I wish I could concur on the hearings. Unfortunately, the stealth strategy of the WH will not permit a real examination of someone with no record. I must, therefore, suggest withdraw for the good of the party.
I pretty much have removed myself from these threads, as I am quite convinced all sides are firmly entrenched in their positions; arguing over this is simply a waste of time.
I will say this, however. Peggy Noonan's reference to the President's past drinking problem is one of the tackiest things I have seen a columnist do, especially one who purports to be a Republican and a Christian. She should be ashamed of herself.
I think everybody's got it wrong on the hearings. (Full disclosure: I'm wait-and-see with a bias toward "oppose"). These hearings will be different. Most of the time, we already know the qualifications, the hearings are normally about "how will he/she vote?", which of course, we can't know.
The objections to Miers are more qualifications based. I really think the hearings are going to be more like an oral exam in con law. She'll sink or swim based on her knowledge.
Unfortunately, the anti's have overplayed their hand, and painted a picture of a woman who can't string two sentences together. She'll look brilliant by comparison. I think she'll get confirmed, it'll be be antis fault for talking down her intelligence, and it'll be a shame if she turns out to be somewhat less than competent.