And Ted Kennedy just takes the cake with this statement.
``The only voices heard in this process were the voices of the extreme factions of the president's own political party. They had a litmus test, and before giving her a fair chance to have her own voice heard, they decided Harriet Miers didn't meet it.''Gee, does anyone remember a certain senator from Massachusetts taking to the floor of the Senate just moments after Bork's nomination to rail against what would happen in a Robert Bork's America.
And spare me talk of how conservatives have a litmus test. As if the Democrats don't have a litmus test of their own. Kerry said that he would not nominate anyone who didn't support Roe v. Wade. Is that not a litmus test? Would any Democratic president nominate someone who had said that there was no right to privacy in the Constitution? Several senators have stated that they would never vote for anyone who didn't pledge to uphold Roe. That's why a clearly capable nominee such as John Roberts would only get 23 Democratic votes in support.
And Diane Feinstein seems like a one-note airhead.
"I don't believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked. I've never seen it happen,"Oh, come on! Her gender had nothing to do with the attacks she received and probably had a lot for why she was chosen. Do you think Bush would have nominated her if her name was Harry Miers? And do you think that that same cabal of conservatives would have opposed Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown? They were practically begging Bush to nominate one of a list of several women. Their opposition was never based on her gender and it is just fatuous to claim that it was.
Face it, the Democrats will rue the day that Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination. Facing a Republican president with 55 GOP senators, she was the best that they could hope for as a candidate. If the President shows any ability to learn from his mistake in nominating Miers, the Democrats will not be happy with the new nominee.