You and Calpernia are both begging the question of whether Harriet Miers should merit the support of any fair-minded conservative. There is some evidence that, in fact, she should not.
Just because the President says he wants her, and just because he says "trust me", isn't good enough -- really, it isn't.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Bush told everyone how conservative he was in the 2000 campaign, and yet he went to a Log Cabins' dinner and schmoozed with them and made reassuring noises, while his advance woman Mary Matalin was going around the dinner telling gays that the idea of "gay marriage" was a "no-brainer", and that only people who were "unfair" would oppose it -- how conservative was that? Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition got a stand-in visit from Karl Rove. Could it be that the Loggies got favorable treatment because they were, on average, better monetary contributors to politics? Why was George W. Bush so friendly to them, even naming gays as important Administration officials in his first term?
Personally, I think Dubya owes somebody. Someone who's gay and inside the Bush inner circle, like Jerry Falwell's and Bob Dornan's longtime chiefs of staff and go-to guys who suddenly came out to them, has got over on Dubya -- that's a favorite gay tactic, of targeting conservative leaders and forcing them to choose between people and principles. They wormed their way inside the Bush circle, or perhaps there's someone in the Bush family who's gay, and then used Bush's loyalty to turn him. I think George W. Bush has compromised his principles, who knows how long ago, and is a liberal on sexual deviancy.
This is speculation on my part on unexplained but observed Bush behavior -- which is fair, if he's not going to tell us why he went to a Log Cabin ball and appointed "out" gays to staff, and if he's not going to tell us what he really thinks about homosexuality and politically active gays like those in the Republican Unity Coalition -- which is a "gay-straight alliance" within the upper reaches of the GOP. In the absence of exposition and argument, in the absence of any explanation of this glaring inconsistency with his otherwise pro-life, pro-family stance (extending to DOMA support) in Dubya's political behavior, speculation is fair, and warranted.
FOR EXAMPLE:
During Campaign 2000, Bush made a fair point of criticising DIRTXPOTUS for his heavy expenditure of armaments on the "air war" over Kosovo. "Bubba" had drawn down stocks of American weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile and had let supplies, parts, and training budgets languish rather than pay the full ticket for his humanitarian adventure. He had expended more of the arsenal on his Desert Fox "dog-wagging" and the continuing arm-wrestling with Saddam in the "no-fly zones" of Iraq. Retention, training, and spare parts were all nagging problems on which Slick had decided to "kick the can" and was hoping nobody would notice.
Bush got traction against Gore with conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders on that issue, and it helped him win.
After inauguration, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, thinking to redeem the Administration's many overt promises during the campaign to restore the Defense Department's capabilities, handed up a FY 2002 budget request for an additional $60 billion to handle the underages DoD had inherited from DIRTXPOTUS. Bush's reply to Rumsfeld surprised him -- Bush told Rumsfeld to pass the word to the service chiefs to "stand fast" on budgetary requests for funds and spending authority -- the Clinton spending levels would be maintained, so Bush could do his tax cuts.
During the following summer, before the 9/11 attacks, Bush handed down a directive to Rumsfeld for a $60 billion "carve-out" from existing budgetary priorities for the Strategic Defense Initiative, which Bush was resuscitating. This was a $120 billion swing, a decrement from what was needed to supply Bush's campaign promises.
But we should "trust him" on a Supreme Court nomination.
No, I don't think so. Sorry.
The Supreme Court is the ballgame. No room for error there, or for "trust" defined George Bush's way.
>>>> Just because the President says he wants her, and just because he says "trust me", isn't good enough -- really, it isn't.
It may be true that isn't a good enough reason.
But since Not In Out Name has put so much effort in to fight this and has issued the guidelines of talking points.....
THAT combined with Bush makes me confident in supporting her.
Propaganda works both ways.