Oh, well. Michael Steele has been passed up for Sen. Mel Martinez. Yes, a squish on border security is now the RNC chair. Has the GOP learned anything?

Here’s a reminder of the Center for Immigration Studies analysis of Martinez’s amnesty bill:

Hagel-Martinez Amnesty. The Hagel-Martinez bill, or Senate bill 2611 (also called S. 2611), has three separate amnesties or legalizations: One for illegals in the country five or more years, one for those who have been here two to five years, and one for those who work in agriculture. Like the 1986 legalizations, the current amnesties involve paying a fine and undergoing a background check. The largest of the new amnesties is for those in the country five or more years. Illegal aliens in this category are placed on what can be described as a “glide path” to Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR). Individuals in the glide path can start to apply for LPR status, also called a green card, once the immigration service has worked through all existing applications or after eight years, whichever is shorter.

There is also an amnesty for illegals who have been here for between two and five years. These individuals can apply for what is called “deferred mandatory departure” (DMD), which can last up to three years. Those with DMD can, like those on the glide path, live and work in the United States. Those with DMD can also at any time apply for the new “guest worker” program referred to as the H2C visa, which Hagel-Martinez creates. To apply for the H2C program, those with DMD will have to go to a port of entry to apply. There is no requirement, however, that they go back to their home countries or stay out of the United States for any length of time. Although it is called a “guest” worker program, the H2C program allows individuals to begin applying for green cards after four years, or sooner if employers apply on their behalf. Although there is an annual limit of 200,000 on the H2C program, those with DMD (i.e., former illegal immigrants) are explicitly exempt.

The third amnesty is for illegal immigrants who have worked in agriculture for a certain number of hours in the years prior to the enactment of S. 2611. These individuals can sign up for the new “blue card” program, the fine for which is smaller than in the other amnesties. Individuals with a blue card can then apply for LPR status after working in agriculture for an additional three to five years. While there are some differences in the way each of these amnesties works, they all share in common the fact that recipients can live and work in the United States and have the opportunity to eventually receive green cards and citizenship.

How Many Will Receive Amnesty? The top portion of Table 1 shows the number expected to legalize legitimately in each of the three categories. Although the actual size of the illegal population is unknown, some research indicates that there are 7.7 million illegals who have been here for five or more years and 2.2 million who have been here for two to five years.7 The number of illegal farm workers who could qualify under the work provision of the “blue card” program has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at 1.1 million.8 This estimate seems reasonable, but not all of these individuals have been here for at least two years. Based on our analysis of illegals in the Current Population Survey who work in agriculture, we estimate that 75 percent (830,000) have been here for more than two years and should be excluded from the potential pool of nearly 10 million beneficiaries for the two non-agricultural amnesties in S. 2611.

We exclude the 830,000 agricultural workers here for more than two years because the blue card is a cheaper and faster route to a green card and therefore we expect those who can take advantage of that program will choose to do so. This means that the potential applicant pool for the two non-agricultural amnesties is 9.07 million. To this number must be added the 1.1 million who can apply for the blue card program, for a total potential applicant pool of 10.17 million for the three amnesties.

More thumbs down from the conservative base, not that anyone cares about them anymore.

***

Martinez will keep his Senate seat while some staffer handles day-to-day RNC chair duties. Reader Rick reacts:

The Martinez choice by the President is even worse than you note. First, to put a sitting senator in the job immediately compromises every position that the party must take which puts Republicans even more (if that is possible) on the defensive. Second, here we are with what will surely be an all out battle for the next two years between the two parties, and the Republicans decide that what is needed is a part-timer to do the job. Gheesh!!!! I hate to say it, but I think President Bush is tired and wants to go home. Could Republicans be in any worse position when it comes to a dearth of strong, resolute and decisive leaders?

John Little is having a hard time finding any positive reaction to this announcement.

***
Related: Sen. Jon Kyl was on the Laura Ingraham show this morning–talking about a possible GOP filibuster of the Bush amnesty plan.

Whatever. It. Takes.

A few weeks ago, while blogging on the road (always a somewhat risky thing to do), I glibly mentioned the possibility of sitting at home for the midterms over heated disagreement with the Bush administration on immigration. Many grass-roots conservatives have grievances with how the White House has handled a number of issues, from Harriet Miers to spending to Iraq.

But we should not sit out the election. And grievances with the White House are no reason to give Nancy Pelosi the gavel. Congressional Republicans shouldn’t be blamed for Miers, the amnesty plan, etc.

My column today dovetails with the President’s comments at his press conference this morning about the fundamental difference between D’s and R’s. Video highlights here. Let me repeat what he said:

“I think the coming election a referendum on these two things: Which party has got the plan that will enable our economy to continue to grow? And which party has a plan to protect the American people? And Iraq is part of the security of the U.S. If and when we succeed in Iraq, our country will be more secure. If we don’t succeed, the country is less secure…I understand some people in Washington don’t think we are at war. They are just wrong, in my opinion. The enemy still wants to strike us. The enemy still wants to achieve safe have from which to plot and plan. The enemy would like to have WMD in order to attack us. These are lethal, cold-blooded killers. And we must do everything we can to protect the American people, including questioning detainees and listening to their phone calls from outside the country to inside the country…and as you know, there were some recent votes on that issue. And the Democrats voted against giving our professionals the tools necessary to protect the American people.

…I do not question their patriotism. I question whether or not they understand how dangerous this world is…

Here are my thoughts, tying together the midterms, the blabbermouth media, Byron Calame’s bombshell admission (still not getting any attention in the MSM), and the blabbermouth Dems. I’m reprinting my column in full here:

As one of those post-9/11 security moms, it all comes down to a simple question for me: Who will keep this country — and my children — safer from harm?

I have many heated differences with the Bush administration over its refusal to fully enforce immigration laws; soft-headed pandering to jihadist lobbying groups; profligate spending on illusory transportation security; failure to confront the spread of sharia law; and kowtowing to Saudi princes eager to send over more young students to learn aviation in our universities.

For all the White House’s faults, however, there is no doubt in my mind that Republicans as a group are better informed, better equipped and better able to lead this country in a time of war than the Democrats. The donkey party is led by thumb-sucking demagogues in prominent positions who equate Bush with Hitler and Jim Crow, call him a liar in front of high school students and the world, fantasize about impeachment and fetishize the human rights of terrorists who want to kill me.

Put simply: There are no grown-ups in the Democrat Party.

Maybe this is what a prematurely giddy Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., meant when she told the Los Angeles Times this week: “The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.”

Yep. Put the gavel in the hands of Pelosi and the Democrats, and you will put the gavel in the hands of children. Couldn’t put it better myself.

Another clarifying moment that underscores the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on matters of national security, seriousness and secrecy took place on June 29, 2006.

That was the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the decision by several newspapers — led by the newspaper of wreckage, The New York Times — to publish details of the Bush administration’s classified program to track terrorist financing. Known as SWIFT, the program had led to the capture of a key Bali bombing suspect and identification of a convicted al Qaeda helper based in New York City, as well as helping investigators probing domestic terrorist cells and suspected Islamic charities fronting for jihad. Under specious claims by anonymous accusers that the program’s legality and oversight were in doubt, the Times splashed details of the program all over its front pages. Democrats dutifully piled on to condemn the White House for its “illegal” “abuses of power.”

But House Republicans refused to roll over for the blabbermouth media and the blabbermouth Democrats. They put Washington on record with a vote on a nonbinding resolution stating the obvious — that news organizations may have “placed the lives of Americans in danger” by disclosing SWIFT and that Congress “expects the cooperation of all news media organizations” in keeping classified programs secret.

The resolution passed 227-183, with only 17 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in condemning the leak-dependent news media and supporting the surveillance program.

“This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration,” railed New York Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey. “It is a campaign document,” pouted Rep. Pelosi in attacking the resolution. Republicans “have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws,” wheedled Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.

Why do I remind you of this vote and the Dems’ kindergarten reaction? Because the Times’ own ombudsman admitted this week that the story should never have run. Public editor Byron Calame ‘fessed up: “I don’t think the article should have been published. . . . I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal. . . . The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.”

Not a single one of the Democrats who lambasted Bush and Republicans for protesting the reckless story has stepped forward to apologize to the president and the American people or acknowledge the harm caused to counterterrorism efforts.

Do you need to know any more to judge which party will keep this country safer? I don’t.

***

Rep. Pete Hoekstra has issued a statement on Calame’s belated mea culpa:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement after New York Times public editor Byron Calame declared his newspaper wrong for publishing a story on the illegally disclosed Terrorist Finance Tracking Program:

“The mea culpa of the New York Times public editor comes too late to stop the damage done to one of our nation’s leading tools to track, understand and prevent the money transfers that enable terrorist attacks. While the editor should be recognized for being the only one at the paper to recognize this was an irresponsible action, he should have been harsher on his fellow editors for ignoring pleadings of congressional leaders, the administration, including the Treasury Secretary, and the leaders of the 9/11 commission, which recommended America implement exactly this type of program, not to publish this story.

“Of course the mea culpa was buried deep in the paper and at the end of a piece about the newspaper’s magazines, so it’s not surprising few people noticed. But more Americans need to notice, and they should be outraged by this, and all, illegal disclosures of vital national security information. The New York Times will suffer no consequence from the illegal disclosure of this program, but the American people could pay the ultimate price because our nation’s ability to track and defend itself against terrorists has been harmed.

“In the war against radical Islam, intelligence is more vital than it has ever been before. The endless, politically motivated illegal leaks about our nation’s terrorism prevention programs must stop. Attempts to exploit these illegal disclosures for political gain also have to stop, and Republicans and Democrats should unite in universal condemnation of all illegal national security leaks.

“At the end of the day, no American has benefited from any of these illegal disclosures, only al-Qaeda, which can count on learning about America’s intelligence capabilities through a subscription to the New York Times.”

Photoshop: PTG

Sides. Splitting. Oh. Oh. Ouch. Help.

Kathryn Lopez: If only!

Freepers: Rolling on the floor.

Lucianne.com: “Gore says he’s ‘carbon neutral’ – Doesn’t hot air count?

…7pm EST:Unaffiliated entity to operate US ports: US official ***

Ross K. reports:

CNBC is reporting that Dubai Ports World will transfer the ports that they would have run as part of their takeover of P&O to a US Entity.

Big Lizards recommended this option Feb. 21. And yes, I agree, it’s time for a wholesale reassessment of all other foreign government-owned or -operated critical assets in the U.S. We should have done it a lot sooner. That’s not called xenophobia. That’s called dealing with post-Sept. 11 reality.

Reader Marty M. writes: “Please, please, please let Halliburton get the ports contract. Sure, they have no experience at running ports–I just want to see moonbat heads explode.”

CNN has more details:

A United Arab Emirates-owned company has agreed to turn over all of its operations at U.S. ports to an American entity, Sen. John Warner said Thursday.

Reading a statement from DP World on the Senate floor, Warner, a Virginia Republican, said the reason is “to preserve” the strong relationship between the UAE and United States.

The announcement comes after congressional leaders reportedly told President Bush that the deal for DP World to assume some operations at six U.S. ports appeared dead on Capitol Hill.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, delivered the news to Bush during a meeting Thursday at the White House, two Republican sources said.

Fox News:

After Republican leaders warned President Bush that the House and Senate appeared ready to block Dubai Ports World from taking over some U.S. port terminal operations, the company said it would give up its management stake in the deal.

The Thursday announcement was a blow for Democrats, who were pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment that would halt the deal. If they succeeded in that vote, Democrats could then claim a big election year win in the area of national security — an area Republicans generally have a stronger track record on.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., read a statement from DP World executives on the Senate floor Thursday, announcing the concession.

“Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement.

With the latest DP World news, many members of Congress who thus far have been critical of the deal may be much more positive toward it.

Reuters:

State-owned Arab company Dubai Ports World confirmed on Thursday an announcement by U.S. Sen. John Warner that it would transfer operation of U.S. ports it has acquired from the British company P & O.

“Sen. Warner has made our statement for us. His announcements says everything we have to say at this point,” a spokesman said.

Breitbart/AP:

Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took the Senate floor to read to colleagues a company press release disclosing its new stance. “Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship, DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity,” DP World’s chief operating officer, Edward H. Bilkey, said in the statement that Warner relayed to other senators. The announcement did not specify which American company would be involved.

The move came as the White House, facing a Republican rebellion in Congress, played down President Bush’s veto threat and said he was trying to find a compromise to resolve the uproar over the company’s plan to take over significant operations at several U.S. sea ports.

DP World said it will transfer all interest in U.S. port operations to an American-based company, but it was unclear immediately how DP World would manage the divestiture. The company indicated that details of the surprise deal were still being worked out.

Warner said that Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, “advised the company … that this action is the appropriate course to take.” Dubai is in the emirates. Just after Warner’s announcement, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal was cautious.

“This is obviously a promising development, but the devil’s in the details,” Schumer said. “Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World.”

Republican congressional leaders had told Bush at a White House meeting earlier Thursday that both the House and Senate appear ready to block the takeover, GOP officials said. In softening the White House’s previous stand, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, “Our emphasis is not on trying to draw lines or issue veto threats. It’s on how we can work together and move forward.”

Mark Levin at NRO:

Thanks goes to the House Republicans. The Appropriations Committee vote was so overwhelming, that the UAE got the message and is now pulling the ports deal. Hence, there will be no confrontation with the president, or embarrassing veto override. And the reaction from Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and the appeasement wing of the Senate is hilarious…

Statement just in from House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner:

“The American people raised serious and genuine concerns about this proposed transaction. When it comes to the operation of our nation’s ports and borders, our national security is our first and foremost concern. Americans have the right to feel confident and comfortable with the security arrangements their government sets for them, and House Republicans were obligated to take action to respond to the concerns Americans have expressed about the proposed deal.”

Video of whining Dems over at The Political Pit Bull.

Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics:

Will this be the end of it? I suspect so. Bush saves face and doesn’t have to make good on a veto threat. A Republican-led Congrees looks good to its constituents (and feels good about itself) for flexing its muscle and derailing the deal. DPW loses, at least for the moment (The statement was notably vague, so we’ll have to wait and see if a restructured deal, of which they may have some connection, emerges at some point after the election).

As with the Harriet Miers nomination, in a few weeks the DPW deal will probably be reduced to a footnote. The question is whether Bush’s standing will rebound fully or whether the Dubai Rebellion will take a further chip out of the President’s credibility with the Republican base that he won’t ever be able to recover.

Washington Post:

The United Arab Emirates company that was attempting to take over management operations at six U.S. ports announced today that it will divest itself of all American interests.

The announcement appears to head off a major confrontation that was brewing between Congress and the Bush administration over the controversial deal…It was not immediately clear how the divesture would be handled or what U.S. company would take over the operation…

Statement from Rep. Jerry Lewis:

“My amendment was narrowly designed to address the widespread, national security concerns about the possibility of a foreign-owned company having direct involvement in the management of U.S. ports. Reports that Dubai Ports World has agreed to sell its holdings of a subsidiary involved in managing six American ports is encouraging news. Our goal is to make sure that the security of our ports is in America’s hands and I look forward to learning more about this recent development,” said House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis.

I’m with Rick Moran:

I would still like to see hearings on other foreign owned companies who manage our ports and other transportation nexus. These are a particularly vulnerable part of our overall security profile and what this deal proved is that no one appears to be thinking very hard about them.

I sincerely hope that the UAE isn’t offended by the pressure that was put on them, although, when a country is owned by one man, it becomes very hard to separate the business from the personal. Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum may feel that he’s been double crossed but he shouldn’t blame the Congress or the American people. The blame is ultimately the Presidents’ to shoulder as are our other problems with border control and gaps in security at our airports.

If the killing of this deal has opened the eyes of the President and his people to the concerns of Congress and many conservatives, then it just may have a silver lining. They can go a long way toward proving that they’re listening by working with Congress on an immigration reform package that puts security over commerce and the safety of the American people over the wallets of the members of the Chambers of Commerce.

“Without objection, so ordered.”

Breitbart/AP:

The former U.S. appeals court judge will quickly be sworn in at the Supreme Court before his expected appearance at Bush’s annual State of the Union speech Tuesday evening with the White House’s other new Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito will be ceremonially sworn in a second time at a White House East Room appearance on Wednesday.

It was an unnecessarily long, hard road. Thank you, Judge Justice Alito, for your perseverance and grace in the midst of the sludge-throwing Senate Democrat windbags. And thanks to the principled liberals who know you and your record best for standing up in your defense.

***

Steve Bainbridge says the “Coalition of the Chillin’” (which defended the Gang of 14) deserves a pat on the back.

Ok. Also deserving of a pat on the back, then, is the decidedly un-chillin’ coalition of conservatives (Professor Bainbridge included) who revolted against the Harriet Miers nomination and demanded a competent pick of which we can all be proud. Kudos.

***

Justice Alito sworn in.

***

Previous:

Kennedy unhinged: liveblogging the meltdown
Sen. Byrd: The people were appalled
(Fili)blusterer of the day
Another Dem senator for Alito
Alito watch: We’ll clean your clock
The last-ditch attack on Alito (video)
A Democrat senator for Alito
Another red-faced Teddy K. moment
A woman the Dems don’t want to hear
Alito watch: The dead horse Democrats
Shame, shame on the Dems
Video: clash of the windbags
Alito watch: biggest Senate windbag
Alito watch: Day 2
Big Lie: Alito is a racist (video)
All things Alito
Alito gets an A
It’s Samuel Alito

The Washington Times weighs in on The Closing of Ted Kennedy’s Mind. (Or better: The Losing of Ted Kennedy’s Mind.) An excerpt:

Something unusual happened on the way to this week’s nomination hearings for Judge Samuel Alito: Reporters scoffed at the ridiculousness of Sen. Ted Kennedy. Notably, one columnist called his antics “meandering and listless” and suggested Mr. Kennedy is beyond his prime. It’s about time: Mr. Kennedy and his 1960s mental furniture cannot square a modern nominee, much less a conservative one. So the spectacle of an angry and rambling Mr. Kennedy yesterday accusing Judge Alito of “support for an all-powerful president” and other baseless charges can only increase the guffaws.

(Speaking of Kennedy-inspired guffaws…and more…)

Patterico is playing the Chuckie S. Drinking Game.

Bloggers on the scene: Suitably Flip, Captain’s Quarters, Blogs for Bush, GOP Bloggers, Tim Chapman/Townhall’s Capitol Report, Power Line, and The Political Teen.

Right Side Redux has a podcast on The Ghost of Harriet Miers and his impressions of the RNC Bloggers Forum. Good opening music.

Scott Johnson reports:

Senator Frist just joined us to give us his thinking on the proceedings regarding Judge Alito. He indicated that he expects the hearings to come to a timely conclusion and for the nomination to come to a timely vote on the floor of the Senate. He stated that will drive the Senate to finish the hearings this week with no break for the weekend, and will drive the Senate for the confirmation to come to a vote as soon as possible, if not on January 20 as previously agreed.

He referred to the procedural devices to which various Democrats have alluded to put off the committee vote as “feeble” and “insufferable.”

Yes, indeed, “feeble” and “insufferable” are the adjectives that often come to mind when describing Democrat plans.

Debbie Schlussel lambastes USA Today’s snotty reviews of Judge Alito’s clothes and hair. It’s only a matter of time before they start attacking his wife and children’s looks.

***

I am impressed by Judge Alito’s ability to keep a straight face while all the bloviators huff and puff. Dafydd at Big Lizards puts it in pictures for us.

10. Commentator Bill Press’s condemnation of bloggers as people “with no credentials, no sources, no rules, no editors and no accountability.” Press’s idea of good journalism can be found here and some of his shady financial backers can be found over at the Radio Equalizer.

9. NYTimes editorial writer Adam Cohen’s whine that bloggers post personal attacks without calling their targets first. Cohen himself would never do something so unprofessional. Yeah, right.

8. WSJ editorial writer Bret Stephens’, uh, meltdown over bloggers who shined the light on former CNN exec Eason Jordan’s unsubstantiated claim that American troops deliberately murdered journalists in Iraq.

7. New Republic editor Michael Crowley’s clueless diatribe arguing that conservative bloggers march in lockstep with the GOP leadership to “to provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates.” Two months earlier, conservative bloggers helped bring down George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court.

6. Far-left cartoonist/columnist Ted Rall’s sneering, elitist attack on Ed Morrissey, whom Rall regards as unqualified to engage in journalism. A few weeks later, Morrissey published documents that led to the collapse of the Canadian government.

5. The late LATimes media critic David Shaw’s critique of blogs, including his now-famous claim that Times articles are vetted by at “least four experienced Times editors,” who check for “accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel.” We all know how well that works.

4. Forbes magazine’s front-cover hit piece on blogs, which suggested that Eason Jordan and Dan Rather were unfairly “hounded” out of their jobs by Powerline and other conservative blogs. An excerpt:

“Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective….[Blogs] are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns….”

3. Columbia Journalism Review editor Steve Lovelady’s description of bloggers who helped bring down Eason Jordan as “salivating morons who make up the lynch mob.”

2. Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker’s description of bloggers as “creepy” wired squatters who are “untempered by restraint and accountability” and “insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility – the angry offspring of narcissism’s quickie marriage to instant gratification.” MSM outlets, by contrast, “are filled with carpal-tunneled wretches, overworked and underpaid, who suffer near-pathological allegiance to getting it right.” You know, those poor, truth-telling, underpaid ink-stained wretches like Jayson Blair, Mitch Albom, Stephen Glass, Eric Slater, Janet Cooke, Barbara Stewart, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, and Jack Kelley.

1. Former CBS News producer Mary Mapes’ attack on conservative bloggers as “far right,” “hard-core, politically angry, hyper-conservative sites loaded with vitriol about Dan Rather and CBS” who anonymously slime “anyone and everyone who raised questions about the president.”

Judging from the thoroughly unhinged tone of the old media, I’d say bloggers had a fabulous year.

Cheers!

2: PAPAL TRANSITION: John Paul II’s death marked the passing of the first non-Italian pope in 455 years and ended a 26-year pontificate, third-longest in history. In a remarkable show of affection, many millions attended services worldwide on the day of his funeral. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, expected to continue a conservative doctrinal approach, became the new pope and promptly waived the normal waiting period so John Paul could swiftly be considered for sainthood.

3: IRAQ: As in 2004, news from Iraq ranged from the grim, including a devastating wave of suicide bombings, to the promising – Iraqis voting for new leaders and thrashing out differences on a new constitution. The U.S. military death toll surpassed 2,000, and President Bush estimated the Iraqi toll at 30,000, but he insisted U.S. forces would stay until Iraqi troops could contain insurgents on their own.

4: SUPREME COURT: Not since 1994 had a Supreme Court seat become vacant. Suddenly there were two openings due to Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement and Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s death. John Roberts was smoothly confirmed to succeed Rehnquist, but President Bush’s next nominee, Harriet Miers, had to bow out amid conservative complaints. The right liked the next choice, Samuel Alito, but he could face tough Democratic opposition at confirmation hearings in January.

5: OIL PRICES: Crude oil prices hit an all-time peak of almost $71 a barrel in August before subsiding. Costly gasoline prompted some motorists to rethink their driving habits; the beleaguered U.S. airline industry had to spend $9 billion more on jet fuel in 2005 than in 2004.

6: LONDON BOMBINGS: Attacks on three rush-hour subway trains and a bus killed 56 people on July 7, including four bombers with ties to Islamic militants. Authorities said three of the alleged bombers were born in Britain to immigrant parents from Pakistan; the fourth was from Jamaica.

7: ASIAN QUAKE: A massive earthquake near the Pakistan-India border killed more than 87,000, and left more than 3 million homeless. Worried relief officials appealed for more emergency aid as winter arrived in the stricken region.

8: TERRI SCHIAVO: A family feud escalated into a wrenching national debate as the husband of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo struggled and finally succeeded in getting clearance to remove the feeding tube that had kept her alive for 15 years. President Bush, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and members of Congress joined Terri Schiavo’s parents in efforts to have the tube reinserted before she died.

9: CIA LEAK: Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was indicted and several prominent journalists were entangled in complex offshoots as a special prosecutor investigated the Bush administration’s leaking of Valerie Plame’s CIA status to the news media in 2003. Plame’s husband, a former U.S. diplomat, had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence on Iraq.

10: BUSH’S STRUGGLES: Multiple factors, including public doubts about Iraq, a flawed response to Hurricane Katrina and a failed Supreme Court nomination, drove President Bush’s national approval ratings below 40 percent, the lowest of his presidency.

Bush’s struggles? What about the Democrat Party’s struggles? Multiple factors, including a flawed response to the War on Terror, a failed party chairman, and increasing unhingedness.

Another unacknowledged top story: the continuing crumbling of the MSM’s credibility, from the reckless rumor-mongering of top cable news executives to Newsweek’s Korangate to entrenched anti-war bias and Chicken Little journalism timed to sell books.

*Times Watch has the NY Times’ Worst Quotes of the Year.

*Stephen Spruiell has the top media-manufactured controversies.

*John Hawkins has the top 10 worst quotes from the Democratic Underground.

President Bush appears poised to announce a new Supreme Court nomination today, moving quickly after a weekend of consultations to put forward a replacement for the ill-fated choice of Harriet Miers in hopes of recapturing political momentum, according to Republicans close to the White House.

Judging by the names the White House floated by its political allies in recent days, Bush seems ready to pick a candidate with a long track record of conservative jurisprudence who would mollify the Republican base that scuttled the Miers nomination. Several GOP strategists said the most likely choice seemed to be federal appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., with fellow Judges J. Michael Luttig and Alice M. Batchelder also seen in the running.

Real Clear Politics has a round-up of SCOTUS vacancy news (see right sidebar).

SCOTUS Blog looks at front-runners.

Reuters/WaPo on Alito and Luttig.

The Prowler hears it will be Judge Samuel Alito. So does Erick at Confirm Them.

Todd Zywicki hears Luttig, and and also points to Ideoblog’s analysis of Alito’s business and commercial law jurisprudence.

Patterico takes a closer look at Alito’s dissent in Casey.

Hugh Hewitt supports Luttig and underscores his War on Terror rulings. More background here.

Stay tuned…

First Breitbart/AP dispatch 858am EDT:

Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.

Exit strategy hinged on refusal to release privileged White House documents. (Ed Morrissey and Charles Krauthammer called it.) Whatever. We know the real reasons. Now, onto a candidate that conservatives can be proud of, okay?

National Review Online has a PDF of Miers’ letter requesting to withdraw.

AP reporting that Miers submitted her letter last night at 830pm EDT.

President’s full statement (thanks to SCOTUS blog):

Today, I have reluctantly accepted Harriet Miers’ decision to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because of her extraordinary legal experience, her character, and her conservative judicial philosophy. Throughout her career, she has gained the respect and admiration of her fellow attorneys. She has earned a reputation for fairness and total integrity. She has been a leader and a pioneer in the American legal profession. She has worked in important positions in state and local government and in the bar. And for the last five years, she has served with distinction and honor in critical positions in the Executive Branch.

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. It is clear that Senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House – disclosures that would undermine a President’s ability to receive candid counsel. Harriet Miers’ decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the Constitutional separation of powers – and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

I am grateful for Harriet Miers’ friendship and devotion to our country. And I am honored that she will continue to serve our Nation as White House Counsel.

My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains. I will do so in a timely manner.

Sen. Trent Lott on Fox News this morning: “Who will remember the name Harriet Miers in a month?”

Confirm Them notes: “MSNBC just reported that a White House source is saying that a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee called the White House last night and suggested that Miers withdraw.”

Bill Frist reacts (via WaPo SCOTUS blog).

***

Blogger reax:

Red State’s Mike Krempasky: “Ok everyone – back to the barracks, let’s get ready to get behind a nominee we can support.”

Ed Morrissey: “Now can we nominate a candidate whose qualities and track record presumes we control the Senate?”

Scott Ott has already fired off a spoof: “Miers Withdraws to ‘Spend More Time with Humans’”

Bulldogpundit at ABP: “It’s time to move on from the internal squabbles about her nomination. We’ll see quickly enough if the President has learned his lessons from this error and nominates a supremely qualified (and properly vetted) conservative jurist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, as he promised in 2000 and 2004. I trust that he will.”

Jonah Goldberg: NO GONZALES. That is my only advice to Bush right now. No Gonzales, a thousand times no Gonzales.

Mega-ditto that.

Patterico is off the ledge.

Mark Coffey is rounding up reax. So is Pundit Guy Bill Nienhuis.

Howard Bashman highlights PFAW’s crowing.

Hugh Hewitt:

I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.

She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the president deserved much better from his allies.

President’s allies deserved–and deserve–better from him. We’ll see if he delivers.

Emily Zanotti is apprehensive.

Jim Hoft has video of Washington reax.

Polipundit: Disappointment and moving on…“How about Karen Williams?”

Tom Bevan at the Real Clear Politics blog:

One interpretation of the Miers withdrawal is that the President realized (or was informed by GOP Senators) that she didn’t have a chance of being confirmed. A more speculative interpretation of the timing of the withdrawal is that the President knows there are indictments coming down tomorrow and needs to have his base support consolidated. He can use news of a new appointment to deflect attention from any possible bad news from the Fitzgerald investigation.

Indictments or not, expect Bush to nominate someone who will immediately set off a firestorm from liberal special interest groups and provoke a major battle on the hill that will get his administration off the defensive.

La Shawn Barber is not optimistic about the next pick.

Laura Lee Donoho is also worried about weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate.

John Hawkins is happy.

Stephen Bainbridge Treoblogs his reax.

Orin Kerr: McConnell or Williams.

Mitch Berg has advice for the president.

***

Previous:

10/3 Utterly underwhelmed
10/4 Miers & the morning after
10/4 Harry’s gal
10/5 Rush on Miers/Ann on Miers
10/9 Miers weekend roundup
10/10 Miers:beware
10/11 Mrs. Bush and the sexism card
10/11 Laura Ingraham on Miers
10/17 Harriet Miers Version 2.0
10/20 The trouble with Harriet
10/23 Harriet Miers: Take a stand
10/26 The dog ate my questionnaire…and other signs of collapse?
10/27 The clock is ticking…

At least two Republican senators are poised to call on the White House to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, a highly placed Republican Senate staffer told The New York Sun.

The news came amid stepped-up criticism of Ms. Miers by conservative groups and Senator Schumer. The conservatives said they were upset by the emergence yesterday of two speeches in which Ms. Miers said that self-determination should guide decisions involving religion and the law, and in which she cited conservative betes noires Janet Reno and Justice Ginsburg as female role models. Mr. Schumer, the Democrat of New York who serves on the Judiciary Committee, complained of the nominee’s delay in completing a follow-up questionnaire from the committee.

In addition, the Sun notes that both the American Conservative Union and the Family Research Council are moving to organize votes on whether to call for Miers’ withdrawal. James Dobson did not return the paper’s call for comment and the pro-Bush nominee lobbying group, the Committee for Justice, has all but ceased its e-mail missives.

Scott Johnson at Power Line writes: “… if I were Ms. Miers, on sober second thought I would ask to have my name withdrawn from consideration.”

SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers was supposed to turn in more detailed questionnaire responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Kathryn Lopez reports that as of 8pm EDT tonight, Miers had failed to turn in her answers.

Hmmm.

Meanwhile, there have been some significant shifts to the oppose column in the blogosphere today. See Paul Mirengoff at Power Line for details.

The Truth Laid Bear has the latest tally of where bloggers stand on the Miers nomination here:

Oppose – 257
Support – 52
Neutral – 58

More from Patterico on the Miers speech that is causing an uproar.

Update: Another very significant move off the fence–Ed Morrissey has now moved to the conservative opposition camp as well.

And Investor’s Business Daily reports:

Mum’s the word on Harriet Miers among Beltway Republicans who know what’s good for them. But privately, they’re betting two to one that Miers will bow out to spare herself — and President Bush — further embarrassment.

Those are the odds in at least one betting pool of lawyers, lobbyists, and “Hill rats.”

“I expect she’s going to be gone next week this time, certainly not later than Friday next week,” said a GOP consultant who asked not to be named.

Senate Republicans have dismissed such talk as “absurd.” But the signs aren’t looking any better for Miers the closer she gets to her Nov. 7 hearings.

Anti-Miers movement:

Americans for Better Justice
WithdrawMiers.org

10/27 Wash Times reporting:

The nation’s largest conservative women’s group yesterday called for the withdrawal of the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination as The Washington Times learned that a key promoter of the nomination had suddenly quit the White House lobbying effort.

Leonard A. Leo, who had been on leave from the Federalist Society to be chief conduit between the White House and conservatives, said last night that he has returned to his full-time job as executive vice president of the conservative legal group.

The move, which surprised even Republicans working closely with Mr. Leo, came as the Concerned Women for America called for the nomination to be withdrawn in part because of reports of a 1993 speech in which Miss Miers appeared to agree with some of the grounds for the legal right to abortion.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hutchison, you think those comments from the White House are credible?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Tim, you know, I think we have to remember something here. An indictment of any kind is not a guilty verdict, and I do think we have in this country the right to go to court and have due process and be innocent until proven guilty. And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.

I think we should be very careful here, especially as we are dealing with something very public and people’s lives in the public arena. I do not think we should prejudge. I think it is unfair to drag people through the newspapers week after week after week, and let’s just see what the charges are. Let’s tone down the rhetoric and let’s make sure that if there are indictments that we don’t prejudge.

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I’m not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process–and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn’t find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn’t a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. And I think we have to weigh both sides of this issue very carefully and not just jump to conclusions, because someone is in the public arena, that they are guilty without being able to put their case forward. I really object to that.

Um, has anyone suggested that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is a “gotcha” kind of guy who would throw away his good reputation by pursuing “technicalities” instead of “real” crimes? I haven’t heard anyone on our side suggest anything of the kind. Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. attorney and NRO contributor whose opinion I have the highest respect for, said this about his former co-worker Fitzgerald (via MSNBC):

He’s a pit bull and he’s also the best and most honorable guy I know. I think that the country is in good hands having this particular investigation, in particular in his hands.

I’ll take McCarthy’s first-hand knowledge over Sen. Hutchison’s insinuations.

The New York Times, for what it’s worth, reports that Sen. Hutchison’s tactics are part of a coordinated GOP strategy to “blunt leak charges.” If that is true (contrary to the unhinged Left, I’m not on the White House talking points e-mail list), I really object to that–and so should every other rule-of-law Republican. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes, whether committed by D’s, R’s, or otherwise. Period.

Sen. Hutchison would have been better off adopting fellow Republican Sen. George Allen’s simple, candid answer to Russert’s question about what Rove and Libby did or didn’t discuss:

SEN. ALLEN: I don’t know. I know that’s rare from a politician. I don’t know. I’ve been more focused on Harriet Miers’ qualifications and reducing energy prices and others, and I’ll leave this to the prosecution and by the way, again, due process rather than a lot of speculation on what actually is known or not said in testimony in a very closed grand jury proceeding.

Sometimes, no spin is the most effective spin.

***

Speaking of things that make your head spin, The Political Teen highlights the insanely unhealthy obsession some in the MSM have with Rove and Libby.

Jeff Goldstein adds perspective.

So does the WSJ editorial page, which argues:

Let’s stipulate that the law is the law, and if Bush Administration officials lied to a grand jury in the clear and obvious way that Bill Clinton did, they should be prosecuted. If Mr. Fitzgerald has evidence of a malicious attempt to expose a CIA undercover agent, as defined by the relevant statute, the same applies. But the fact that the prosecutor has waited as long as he has–until the last days of his grand jury–suggests that he considers this a less than obvious case. A close call deserves to be a no call.

All the more so because this entire probe began and has continued as a kind of proxy for the larger political war about the Iraq War. In July 2003, Joseph Wilson used his insider status as a former CIA consultant to accuse the Bush Administration of lying about Iraq WMD as an excuse to go to war. A political furor erupted, and Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for President campaign.

Amid an election campaign and a war, Bush Administration officials understandably fought back. One way they did so was to tell reporters that Mr. Wilson’s wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, had been instrumental in getting him the CIA consulting job. This was true–though Mr. Wilson denied it at the time–as a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documented in 2004.

As it does many times each year following a press report with classified information, the CIA routinely referred this “leak” about Ms. Plame’s status to the Justice Department for investigation. Only after someone (probably at the CIA) leaked news of this referral to the media in September 2003 was there another political uproar and calls for a “special prosecutor.” Three months later, the panicky Bush Administration relented, and Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed.

***
Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has all the latest on this case.

Here’s the tracking page.

Check it out and make your stand.

***

Joe Gandelman has a giant round-up of all the latest Miers news, opinion, rumors, etc.

Make sure to see this and this as well.

First, if you haven’t already read it, check out Miers’ 57-page questionnaire (in PDF via NRO), which she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The blogosphere has brutally dissected Miers’ answers, non-answers, and unintelligible gibberish. See, for example, Steve Bainbridge, Prawfsblawg, Victor Fleischer, James Lindgren, Patterico, and Bench Memos.

Now, Sens. Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy have rendered their verdict: They want a do-over. Words like “underwhelming,” “inadequate,” and “insulting” are streaming out of Washington. And it’s not just from the lips and keyboards of elitist/sexist pundits. Via WaPo:

Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers’s behalf “chaotic,” and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. “The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting,” Leahy said.

They sent Miers a three-page letter asking for more detailed responses in several areas, and Specter said he has asked the Bush administration for more documents concerning her work as White House counsel. Specter said Miers must provide “amplification on many, many of the items” included in the first questionnaire.

Miers quickly replied, writing that she would comply with the new request. She also wrote that “as a result of an administrative oversight,” her Texas law license was suspended for 26 days in 1989 because of unpaid dues. On Monday, Miers disclosed that her D.C. law license was briefly suspended last year because of unpaid annual dues.

Announcing plans to start the hearing Nov. 7 despite Democrats’ request for more time, Specter told reporters: “This is going to be an unusual hearing where I think all 18 senators are going to have probing questions.” The panel has 10 Republicans and eight Democrats.

This also jumped out at me and exacerbated my already queasy stomach:

At yesterday’s news conference, Specter appeared to be annoyed with Miers on several points. He said his staff gave him a “big binder” of legal cases she had handled in private practice, but “she gave us a skimpy little group” of material describing those cases in response to the questionnaire’s request for details of her most important cases. “No reason we should know more about her cases than she does,” he said.

Specter said he remained perplexed by a disagreement Monday stemming from his meeting with Miers in his office, after which their accounts differed on what the nominee had said about Supreme Court rulings that preceded Roe.

In dealing with 11 Supreme Court nominees, Specter said, “I’ve never walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was said.” He smiled politely as Leahy said, “I’ve never known him to make a mistake on what he heard.”

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers’s response to the committee’s request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to “the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause” as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.“There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation — which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies — with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

Go back to Miers’ questionnaire and pay special attention to Question 22 on p. 49 to grasp Sunstein’s point:

While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.

As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: “What the…?!?” If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers’ sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all.

President Bush promised Senators that they’d fall in love with Harriet once they got to know her. But the Los Angeles Times reports that Republicans have been damning her with faint praise after emerging from meetings:

“I might have liked a different type nominee myself, but that’s the president’s choice,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said after his meeting with Miers.

The lackluster beginning of her campaign to be confirmed raises the stakes for Miers, and the president, when she appears before the Judiciary Committee. Senators of both parties say her nomination will succeed or fail based on how well she performs.

Senators and aides have been reluctant to provide details of their meetings with Miers because they do not want to antagonize the White House. But some described her as surprisingly reticent and, in a word used by more than one of them, “underwhelming.”

Even those who were impressed said that she offered up little of herself in conversation. “In these meetings she has been very guarded,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

One senator found her much too quiet. The lawmaker had such a hard time hearing Miers that aides had to tell people outside the meeting room to quiet down.

“She doesn’t have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues,” said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.

“Generally when you hold these interviews, people want to show you what they know,” the senator said. “She did not respond. Nothing came back.”

These accounts do not bode well for Miers’ scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in two weeks. Her supporters might argue that expectations are so low that she will have an easy time appeasing committee members after she has boned up on constitutional law. But John Roberts’ stellar, authoritative performance–speaking without notes and jousting vigorously with the panel for four days–set a high standard. Does anyone believe from testimonials like this and this and this that Miers can meet that standard?

On top of all this, add reporting by John Fund and Bob Novak that raises questions about Miers’ messy dealings while on the Texas Lottery Commission.

What does it spell? T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

***
Update: Believe it or not, I think this NYTimes editorial is reasonable.

John Hawkins has a Miers news/opinion round-up and more here.

And if you still can laugh about this mess, check out Harriet Miers’ blog, Scrappleface, and All Things Beautiful.

More Scrappleface.

Jeff Goldstein brings on more funny.