Here’s my evidence that the Miers pick was not out of weakness.

I think the Miers pick was not motivated by Bush’s weakness.

Now I know you’re convinced, just as you expected me to be convinced by Oliver’s statement.

I know what you’re thinking: But, Frank, what evidence do you have?

Aha…

Let’s let the historians decide how he got there

What would satisfy you? How about Bush ’shouting from the end of the bar’; “I picked her because I am weak !”

Also, those misgivings have nothing whatever to do with Bush’s purported weakness.

Oliver’s “case” hinges on what Bush might have done if he were not weak. Interestingly, he is the only one saying it.

Therefore, when I introduced a simple requirement for evidence — a newspaper or magazine article… informed (i.e., with citations) blog entry or editorial — he was unable to do so. Oliver might as well be (as Edward R. Murrow put it) “Shouting from the end of the bar.”

So the evidence is somewehere between weak and nonexistent. (Nota bene: I am not saying that Bush shows no signs of weakness — I am asking for evidence that the Miers pick was evidence of weakness)

Now, if you have an argument to make against what I said, make it.

Now is the time for you to stop gainsaying me, and contradicting me, and SAY SOMETHING!

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23311,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Is this evidence that some Republicans are unhappy with Bush’s choice?

It sure is evidence of Bush’s weakness.

The only “evidence” of Bush’s weakness so far is Oliver’s say so. Can’t somebody, anybody find a newspaper or magazine article? And informed (i.e., with citations) blog entry or editorial?

Some shred, some scintilla of evidence? Please!!

Eroding support within his own ranks=weakness

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9598551/

Apparently Oliver doesn’t. I d love to read it.

also, frameone: {from the same article}

The FTC reviews regional concentration when considering refinery mergers, said general counsel William Kovacic.

“It may be possible in selected markets for individual firms to unilaterally increase prices, particularly where there are specific supply disruptions, but the capacity to do that is a separate question from the question did the mergers make it easier,” Kovacic said. “We think, and again it’s a fair point for debate, the mergers haven’t contributed to this.”

Kovacic said regional fuel requirements that prevent some types of gasoline from being sold in different markets may be more to blame for crimping supply [empasis added - fd]. Different states have their own requirements for additives such as ethanol used to meet federal pollution rules. California, for example, won’t allow the use of gas blended with an ethanol alternative, methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, because of concerns the petroleum-based chemical will foul water supplies.

“We have suggested in our comments to other agencies that it would be helpful if there were a more integrated approach to competition policy,” Kovacic said.

CBS sez…

Gas Price Surge Under Bush Follows Unchecked Refinery Mergers

May 17 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush allowed an increase in oil refinery mergers to go unchecked since he took office and may have contributed to the highest gasoline prices in 20 years as the November election approaches.

The Bush administration approved 33 takeovers totaling $19.5 billion, on top of 21 deals worth $7.3 billion under President Bill Clinton, Bloomberg data shows. Reduced supplies were already pushing up gas prices in Clinton’s term, according to a Federal Trade Commission study conducted after pump prices rose to more than $2 a gallon in Milwaukee and Chicago in 2000.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aI43GNSYkDDQ&refer=news_index

Sound government investment in alternative fuels would do a lot to relieve the energy crunch but whenever someone brings up biofuels all we get are “Oh look at the hippies driving in their canola oil VWs. Ha ha, stupid hippies.” Meanwhile Bush helps his oil industry cronies close more refineries and drill in ANWR. But no, it’s democratic liars that are ruining the country.

RiR;

Actually, if you adjust the amount of gold necessary to purchase a gallon of gas, in say, 1960 ($.20) and adjust for the rise in gold value, gas should be at about $4 per gallon. The closer the price gets to that amount the quicker the public is going to take charge of the issue of alternative fuels.