More Fund on Miers:

Another hard-hitting column today by John Fund on the Miers nomination.

A friend of mine made the interesting observation that perhaps the best evidence of the continuing problems with the Miers nomination has been the willingness of so many inside and close to the White House to leak so much negative information to John Fund, from a White House that has been able to control such matters in the past.

Anderson (mail) (www):
"The President trusts his instincts, and they are usually right."

WARN people about humor like this when you link, Todd! I darn near sprayed coffee all over my monitor.
10.24.2005 12:17pm
Jo Ann Davidson should be fired by the party. Bush should be ashamed of himself for letting her petty personal b.s. play any role in this nomination.

I am still waiting to hear Rove's apology for lying to James Dobson.
10.24.2005 12:25pm
Tom Anger (mail) (www):
It's because the White House is usually leak-proof, that I suspect the leaks are calculated. It's likely that the White House's game plan is to leak its way out of the Miers nomination. That is, the spate of bad press about the nomination will "force" Andy Card to call Harriet Miers into his office and ask her to withdraw her name.
10.24.2005 12:37pm
A great read.

To read more about the Rath/Souter connection, see Prof. Mark Tushnet's incredibly prescient) book A COURT DIVIDED: THE RHENQUIST COURT AND THE FUTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at pages 56-59.
10.24.2005 12:39pm
Bob Flynn (mail):
Why is it that whenever I think of Harriet Miers, the image of this woman pops into my head.
10.24.2005 1:41pm
Houston Lawyer:
Flynn: LOL

Can we get a skit of the judicial committee grilling her? The SNL skit on the Thomas hearings was outstanding.
10.24.2005 2:17pm