He makes me seem almost tame in my disgust with the Miers nomination.

Nah. *This* is the quote of the day:

And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.

It seems that if W. is looking to bail on Miers, he can do so by claiming that the recent Senate demand (supported by Brownback) to access her records in the White House is not kosher and would undermine future administrations and therefore they withdraw her name. Remember the big mandate from November ? Social Security, Fitzgerald at the heels of the White House as well as the Franklin investigation and the apparent exposure of treason from AIPAC officals, immigration, Bolton, judges, Miers, hurricane response...all of this, despite the GOP having strong majorities in the House and Senate. This has been a bad year for the president and I suspect it will, sadly, hurt the GOP next year. Already fundraising and candidater recruitment for 2006 is bad. While I hope and prey the GOP holds its majorities, I can't say I feel too optimistic about Republican gains next year or the future success of this presidency.

Von Bek:

Why do you hope the Republicans hold their majorities in Congress? If they cave in on judges, what good are they?

Cause the Dems are worse. Having said that, if the Constitution Party or even the Libertarians (despite numerous problems with them on social issues) took a solid number of the seats in Congress.