Rattle wrote:
I fully realize that recommending an Ann Coulter article about the withdraw of Miers is kind of like putting out a person on fire by pissing on them.

I'm not sure what you're going to get from her but it certainly isn't insight. I think I was wrong about Miers. She wasn't an attempt to fuck the system. She was a way of diverting attention. See Monica Lewinsky.

Now, rather than go on about how this is a good thing while stating that I half expect the next nomination to be just as laughable...

I expect the next nomination to be quite serious. Hopefully the radicals will be unhappy.

I think I'm going to make a comment that "Miered" as a verb fits this situation as perfectly as "Borked" did in 1987.

I used borked as an expression for malfunctioning technology long before I had any idea it had something to do with politics.

I'm not sure what you're going to get from her but it certainly isn't insight. I think I was wrong about Miers. She wasn't an attempt to fuck the system. She was a way of diverting attention. See Monica Lewinsky.

Correct, no insight. I'm linking Ann Coultier purely to be tasteless. This is one of those stories that everyone links a version of. Since there isn't much to say that isn't already being said, I found it amusing to pick the worse possible commentator on any subject to link. That is clearly Ann Coultier.

I think she is a very good example of Bush's base. [snicker]

Decius wrote:

Rattle wrote:
I fully realize that recommending an Ann Coulter article about the withdraw of Miers is kind of like putting out a person on fire by pissing on them.

I'm not sure what you're going to get from her but it certainly isn't insight. I think I was wrong about Miers. She wasn't an attempt to fuck the system. She was a way of diverting attention. See Monica Lewinsky.

Now, rather than go on about how this is a good thing while stating that I half expect the next nomination to be just as laughable...

I expect the next nomination to be quite serious. Hopefully the radicals will be unhappy.

Tom and I were discussing this briefly last night at NIN. I agree that this was calculated. I believe that no one actually seriously thought Miers had a chance, and that she played sacrificial lamb for the sake of distracting the media away from the Delay and Plame situations.

The next candidate will be very serious indeed, but will have the same distracting effect as the real battles ensue.

Tom and I were discussing this briefly last night at NIN. I agree that this was calculated. I believe that no one actually seriously thought Miers had a chance, and that she played sacrificial lamb for the sake of distracting the media away from the Delay and Plame situations.

I share your view. It's a pretty easy one to come to as well. If you put out a nomination that embodies everything that isn't liked about your administration, they take all the heat. That leaves the administration free to work on what it's really concerned with in the background. It also robs the public of a chance to address those real concerns. It's pretty shady, but damn effective.

I didn't hear much talk about the fellow who is following Greenspan. That may be of the same importance as a seat on the court. It's one of those things that only history will reveal. If you look at the role Greenspan played over his tenure, it can be viewed with that level of importance.

How as the NIN show? What was Trent's set like?

The next candidate will be very serious indeed, but will have the same distracting effect as the real battles ensue.

At least this time the battles might have a purpose. So far, it's been wasted time. Not only that, but the arguments that get dropped with Miers drop off the administration's chest. Maybe..