Skip to main content

View Diary: Back story (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the they i am referring to is the christian (none)
    right which was reported as setting up funds to potentially fight the nomination as late as a few days ago. so this stuff about it not being about her idealogy is bullshit. i believe it was in the washington times and other places that i saw the news items. i realize in this age of spin as reality that the fact they were setting up a potential blocking of the nomination shouldn't matter to the MSM but for us to accept the spin so quickly seems wrong.
    •  I repeat. (none)
      They can set up as many funds as they want but religious right leadership resides in George Bush's and corporate Republicans' backpocket. Falwell, Robertson , Dobson and the likes aren't going to go against their business interests. That 1993 speech could've been spun away if Bush thought they have votes in the Senate and Committee. The fact is that they lost those votes when White House screwed up the questionnaire.
      •  Your opinion is not reality based. (none)
        That 1993 speech killed her. You see it in the timing of the withdrawal, the fact she was still working on updating her questionairre until the revelation of the 1993 speech, the furor the 1993 speech caused in the religious right, Dobson's "good riddance" citing the 1993 speech, and a myriad of other evidence.

        This was never about qualifications.  The questionairre was just a talking point, easily overlooked if they liked how she would vote.  S.Ct. nominees don't get nixed because they need an extension of time to fill out a form.

        •  Supreme Court nominees (none)
          do get nixed when they try to brush off Senators as happened last week. What facts are you talking about? This is a fact that Dobson et al were supporting Miers. And a fact that it is too early for that speech to have any affect. You may have had a point if that speech had caused a media shit-storm. It simply did not.
      •  You are just not factually correct in your (none)
        guess work. The person above indicates some reasons why. There were multiple actual resports versus your speculations on what the right was up to behind the scenes. if you don't believe me look it up because I am not going to argue with you about facts versus your speculation (and quite frankly their post miers withdrawal spin)
        •  There was no guess work (none)
          in my post. Please point out the guess work and state the facts. That 1993 speech came out recently and so far had no affect on anyone.Fact. White House had pissed off the committee with their response to questionnaire. Fact. Committee had informed White House to not expect any leniency. Fact.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (32)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • GOP (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site