Miers and the right wing punditry

[Ocotillo]

Yesterday, I was in an area of the state where my choices for talk radio were all right wing so I settled in for my drive, took an antacid and listened to Laura Ingraham.

Of course the topic was the Miers nomination and she was taking calls in rapid succession asking the question should the nomination be withdrawn. If the sheeple bleated yes, withdraw the nomination, Laura would ring a little bell and move on to the next caller. The overwhelming majority of the callers sided with the host (suprise!) and wanted either Bush to pull the nomination or Miers herself to withdraw for the good of the administration.

Later, el Rushbo blustered onto the air and of course was clearly disappointed with el Presidente's nomination.

As a liberal, I have with bemusement watched and listened to the goings on from the right about the Miers nomination. My first inclination was the combination of another "stealth" candidate and some of right wing crazies frothing at the mouth about her led me to believe it was a set up. Have some of the right wing loons oppose her and some of the timid Demos would support her because the only information they have on her is Michael Savage or Glenn Beck doesn't trust her, so she must be ok.

I am now convinced many on the right, James Dobson notwithstanding, do indeed oppose this nomination. So why the call for the president to withdraw the nominee?

Would it not accomplish the same thing and send a message to the administration if the senate rejected her? Why are the wingnuts trying to derail the nomination before it gets to committee? Why doesn't Miss Hathaway (as some on the left call her a reference to the Beverly Hillbillies character) get a fair hearing?

It's the stealth stupid!

Look at the Roberts confirmation hearings. Nothing was revealed about him. His papers were withheld from the Senate. Roberts declined to answer numerous questions from the committee members. Ms. Miers will get to play the same game.

Our friends on the right will be denied papers from her days in the White House. The nominee will smile and politely decline to answer pointed questions from her critics. Shrub will expect the same rubber stamp treatment for this nominee that every crackpot he has put before the senate has gotten.

Now Peggy Noonan and other's from the right side of the political spectrum are offended that the White House and it's allies have used terms such as "sexist" and "elitist" to counter the criticism by the right wingers. A delicious irony certainly. John Fund and Goerge Will don't like being smacked up side the head with a bucket of slime by Rove and his minions. Welcome to Bush world dumbass.

I have no idea how Harriet Miers will rule as a Supreme Court Justice. She may be the best Democrats can hope for or she may be a Bush plant on the high court to protect him and his administration from upcoming scandal investigations.

Thing is, maybe it might be time for the nominees to be more open about their beliefs on cons utional questions. No more game playing to avoid answering questions.

I believe the great desparation of the right is at this time they control the executive branch, the Congress and have a slight edge on the court. The goal is to stack the court with Scalia clones (preferably young ones) so that the court can be in conservative hands for at least another generation or so. '06 and '08 look considerably less certain for the Republicans than it did when Bush brashly made his "political capital" statement. So the right needs the court because they stand to lose the other two branches of power.

As a liberal, for the time being, I am going to kick back and watch this fight between the Bushies and the right wing. It's actually more fun than watching Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson roll around around on the floor in a cat fight. Well maybe not that much fun.

[SWC Bonfire]

If the sheeple bleated yes, withdraw the nomination, Laura would ring a little bell and move on to the next caller.

That there's funny, I don't care who you are.