Posted on 10/07/2005 2:27:14 PM PDT by 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.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
Her company uses RICOH. Have you ever heard of anyone ricoh-ing their fanny?
You're real wrong.
Yeah?
Remember the Texas National Guard "controversy"?
Didn't that all start with a comment made by Michael Moore?
How long did that drag on for?
How much oxygen did that suck up?
How many news reports featuring forged documents did that generate?
And didn't the White House relent and finally turn over all of Bush's National Guard documents?
Didn't the media then comb through every last document looking for any indiscretion?
Wasn't there a scandal for a few days about Bush's teeth being somewhere while the rest of him wasn't?
But you believe that the woman who gives Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Libby legal advice, and who previously was in charge of reviewing every document that came in or out of the Oval Office from the very start of Bush's first term isn't going to be interrogated by Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, or Schumer?
And you say I'm "real wrong"?
They will not be willing to risk a grilling before the cameras about everything under the sun. The tried to do this with Condi. Remember how that turned out?
Ugh...because you think she's "creepy looking" you think people will go for a grilling?
More nastiness toward Meirs from the conservatives.
Bye...you're not worth it.
Well try to think of Harriet Mier as an anti-Gingsberg. That will just about even the perception.
That's Harriet Miers.
People thought Bork was creepy looking and that had a lot to do with why the Democrats got away with what they did.
We have a very beauty biased culture, and study after study has proved that. Attractive people are far more likely to get hired, get promotions, get paid more, and naturally, get dates. That's just a fact. People base their first impressions largely on looks. That is a fact. And Miers looks like a scheming frau that shouldn't be trusted. That's just the way it is.
Excellent analysis. I would emphasize, however, that whether one is a religious conservative or a constitutional conservative, there was no good reason for Bush's betrayal of the many millions of voters who elected him when he could have just as easily chosen someone who was a confirmable evangelical AND a constitutional conservative (Such as Judge Karen Williams). More importantly, even if Miers is indeed a sincere pro-life Christian THAT DOES NOT MEAN SHE WILL VOTE AS A JUDICIAL CONSERVATIVE on the Court. Was the self-described evangelical Christian Jimmy Carter a conservative President?
Everything we know about Harriet Miers indicates she is someone who is 1) At best, underqualified for the Supreme Court and chosen out of cronyism; 2) Someone who does not appear to have any firm ideology, changing both her religion and political party well into adulthood; and 3) Someone who's past associations indicate that she is far more likely to end up as another Blackmun or Souter rather than a Scalia or Thomas (Active in the ABA and not the Federalist Society; Moderate to liberal positions on the Dallas City Council, joining Alberto Gonzalez in support of Affirmative Action within the White House in the Grutter case, etc;) Further, recent history has shown that judges who do not have a firm, originalist philosophy will almost always drift Leftward on the Court in order to appease the liberal media, academia, and legal establishment.
This nomination is, as Judge Bork aptly put it, a DISASTER on both substance and politics. I pray that her nomination is withdrawn (and an actual qualified judicial conservative is nominated) before even more irreparable damage is done to the Republican Party and the conservative movement itself...
I'm tempted to do the same, but I'm a combination of both. I buy into the moral imperatives of the social conservatives, and I buy into the democratization of the world scheme and financial largesse of the neo's.
But, I'm not conflicted about Miers. I support her. Her nomination matters not a whit in terms of world & social policy.
Is there something about the rejected, potential nominees that would have led to more neo-conservative friendly rulings from the Supreme Court? Is there something about potential Miers viewpoints that would be contrary to neo-conservative hopes?
I cannot see them yet, if they exist.
There's something more to the Miers rejection than a neo/social conservative rift.
"Hogwash. They don't have free reign to question her about intimate conversations with the President. I think you know this."
Says who? You? The Democrats were going to look at Roberts adoption, so you think the questioning will be limited? Ha Ha!
Overhead of a person sitting in an office chair?
I, like so many others, am at home with both the Church Lady and the Ivy Leageurs. However, a lot of pure Church Ladies are suspicious of people with too much education and a lot of the Brahmin Republicans are hugely distrustful of anyone who
Stingray blogsite: Conservative Christian Commentary
Why do you use an example which is easily refuted? And was adoption brought up? No. The Dems knew they would look foolish, and they were right.
The Dems know Miers will not be expected to give private info because of Executive Privilege.
I know you people are hoping for some kind of an inquisition but it ain't gonna happen.
There are a lot of FReepers who don't seem to have a clue about this either. The notion that those of us who disagree with the Miers nomination are "whiners" throwing a "hissy fit" is repeated again and again in these threads. It is uncalled for and offensive. It is one thing to make rational arguments for Miers, another to abandon argument in favor of obnoxious insults. Elitist that I am, I think this reeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.