Thoughts on Miers' nomination withdrawl

This too shall pass.
This was not just a fine example of vigorous and principled debate within the body politic, but ample proof that the Republican party, especially conservatives, do not march in lock-step to this President. (No matter how much we love him.)

After progressive Ed Schultz (on his Oct. 12 show) accused the anti-Meirs brigade of being insincere, I sent him this letter:

Dear Big Ed,
On Wednesday's show you warned your listeners that the conservative pundit's attacks on the President's nomination of Harriet Meirs were "just a conservative smokescreen" to "defang" the Democrat's opposition; to sort of lull them into a false sense of ease about her likelyhood of being confirmed do to (insincere) criticism from the rightwing punditry.
Could you tell us (on air, please) how this works? What are the machinations involved with orchestating this sort of prank? How does the vast rightwing conspiracy determine who's turn it is to play critic, and who gets to play advocate?
Do they draw staws at one of the smokefilled gatherings at Karl Rove's house in the wee hours of the morning? Is there some random-selection generating software that everyone has on their super-secure laptops, and they each get their marching orders, per each event? Or, as some football teams do occasionally, do they "call the plays", in advance, with each party executing their assigned duties on cue?
How did George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Robert Bork, etc learn that it was their turn to criticize, and others' to support, the prez?
I think your listeners would LOVE to learn of the secret arrangements that result in this current in-house fracas, as fabricated and insincere as it may be.
Sincerely, Brad

I haven't heard back from him yet...


Diane Feinstein's false accusation of gender-bias by Republicans reveals an empty quiver on her part: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers’ nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: “I don’t believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked.”

That's the best criticism she can muster? Well, when you pretty much agree with a decision or some action taken by your enemy, you're not left with much, are you? Why the hell couldn't she just say she's pleased about Miers' withdrawl, and hopes that the president's next choice will be more qualified or experienced? She sounds more like the lesser half of California's Senate Duo, Barbara Boxer.
And just to show you how wrong you are, Senator, I hope that the President will nominate Janice Rogers Brown to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. Then, when there isn't an avalanche of opposition from Republicans, you'll be shown the foolishness of your claim.

Brad