John Fund Predicts "Surprises" for Miers Nomination:
John Fund appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show today. An excerpt:
  [W]e are going to see six or seven surprises come down the road the next few days, about Harriet Miers. Now all of them are sustainable individually. The problem is because the White House was completely unprepared for this, they're doing a disservice to you and her supporters.
  . . .
  Harriet Miers was in charge of the vetting process for the Supreme Court nominee[.] Since she ended up being picked herself, please explain to me exactly how much vetting was done, who did the vetting, and to what extent the vetting that was done on her was different, or the same as it would have been for any other nominee? You need to get the answers to those questions, because I have to tell you. I have gotten information on the vetting that was done with her. And frankly, it doesn't past muster for even a district court appointment.
  I have no idea what to make of this, if anything, but I guess we'll find out over the next few days. (Hat tip: Glenn)
ggould (mail):
I suppose one should call this a "reverse-Dobson" -- "Harriet Miers shouldn't be confirmed, on the basis of information I am not at liberty to disclose."
10.11.2005 7:36am
Good point, Gould. But I'm not free at this point to tell you why.
10.11.2005 8:29am
Michael C (mail) (www):
Andy Card did the vetting, but to what extent it is hard to tell. Should be interesting.
10.11.2005 9:12am