Miers, Miers on the Wall -- Harriet Miers as the human Rorschach test

Slate ^ | October 7, 2005 | Dahlia Lithwick

[DallasMike]

Over the last week it has been said that Harriet Miers is an "inkblot." That's supposed to mean she has no visible horns, no discernible politics, and no paper trail; that she's a huge national mystery. But what it should really mean is that she has become a huge national Rorschach test: We look at her and can see nothing beyond our own fears and anxieties.

What we actually know about Miers is virtually negligible: We know her notable successes as a Texas attorney; we know she's a serious born-again Christian; we know she is universally hailed as loyal and discreet. And we know she has been serving the president in various personal and professional capacities for a decade. But what we don't know could easily fill the 80,000 pages of John Roberts' documents we scrutinized so carefully before his confirmation

...

Enter Harriet Miers stage right. No one really knows anything about her, yet the folks on the right talk about her like she's Satan in Size 6 shoes, and the folks on the left figure that if the right hates her so much, she must obviously be Bill Brennan in Size 6 shoes. Or at least David Souter in purple suede pumps. Once the Manuel Mirandas and George Wills made up their minds that she was both a dim bulb and a Bush crony, liberals were content to accept her as the best of a truly awful field of alternatives; she must be a dim bulb if Will says so. But better a dim bulb than a charismatic original thinker.

...

[DallasMike]

I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives.

       

 

 

        Stingray blogsite: Conservative Christian Commentary

[w_over_w]

Is this .gif overhead or from the ground level? Your answer will decide whether you're a social conservative or neo-con.

[Parmenio]

Does anyone know if hearings on the Miers nomination have been scheduled? I haven't heard of any, and it strikes me as a bit odd. If I recall correctly, within a couple of days of the Roberts nomination Specter gave a general target date for the start of hearings for the Roberts hearings. So far, there seems to be nothing scheduled for Miers.

[counterpunch]

As Bush's personal friend and personal lawyer, not to mention holding the same position in the Bush White House that John Dean held in the Nixon White House, Miers is just the person Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer will love to interrogate for hours on end.

By the time its all over, the public won't be able to tell if they just watched a confirmation hearing or an impeachment trial. What did Bush know and when did he know it? We're about to find out.

[Siena Dreaming]

Do you have to post this same comment over and over again?

[loboinok]

Overhead...looks like someone falling backwards.

[loboinok]

"we know she's a serious born-again Christian;"

Emphasis on 'serious' and thats really all I need to know about her!

[k2blader]

I also see a swivel chair..

Ok, what's our result? :o)

[w_over_w]

Overhead...looks like someone falling backwards.

Fascinating . . . obviously you want your cake and eat it too.

[loboinok]

Nope... its a midget falling backwards with bells around his waist!

[loboinok]

Thats not logical!

[shempy]

I still see the Miers nomination as a battle between social conservatives and neo-conservatives.

I disagree. "Neo-conservative" typically refers to either those people that have converted from being liberal or to people that adhere to a new view or trend within conservatism. While Kristol and some others are neo-conservative, Laura Ingraham, Rush, Mark Levin, etc. are not at all neo-conservatives.

I do agree that it is a battle between different conservative factions, I just disagree with your labels.

[counterpunch]

Yes, until appropriate warning is heard.
Everyone is talking about her qualifications, her philosophy, her temperament, her ideology, her religion, is she confirmable, is she not confirmable...

Meanwhile they're completely missing what the Democrats are planning to do with this. In the end its going to have nothing to do with her on the court. People are going to forget that she was even nominated for anything. They're going to think she and the Bush administration are on trial.

[RichInOC]

I don't know, but I bet Bill Clinton would hit it either way.

[Siena Dreaming]

Hogwash. They don't have free reign to question her about intimate conversations with the President. I think you know this.

[counterpunch]

They can ask her about anything they want.
They can make speeches about anything they want.
Ted Kennedy made a speech about how John Roberts was a racist.

Then Sam Brownback gave a speech about fetuses being aborted because of birth defects -- complete with a Down's Syndrome girl as a prop, right there in the committee room.

They can and do say and ask anything they want -- they're senators.
Oh, and it gets better still: Arlen Spector is going to be running the show. What are the chances that he'll even try to keep it under control?

[Siena Dreaming]

Yes, they will give speeches...they always do.

But they will not ask Miers unrelated questions about intimate conversations she had with the President a la John Dean.

Get real.

[counterpunch]

How is it unrelated?
These will be questions related to her view of the law... thing like if she knew the president was committing a crime when he (fill in the blank)...

[Graymatter]

It's a woman in a swivel chair goofing off when she should be working.
Why can't she just xerox her fanny like everybody else?

[Siena Dreaming]

The reason John Dean was such a star was that he was willing to say there was a cancer on the Presidency.

Far from the case with Miers. You have the wrong idea.