Laskin: Lew Rockwell Is A Willing Dupe Of The Far Left

Joe Mariani: Why Didn't Bush Nominate My Sister?

The Democrats 5 Point Plan For America

Python Explodes After Eating Alligator (W/Pic)

The Latest In French Fashion: Terrorist Street Chic

Website Of The Day: DC Debate

I'm a big fan of Jack Kelly over at Irish Pennants, but I don't see eye to eye with him on the Miers nomination.

That's not to say Jack is a fan of Harriet Miers. He has openly said he was "unhappy" about the pick and he added this tidbit yesterday:

"At his news conference today, President Bush said Harriet Miers was the most qualified person in the country to be on the Supreme Court. This statement is so obviously and breathtakingly at odds with reality that it makes it hard for people to "trust us," as Vice President Cheney urged Rush Limbaugh's audience yesterday."

However, I strongly disagree with Jack when he says:

"I think Bush made a huge political mistake by wanting to avoid a fight over a Supreme Court nominee, when a fight is just what was needed to revive the Republican base. Instead, by nominating Harriet Miers, he's demoralized it. This could have catastrophic consequences in the midterm elections.

But conservatives like John Hawkins, who want to try to block Miers' confirmation, would guarantee this distressing result. If Miers is rejected -- especially by Republican votes -- then Bush is a lame duck, and that will have dismal consequences across the board.

The best thing we can hope for is the Miers will be confirmed by Thanksgiving, and then vote with Thomas and Scalia. I also think this is the most likely outcome."

I strongly disagree. The best thing that we can hope for is that Bush will withdraw the Miers nomination. Why do I say that?

Look at it like this: Miers is a 4th tier toady with dubious conservative credentials and anyone who doesn't know it yet will find out about it as people who are normally George Bush's strongest supporters relentlessly hammer away at her.

Given that, do you really think the GOP would benefit if a monument to cronyism like Harriet Miers gets a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? Even if she turns out to be up to the job, which is by the way an enormous "if," it'll take years for her to prove she has what it takes.

Just imagine the bad taste that would leave in everybody's mouths and the damage that would be done to the party in the 2006 elections. How many checkbooks will be closed to Republican candidates because of Harriet Miers? How many volunteers just won't bother to help next time around? How many conservatives would cast protest votes for the Libertarian and Constitution parties? Just how many Senate seats would this cost us?

It's not a pretty picture, is it?

Now, let's imagine a different scenario. A scenario where George Bush withdraws the nomination of Harriet Miers or she is voted down in the Senate. Certainly, that wouldn't be a positive. But, how much would it really hurt him? I seem to remember a very popular President by the name of Ronald Reagan who ended up having to go with his third pick for a Supreme Court Justice because his first pick (Bork) lost a vote and his second pick (Ginsburg) withdrew. Again, it may not have been a positive, but it also didn't seem to hurt him very much.

Now, let's imagine that Bush asks Harriet Miers to fall on the sword because of conservative opposition. After that, he gives a press conference, tells everyone that Harriet would have been fantastic, but unfortunately her nomination has been withdrawn. Then, a couple of weeks later, he nominates Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito or some other justice who sets conservative hearts aflutter.

What do you think would happen?

Wouldn't the very same people who are ripping Bush up one side and down the other today, be cheering him then? Wouldn't many of those same people, after seeing Bush prove himself by taking a top notch choice, start to trust his judgement a little more? Don't you also think those people would be considerably more forgiving towards Bush and the GOP if, in the end, they got a nominee they could love for the Supreme Court?

That's what Republicans should keep in mind: this can still be a win for conservatives, a win for Bush, and a win for the Party if a nominee other than Miers is selected.

Given that this situation can still be turned into a win for the GOP, albeit a messy one, how much sense does it make for George Bush to pigheadedly try to win a Pyrrhic victory over his own base when he could have them marching by his side into battle for another nominee? It doesn't make any sense, which is why George Bush should do the right thing, the smart thing, the politically savvy thing, and pull the Harriet Miers nomination.

From Ann Coulter's latest column:

"Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues – loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture..."

"Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts."

"First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.

To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon – or on John Kerry – while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying."

"It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court."

"Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court."

"However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one."

Let's say you and 4 friends have been playing pick-up basketball with another 5 guys for a while. The games are pretty evenly matched and as a general rule, one team is as likely to win as the other.

Well, you and the other team place a huge bet on your game next Saturday: $5000 a head goes to the winning team. Everybody on the team is jazzed up, everybody is talking about it and suddenly you catch an incredible, once in a lifetime break. One of the regular players on your team won't be able to make it and according to rules everyone agreed on, you get anyone you want as a replacement.

The reason that's such good news is that one of the guys on your team actually works for the NBA and he knows lots of pro-basketball players who have all agreed to fill in if he asks. Suddenly, everybody on the team is debating whom they want to play on Saturday. Would the team be better off with Jermaine O'Neal or Allen Iverson? Would it better to have LeBron James or Tim Duncan? Yao Ming or Ben Wallace?

So everyone is on Cloud 9, waiting for the coach to come back with his selection and he chooses....Tom, whom he plays basketball with in his back yard. Mouths drop open, people start to curse, everyone is disappointed and Coach W. says: "Don't worry, I've seen Tom play and he'll be a great addition to the team."

This blows everyone's mind. With so much on the line and so many great players waiting in the wings, why in the world would the coach select his buddy Tom? To this, the coach says: "Trust me, Tom will be fantastic! You'll love him! See you on Saturday."

This is where we are on the Miers nomination, except the stakes are infinitely higher. We have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court on the line, a large number of extremely well qualified judges with great track records ready to go, and Bush is picking a pal and telling us to trust his judgement. Of course, if he had great judgement, he would have never picked Miers for the position in the first place.

But, as some Bush defenders are pointing out, Miers may do just fine on the Supreme Court. Agreed. But given the extreme paucity of her track record, it's also entirely possible that she will turn out to be another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, or even a David Souter. That's the problem.

We have 55 Republicans in the Senate, a President who has been promising for years to appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas to the bench, and now, when the stakes are the highest, conservatives are being presented with a woman who is essentially a coin flip: heads we win, tails we lose. That's just not good enough under the circumstances...

Up until this point, the general consensus on the Iraqi Constitution has been that it will be heavily supported by Kurds and Shias in the October referendum, but also strongly opposed by the Sunnis. Judging by the latest poll results coming in from Iraq, that doesn't seem to be the case.

From the Washington Times:

"Recent polling shows widespread support for a new Iraqi constitution to be voted on Oct. 15, even in strongholds of Sunni Arab groups that are fighting to derail the charter.

Mehdi Hafedh, director of the Iraqi Center for Development and International Dialogue, said his latest survey showed that Iraqis are exhausted by the continuing violence and that most are hoping the new constitution will be a first step toward the restoration of order.

"The Iraqi people want to finalize the political process as soon as possible. ... They want to establish a normal government and institutions," Mr. Hafedh said yesterday, adding: "Iraqis want this situation to end. It is untenable."

The poll of 3,625 Iraqis, conducted Sept. 14 to 19, showed 79 percent in favor of the draft constitution and 8 percent opposed. The remainder did not respond.

A high percentage of respondents said they intended to vote and that the level of violence likely would be reduced after the referendum.

...Although support for the constitution was particularly high in the northern Kurdish areas and southern regions dominated by Shi'ites, Mr. Hafedh said it topped 50 percent even in central provinces known as the heartland of Sunni unrest -- a sign, he said, that the Sunni-Shi'ite split is not as wide as many fear.

"This is exaggerated by political elites who are seeking power and by Western media and analysts," Mr. Hafedh said.

Given that it will take 3 of Iraq's 19 provinces voting against the Constitution by a 2/3rds margin to knock it down, it seems highly likely that the Constitution is going to be approved by the Iraqi people.

That's a big step forward for the Iraqis and excellent news for Americans concerned about the situation in Iraq. Although it wouldn't be a crushing blow if the Iraqis voted down the Constitution later this month, it would certainly be a setback and a propaganda victory for the terrorists.

Now, with the Constitution looking likely to pass, the shoe may turn out to be on the other foot. Since Al-Qaeda has loudly & violently opposed the Constitution, if it were to pass, it could be fairly said to be a stinging rebuke for Zarqawi and company.

Furthermore, if the Iraqis vote for the Constitution by a large margin with a large number -- maybe even a majority of Sunnis on board -- it begs a question: If the terrorists are supposed to be "freedom fighters," as many members of the anti-war movement like Cindy Sheehan believe, just whose freedom are they fighting for? The people who once lived under one of the most merciless dictators on the planet who are now about to vote for their own Constitution as a prelude to a 2nd election in December? Get a grip on reality...

You know, I strongly supported George Bush during the 2004 election, I'm a big supporter of the war in Iraq, and although I don't mind hammering Republicans when they deserve it, as a general rule I strongly prefer to spend my time ripping into liberals.

I bring all that up because it gives you an idea of what RWN is like and should help you get an idea of what sort of audience the blog has. Most of RWN's readers could fairly be called mainstream conservatives.

That being said, I want you to peruse just a few of the comments on this blog that have been inspired by the Harriet Miers nomination. As you read what these people have to say, keep in mind that these same people would have likely been thrilled, excited, and energized by the selection of a credible nominee.

Read on...

"George Bush promised during the election that he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and this is what we get?!? He has spent money like a drunken sailor and we conservatives have stayed with him for one reason...the remaining Supreme Court appointment. Well, he blew it and now he's lost us! Sorry George but you are no more than your father and I suspected as much all along!" -- Restive_Group

"As a Conservative Republican I can't tell you how betrayed I feel by Bush's nomination of Miers. I am beginning to believe the Liberals when they say that Bush is a light weight and can't handle this job. What a missed opportunity!!! Is he just afraid of the Democrats to give them such a gift?? What is he thinking??

I am hoping that a lot of good conservative Republicans in the Senate vote against Miers and she is not confirmed so we would have another chance.

A very disappointed reader and ex-Bush supporter!" -- Tom (From an email I received)

"Expanded federal spending, open borders, and appointing question marks to the Supreme Court. We deserve better.

My checkbook just snapped closed to the Republican Party.

A note to libs: Just because conservatives may lose faith in Bush over this, doesn't mean we are going to come to the dark side and become unwashed, patchouli stinking socialists. You will never get power. Period." -- a_velasquez

"I'm new here. Maybe I'm off the track, but I think Conservatives can't wait until 2006 or 2008 to show our displeasure with the big-spending, quasi-liberal Washington DC, Republican Party. We need to act now. I'm pestered about twice a week by various Republican fundraisers. From now on I'm going to tell them what I think of what the Republican Party has been doing (taking Conservatives for granted primarily) and tell them "NO MORE MONEY" until the party reflects the policy that got them elected. I wish conservatives would sit on their wallets long enough to get the Republican's attention. How about withholding all contributions for two months, with a demand to return to conservative values? Can we do it? Will we?" -- JoeyGee

"This is a betrayal, plain and simple. Bush somehow allowed himself to be deluded that the Left could actually be reconciled towards being decent to him, and picked another Souter. His promise to appoint originalist judges was a lie." -- Maledicta

"You know, I was so appalled at what this pick said about Bush's unwillingness to fight for a nominee that I hadn't even considered how pathetically unqualified she is for this job.

I'm sorry, but Bush is finished as President. He needs to resign. Not kidding, I'm afraid." -- drhackenbush

I've seen comments like these all over the blogosphere from the very people who should be Bush's biggest supporters.

Now, after reading that, you want to try to tell me that it made any sense whatsoever for George Bush to select Harriet Miers when he could have chosen much more qualified candidates that could have been easily confirmed while simultaneously making these very same people happy?

Even if you think Harriet Miers will be another Scalia -- and truthfully, we don't really know if she'll even be another Sandra Day O'Connor -- you have to admit that this may be the most boneheaded political move by a Republican President since George H. W. "read my lips, no new taxes" Bush decided to raise taxes.

That's why George Bush should withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers and select a different candidate. Sure, it would be embarrassing to pull the nomination, but it would be even worse to infuriate and demoralize the base by putting a 4th tier crony on the Supreme Court who probably won't be able to truly prove her conservative bona fides for years.

Do the right thing, W.: pull the nomination.

Brownback Skeptical on Miers Nomination

Miers Former Campaign Director Claims She Is On The `Extreme End' Of Pro-Life Movement

Miers Seems Like Anti-Abortion Moderate

Harriet Miers Opposed Sodomy Ruling

President, Citing Executive Privilege, Indicates He'll Reject Requests for Counsel's Documents (Free NYT Reg Req)

Miers Has Backed Wide Executive Role

Novak: Rove Is Calling Every Conservative In Town To Try To Allay Their Fears Over Miers

George Will: Miers Is The Wrong Pick

Randy E. Barnett: Cronyism. Alexander Hamilton Wouldn't Approve Of Justice Harriet Miers

Stephen Bainbridge: Hugh Hewitt Is Wrong About Harriet Miers

Augustine: Even The Party-First Loyalists Who Support This Nominee Must Admit That, As A Matter Of Politics, The White House Has Made A Huge Strategic Blunder

Michelle Malkin: The Coffee-And-Donuts Defense

David Letterman's Top Ten Signs Your Supreme Court Pick Isn't Qualified

Did An American Suicide Bomber Try To Buy Ammonium Nitrate?

Vote Count Complete in Afghan Election

Latest DeLay Inquiry Prompted By Letter

FEMA Suspends Phoenix Rescuers Over Arms (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Bolton Displays Smashmouth Style At Yale Speech (Ya Gotta Love Him)

U.S. News Gives A Top Political Writer, Roger Simon, The Pink Slip (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Daniel Flynn: An Open Letter To All Conservatives

Mark Steyn: Right-Wing Europe

Google Map Says Taiwan Part Of China. Angered Taipei Lawmakers. Launch Protest Of U.S. Company

If The Democrats Had A Version Of The Contract With America It Would Go Like So...

Piglet Pays The Price For Political Correctness =D

Website Of The Day: Southern Appeal

Hugh Hewitt, whom I admire and generally agree with, is defending the abysmal Harriet Miers nomination by asking conservatives, "Do you trust (George Bush)?" Unfortunately, the reason why this nomination has caused such an uproar on the right is that the answer to that is a resounding, "No."

Knowing what we know today, why should conservatives trust George Bush after the terrible judgement he has shown on so many issues?

It goes without saying that Bush is worse than Lyndon Johnson in the big spending department. In his entire time in the White House, he has never even vetoed a single pork laden bill. Then there's the enormous Medicare prescription drug benefit which will create a massive expansion of government and add a trillion dollars to the debt next 15 years.

We also can't forget the anti-First Amendment, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill which Bush signed into law or Bush's position on illegal immigration which has alienated a large chunk of the party.

Since his election in 2004, Bush has spent months senselessly flogging Social Security when almost everyone acknowledges it isn't going anywhere. Even on the war in Iraq, an area where many conservatives agree wholeheartedly with his policies, it has been frustrating to watch Bush twiddling his thumbs instead of making a real effort to buck up public support for the war.

Now, to top it all off, Bush has picked a minimally qualified crony without solid conservative credentials for the Supreme Court because...why exactly? He knows her, she has been nice to him, and that makes her the best person to fill one of the most crucial jobs in the country?

You can try to put a good face on this decision if you like, but the very fact that so many conservatives are ripping into Bush over the Miers nomination -- in and of itself -- means she was a terrible selection even if Miers is really to the right of Clarence Thomas.

Bush could have selected judges like Sam "Scalito" Alito, Michael Luttig, Emilio Garza, Priscilla Owen, on and on and on, all of whom:

1) Have much more extensive track records.
2) Would have fired the base up.
3) Would have gotten confirmed.

Since that's the case, to select someone like Harriet Miers -- who will significantly hurt Bush politically -- will be a big mistake even if she does turn out to be a solid conservative vote -- which, by the way, is far from a given.

This was another bungled decision in what is getting to be a startlingly long line of bungled decisions and it's entirely possible that it will cause so much political damage that the GOP will lose Senate seats in 2006 because of it. What makes Harriet Miers worth that?

Absolutely nothing that anyone other than President Bush can see.

"Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right." -- Fred Barnes

"Today President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. I have a great deal of confidence in President Bush and his judicial selections. However, in this case, he has given us a nominee with even less of a written record than Chief Justice John Roberts. I, along with millions of other Americans, will wait until the confirmation hearings in order to have a better sense of her judicial philosophy." -- Gary Bauer

"(H)er qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered." -- Pat Buchanan

(Miers is) "a complete mediocrity." -- Ann Coulter

"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception." -- James Dobson

"The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense. There is the negative pressure of the vicious, hostile press that legal conservatives must endure. And there are the sweet little inducements--the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard--that come to judges who soften and crumble. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.

Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters." -- David Frum

"Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick." -- Hugh Hewitt

"I'm disappointed in President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court. ...I'm also concerned about the appearance -- and very probably the reality -- of cronyism. There are some jobs which ought not to go to someone chiefly because they are a pal of the president." -- Jack Kelly

"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president." -- William Kristol

"But, in truth, we already know what's going on here, and that the president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers." -- Mark Levin

"I'm initially disappointed in President Bush's Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, but not quite ready to run out in front of the beer truck. Part of the problem with the commentating profession is that it sometimes pressures you to step out before all the facts are known." -- David Limbaugh

"I just wait for the choice to be made, and it just seems to me that at the outset here that this is a pick that was made from weakness. There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court. This is a nominee that we don't know anything about, a nominee purposely chosen in one context, we don't know anything about her. It makes her less of a target but it also does not show a position of strength." -- Rush Limbaugh

"President Bush struck a blow for diversity on the Supreme Court by picking White House counsel Harriet Miers as his latest nominee. Bush thus made a strong statement that the court has room for highly distinguished justices and not-so-distinguished justices, for nominees who have made their reputations in the wider legal world and for nominees people have hardly heard of, for world-class lawyers and for lawyers he happens to know and like." -- Rich Lowry

"It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder." -- Michelle Malkin

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it." -- Manuel Miranda

"Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush’s inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field. It seems highly unlikely that she will be the kind of justice who, in combination with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, will attract additional votes by the sheer force of her arguments. This nomination was a missed opportunity." -- National Review

"This appears to be the future of judicial nominees named by conservative Republican presidents. We can't have a debate about critical legal and moral issues, because a nominee clearly on the conservative side might not be confirmed. There will be no more Robert Borks to "Bork." So we get people with little, or no, "paper trails" and must accept them on faith.

Conservatives would like to trust the president, but they haven't come this far to live by faith in him alone. They want verification and they should have it before pledging their allegiance to the confirmation of Harriet Miers." -- Cal Thomas

"Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don't join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn't healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works.

We will no doubt learn more about Ms. Miers in the coming weeks, and perhaps any doubts will prove groundless. But for now, Mr. Bush is asking his supporters to accept his judgment about his personal lawyer as an act of faith." -- The Wall Street Journal

There are theoretically three possible ways a Harriet Miers nomination could be stopped:

1) The Filibuster: Unless Miers has some deep, dark secret that comes to light (I.E. She tortures puppies for fun or she has killed and buried a half dozen people in her backyard), the chances of the Dems trying a filibuster are essentially zero and the Republicans wouldn't even consider one given that they've spent the last few years claiming it's unconstitutional.

2) Losing a Vote on the Senate Floor: Again, unless some sort of scandal comes to light, this is highly unlikely.

Given the situation the Democrats were in, the nomination of Harriet Miers was a godsend. With only 45 votes, the Democrats couldn't have blocked any Republican nominee. Moreover, the GOP looked likely to have the votes needed for the nuclear option which meant that a filibuster would have been doomed to failure. So the Democrats couldn't have accomplished much more than doing a little fund raising by gnashing their teeth about the nominee.

But with Miers, the entire equation changes. They can still use her for fund raising, but now they can also hurt the GOP's standing with moderates by credibly tarring Miers as an unqualified crony who's being promoted by Bush. Furthermore, this pick has been so poorly received on the right that it will actually hurt the entire Republican Party.

So while the Dems will make a lot of noise about Miers, the insiders understand that this is as good as it gets. For them to cooperate with Republicans to try to torpedo her nomination would be a big political mistake. My guess is that in the end, the Democrats would rather just take their winnings on the issue and call it a day.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Do they placate Bush and the Republican establishment by voting for Miers or do they choose to do the right thing by voting against a 4th tier candidate being handed a patronage job on the Supreme Court? History suggests the former is more likely.

3) Withdrawing the Nomination: This is still a longshot, but it's the best chance conservatives have to stop Miers.

Undoubtedly, Bush and the RNC are aware of the firestorm of criticism they've set off on the right with the Miers nomination. Unfortunately, even if the base keeps hammering away, it probably won't be enough to convince Bush to pull her card.

What will need to happen is that a block of GOP Senators -- the bigger, the better -- will need to get together, go to Bush, and make the case that the Party will take too big of a hit in 2006 if Miers goes through. Then they can let Bush know that unless he withdraws Miers, they're going to publicly come out against her confirmation.

Of course, Bush may refuse to see reason even then, but if let's say there were 10 GOP Senators willing to go to the wall to stop Miers, it would have to give the White House serious pause.

Now, who's going to be the first Republican Senator with the courage to publicly challenge the White House on the Harriet Miers nomination?

Karl Rove: George, I've got some great news...

George Bush: Lay it on me, turd blossom....

Karl Rove: Ginsburg just sent us a letter telling us that she intends to retire at the end of the year! We get to appoint another Supreme Court Justice!

George Bush: That is good news!

Karl Rove: W., I know it's too early to make a final selection, but who are you thinking about? Janice Rogers Brown would probably excite the base. Michael Luttig would be great in confirmation hearings. Miguel Estrada might even be a good wild card pick. An immigrant and the first Hispanic nominee to the court? I like the sound of that!

George Bush: Well, Rovester, I will admit that I have a couple of candidates in mind. I think Smitty has the edge right now...

Karl Rove: Smitty?

George Bush: My yard man. He did gardening for dad, he has done gardening for me, and I've known him for 20 years.

Karl Rove: I, uh, I don't know about that George. He doesn't sound qualified to me...

George Bush: Qualifications, smalifications. I write down instructions about what I want done to my yard and he does it right, every time. Plus, I forgot to give him a Christmas Gift last year. After all those years of service, that's kind of embarrassing. So, I thought this might make up for it..

Karl Rove: Ok, you said there was another candidate you were considering...

George Bush: Yes, Tom the barber. He has been cutting my hair for 25 years. He told me I have some of the best looking hair he has ever seen on a President, even better than Reagan's. Well, naturally, the first thing I thought about when I heard that was: "If only we had judges this perceptive on the Supreme Court!"

Karl Rove: Mr. President...

George Bush: Uh oh, I always know something's wrong when you start out that way...

Karl Rove: Mr. President, neither of these candidates will work. The base is already ripping us to shreds over the Miers nomination and we need to make absolutely sure our next pick will work to our benefit politically instead of hurting us.

George Bush: Then, what about Alberto (Gonzales)? He has been a judge, he's qualified, and I've known him for a long time.

Karl Rove: ...

George Bush: What is it, turd blossom?

Karl Rove: Maybe we should consider some candidates you don't know so well...

George Bush: No way, Karl! I got liberals attacking me, I got conservatives attacking me, and so from here on out, I'm sticking with people I know and trust.

Karl Rove: You know, I would be happy to introduce you to some new people. For example, Priscilla Owen, I hear she's a very nice woman....

George Bush: No, Karl, absolutely not. Smitty, Tom the barber, & Alberto are the only three candidates I'm going to choose from.

Karl Rove: In that case, I'm leaning towards Smitty. Have the two of you ever talked about Roe v. Wade?

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?

I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.

There have just been too many instances of seeming conservatives being sent to the high Court, only to succumb to the prevailing vapors up there: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter. Given that record, it is simply reckless for any conservative president to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity of the highest intellectual and personal excellence.

The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense. There is the negative pressure of the vicious, hostile press that legal conservatives must endure. And there are the sweet little inducements--the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard--that come to judges who soften and crumble. Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse--or resist the blandishments--that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.

Nor is it safe for the president's conservative supporters to defer to the president's judgment and say, "Well, he must know best." The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters." -- David Frum

Miers Led Unsuccessful Fight To Get The Nation's Largest Lawyers' Group To Reconsider Its Pro-Abortion Rights Stance

Harriet Miers Gave $150 To Texans For Life In 1989

Miers Led Law Firm Repeatedly Forced to Pay Damages For Defrauding Investors

Andrew Cohen: Harriet Miers Is No John Roberts

Pat Buchanan: Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'

Mark Levin: If People Are Disappointed In Miers, They Have Every Reason To Be

Wynton C. Hall: Does The President’s Second Supreme Court Pick Hurt Republicans?

National Review: The The Miers Pick Was A Missed Opportunity

Rush Limbaugh Interviews Dick Cheney On The Harriet Miers Debacle

RedState: Harriet Miers -- A Profound Disappointment

Rush Limbaugh: Pick Made From Weakness Is An Unnecessary Roll Of The Dice

William Kristol: Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized

Cliff Kincaid: Will Conservatives Derail Miers?

David Frum: The Miers Nomination Was An Unforced Error

Ann Coulter: Miers A 'Complete Mediocrity'

Jack Kelly: "I'M Disappointed In President Bush's Selection Of Harriet Miers For The U.S. Supreme Court."

Bush's Camp Krusty Moment

Website Of The Day: Harriet Miers's Blog!!! =D

DeLay Indicted. Again By Same Prosecutor

DeLay Pledges Return To US House Leadership Role, Drawing Some Republican Concern

La. Search For Katrina Dead Ends At 964

US Army Falls 8% Short Of Recruiting Goal For The Year (That's Not So Bad)

Mark Steyn: Mark Steyn: Islamist Way Or No Way

La Shawn Barber: What Bill Bennett Said

The folks over at World Magazine Blog apparently know a few people who are close to Harriet Miers and have some choice quotes about her -- some of them good, some them bad.

Most of the quotes come from Nathan Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice, who has gone out with Miers before and is also a long time friend.

From Hecht on abortion: "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

"Look at her commitment in taking care of her [now 93-year-old mother] all these years. Look at her tax returns. She tithes, gave a full tithe to the church. Helps out in missions, Bible translation. These are the kinds of values she shows." Hecht and Miers "went to two or three prolife dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."

Hecht says, "She was a Democrat years and years ago, in the early 80s." As far as the late 80s contributions, "If she did it, it was because the [law] firm made her do it."

Now, here are a couple of quotes from "a lawyer who is a conservative Christian and worked with Harriet Miers in Texas":

"I never heard her take a position on anything… We’ll have another Sandra Day O’Connor…"

"This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you’re right for the Supreme Court."

Most of the info from Hecht is better than nothing, but as we learned with David Souter, kind words don't necessarily mean that much. Here are some quotes from an Ann Coulter column that describe some of the things that were being said about Souter when he was nominated:

"When you look at the man's record, his experience, his integrity and his ability to deal with tough questions of law in a way that the courts should, in a restrained way, not to attempt to legislate from the bench, I think he's a man in tune with the times." — Dick Thornburgh

"Virtually every conservative who knows him trusts him and thinks he's a competent guy." — Newt Gingrich

"(He) has voiced opposition to many forms of abortion. He dislikes affirmative-action programs, contending that they amount to reverse discrimination. Also, he has vigorously defended ... the Lord's Prayer in its public schools." — Los Angeles Times

Sounds great -- except that Souter turned out to be a liberal -- and I don't even think he used to be a Democrat who gave money to Al Gore.

Furthermore, let me add that the very fact that George Bush picked the least qualified person being considered for the job -- by far -- based on the fact that he knew her and she was nice to him, doesn't give conservatives much reason to trust his judgement. Obviously he's lacking in that department and so all we can do at this point is cross our fingers and hope her ex-boyfriend, Nathan Hecht, is right. That's not much to hang a Supreme Court appointment on, but it's just about all we've got at the moment.

George Bush's decision to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is bitterly disappointing.

Miers is a Bush crony with no real conservative credentials, who leapfrogged legions of more deserving judges just because she was Bush's pal. She used to be Bush's staff secretary for God's sake and now she's going to the Supreme Court while people like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown & Emilio Garza are being left on the sidelines.

To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection.

People didn't like Roberts' track record? Miers has never been a judge, so she has almost no track record. She's 60 years old, which is getting up there for a Supreme Court selection. Not only will she not excite the base like a Janice Rogers Brown, Miers' selection will lead to a wave of attacks on the President by conservatives. Moreover, not only is there no guarantee that Miers will be another "Scalia or Thomas," it's an open question whether she'll be as conservative as Sandra Day O'Connor.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a woman who has donated to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, & the Democratic National Committee before. You want a candidate who has "Souter" written all over her? You want a candidate who can't be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.

This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush's entire presidency so far.

It has been a little more than 3 months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs, so I thought it was about time to do it again, for the last time in 2005.

Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have of course moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that these sort of lists changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if your blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it could be on the list next time.

Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.

Come on folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!

PS: I decided to leave pages that compile "the best of the blogosphere" -- like The Hotline's Blogometer & GOPINION -- out of the mix because I wasn't sure if they'd count as blogs or not.

Here's my current list...

40) Varifrank
39) Michael Yon: Online Magazine
38) Right Thinking From The Left Coast
37) DANEgerus Weblog
36) Blogs For Bush
35) Outside the Beltway
34) The Nose On Your Face
33) Tongue Tied
32) Villainous Company
31) Althouse
30) The Jawa Report
29) Wizbang!
28) Jihad Watch
27) Brainster's Blog
26) Irish Pennants
25) JunkYardBlog
24) Kausfiles
23) Hugh Hewitt
22) Patrick Ruffini
21) The Anchoress
20) Scrappleface
19) Relapsed Catholic
18) Captain's Quarters
17) Power Line
16) Q&O Blog
15) Newsbusters
14) BlameBush!
13) C-Log
12) Little Green Footballs
11) Ankle Biting Pundits
10) Tim Blair
9) RedState
8) IMAO
7) Ravenwood's Universe
6) Ace Of Spades HQ
5) Betsy's Page
4) Polipundit
3) Instapundit
2) The Corner
1) Michelle Malkin

Quick, before it gets deleted:

"It's become more and more apparent to me over the past five years that all the activism and non-violent protesting in the world will do precisely squat. When you're dealing with evil people who have no shame, the old rules of the game don't and, indeed, can't apply if you have any hope for success. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched, millions of letters have been written, tens of millions of votes cast, and hundreds of trillions of electrons expended pontificating on blogs...for nothing. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. Not unless it comes in the form of something akin to the French Revolution.

We need terror. We need horror. We need the streets running awash in rivers of blood of these thugs and criminals and zealots. Activism didn't prevent 60,000 deaths in Vietnam. All the activism of the Civil Rights era has gotten African Americans precisely nowhere. Segregation may not be the law of the land anymore, but it's still the de facto state of America.

When y'all want to start throwing molotovs and sniping from windows come and talk to me. Until then, I will be content to retire, be a hermit, and laugh at everyone. Even then, I may still just feel like laughing as the world falls apart around me, but at least I'll be willing to listen."

Believe it or not, this Kosmonaut fears she's losing her grip on reality:

"My mental state is collapsing and deteriorating almost daily. It's so consistent you could practically graph it. Yes, they have a machine for that and everything. It's called an EEG. And you should see this other cool machine they have... it delivers the most pleasant electric shocks to the frontal lobe of your brain. Some people swear by it!"

Thanks to Bareknuckle Politics.

This content was used with the permission of Ace of Spades HQ.

"Holding the majority used to be viewed as a means to an end--the end being promoting freedom and limited government. Now, holding the majority seems to be an end in itself--holding onto power for the sake of holding onto power." -- Rep Jeff Flake

In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.

Here's the list for September...

13) Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 5 in E Flat Major, Op. 73
13) Toby Keith: Beer for My Horses
13) Offspring: I Choose
13) Basil Pouledouris: Anvil of Crom
13) AC/DC: Back in Black
8) Papa Roach: Scars
8) Papa Roach: Last Resort
8) Pachelbel: Canon in D
8) Godmack: I Stand Alone
8) Duran Duran: Wild boys
7) Holst: Mars, the Bringer of War
5) The Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
5) Filter: Hey Man, Nice Shot
3) The Who: Behind Blue Eyes
3) Lynyrd Skynyrd: Sweet Home Alabama
2) Seether: Out of My Way
1) James Marsters: Rest in Peace

PS: I'm particularly interested in classical music right now and any suggestions would be particularly appreciated.

At Least 24 People, Including One Australian, Have Been Killed In Explosions In The Popular Indonesian Resort Island Of Bali

U.S. Eyes New Steps Against Syria

Generals Are Upbeat On Iraq (Free WAPO Reg Req)

The U.S. Military Said On Sunday It Had No Reason To Believe A Militant Group’s Claim To Have Seized Two Marines During Fighting In Iraq

EU Wants Shared Control Of Internet (No Way)

Apparent Suicide Bomb Kills One Outside OU Stadium

New Orleans Pumping Could End by Midweek

Stumbling Storm-Aid Effort For Katrina Put Tons of Ice on Trips to Nowhere (Free NYT Reg Req)

Walter Cronkite Says Americans Are Ignorant

New York Times Run 4th Correction Of The Same Krugman Column

Mark Steyn: Media Deserve Blame For New Orleans Debacle

John Fund: The GOP Could Lose In '06

Nick Schulz: Bill Bennett's Reality-Based Defenders

The Prowler: The Frist Stock Sale -- A Clearcut Case Of Nothing

Charles Murray: The Poverty Katrina Underscored Is Primarily Moral, Not Material

Marriage On The Rocks In Britain

Dogs Used As Shark Bait By The French (With One Of The Most Horrible Pics I've Ever Seen)

Boeing and Bell Apologize To CAIR For Awesome Ad Featuring Their CV-22

Some Classy Quotes From The Left's Version Of Glenn Reynolds, Atrios

Donald Sutherland Unhinged: Bush "Will Destroy Our Lives!"

Website Of The Day: It's Gonna Go!