"My anger hath consumed me"

So it goes. As I said here, I'm freaking sick and tired of "bigger than their britches" bloggers and pundits crying the blues and shrieking about Miers as if all us conservatives feel the way they do. It's gotten so bad that hard liners on the right have taken to "swating" their own.

Freaking discusting.


Ankle Biting Pundits - one of the chief shrills, now enters the absurd with this "scoop".

"Insiders tell me that Sen. Salazar believes Dobson should be called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer frankly what he knows about Ms. Miers, when he knew it, and who provided him with the information. The unspoken suspicion is that someone in the Bush administration (Karl Rove, presumably) told Dobson that Miers is pro-life and has pledged to vote against Roe v. Wade should she be confirmed.

Salazar does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, so his input with respect to the “witness list” the minority is permitted to draw up is virtually meaningless. Nevertheless, Salazar’s top staffers have spent the last two days pitching the idea to top Democrat committee staff.

Pushback against this idea, surprisingly, comes from Salazar’s Democrat colleagues, specifically Minority Leader Harry Reid. Reid, who has expressed support for Ms. Miers, believes calling Dr. James Dobson before the committee as some sort of hostile witness would be a disastrous P.R. stunt that would further alienate the Democrat Party from Christian conservatives.

“We’re not going to conduct an Inquisition,” one top Hill staffer told me. “Salazar’s idea is half-baked.”

Nevertheless, another Hill staffer tells me that Sen. Ted Kennedy, who does sit on the Judiciary Committee, is rather taken by the idea and is working on a way to craft it as a “separation of powers” issue rather than a religious issue. If Democrats can make this about President Bush withholding information, the thinking goes, it might just work.

Stay tuned. The Miers hearings could be the biggest thing in Washington since the Thomas hearings."

Yeah, whatever! The left has become the right, the right the left.....Unity? Gone.

The hypocrisy from my brethren is astounding!

While the pick to replace Sandy O'Connor still loomed , conservatives cautioned liberals, "It's the President's pick".

Yet when he picked, Miers - they balked, "Hey! He didn't pick "our" canidate!

They drumbeat the opposition to Roberts by preaching, "Give us an up or down vote!.... Ruthie Ginsberg (card carrying member of the ACLU) didn't have to anwer quesitons ya' know! The 'Ginsberg Rule!"

Now with Miers.....

"We're going to grill her....she needs to answer.......we want to know......"

Like spoil brats who didn't get their way, conservative pundits, politicians are "Depressed".........."Demoralized"......"Outraged"........"Stamping their feet"......."Turning blue..................BLUE I tell you!"

Now their picking on Laura Bush, for her comments on the Today Show on Tuesday.......

"Did you hear what she said?? She called us 'Sexist!" ......"Why that B-tch!" "How dare she?".........

The real problem though isn't Laura, it's hypocrisy. In the same interview Matt Lauer accused the President of being in a "photo op" while he was helping to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. But of course, we cannot be troubled by that. Because anti-mier conservatives have become like the shrills on the left, watching for "buzz words"....getting insulted...."Hey you, Bush lady, take that back! We're not sexist!"

But as a reader flamed me, "Hey! This was an important decision! And Bush blew it! He picked this crony lawyer friend and then said, "Trust me" "Trust him? We wanted.....someone who would strickly interpret the constitution........stop judicial activism............

and overturn Roe V. Wade!"


The last five years the right has touted the honesty of the President, his thoughfulness and and basic goodness. Yet when he says, "Trust me on this, I know what I'm doing", the Michelle Malkins, Laura Ingrahams and other pundits, say, "Yeah, well, no way man!"

Hypocrites. Which to help out first time callers is "Acting in the opposite way you preach".

So Judicial activism is bad - ONLY when it's activism on the other side. Of course it's GOOD and we don't mind it when it's the Right that is "activating".

Now, I'm pro-life too. I think Roe V. Wade was a bad call on serveral points, both moral and legal.

But I don't want Justices picked merely because they're pro-life, pro-kill, or whatever. Judicial nutrality is what I thought we were looking for? But from what I've seen as the reaction from the right that obviously hasn't been the case.

No matter what the spin, this "Court Battle" has been about Roe V. Wade. The "long struggle" as it's been put, was simply about that - "Getting it overturned".

I know this. Back in the early eighties I was a part of the "Moral Majority/James Dobson/Marlin Maddox - New Christian Right battle to get Roe V. Wade overturned. Some of those now who are complaining the loudest aren't old enough to remember that struggle.

But as time has gone on I realized the complexities of overturning such a decision. Simply put we are never going to see it overturned. Once the O'Connor court established the "right" to abortion, it's been a road of no return. Sad but nevertheless true.

Now Dr. James Dobson, a man whom I have great respect for has come forward and stated that through converstations with Karl Rove (so much for being absent), he was told that Miers wasn't the first pick, but that other candidates dropped out because of the intense process.

"So, I wouldn't reveal any of the details about the call, although I did say to these pro-family leaders, which has been widely quoted, that Karl had told me something that I probably shouldn't know. And you know, it really wasn't all that tantalizing, but I still couldn't talk about it. And what I was referring to is the fact that on Saturday, the day before the President made his decision, I knew that Harrier Miers was at the top of the short list of names under consideration. And as you know, that information hadn't been released yet, and everyone in Washington and many people around the country wanted to know about it and the fact that he had shared with me is not something I wanted to reveal."

"But we also talked about something else, and I think this is the first time this has been disclosed. Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been passed over. Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.

So, even today, many conservatives and many of friends of mine, are being interviewed on talk shows and national television programs. And they're saying, "Why didn't the President appoint so-and-so? He or she would have been great. They had a wonderful judicial record. They would have been the kind of person we've been hoping and working and praying for to be on the Court. Well, it very well may be that those individuals didn't want to be appointed."

If this is true, and knowing Dr. Dobson I don't doubt it for a minute, it's hugh. It means that the President wasn't "picking from the cream of the crop", he went for the best choice he had because of fact that the others had dropped out.

So if this is true there is going to be a lot of "egg on face" on the right - especially the hard-headed right.

In truth this was a litmus test for the President and his so-called base - his so-called supporters. No matter what their rehortic, they showed their true colors. The fact is that they don't trust Bush, never have. They think he's a dope - which is what the left has alway said.