Replies

"Why not comment on the article posted?

You assume the facts not confirmed by Ms. Miers.

A better question is, "why not let the Senate Judiciary Committee ask her about these issues."

The Constitution provides for the Senate to advise and consent on this manner. Last month the mantra was "give the President an up or down vote on this nominee." Now according to Farah and others it is "withdraw this nominee and do not give her an up or down vote."

Accusations are always a dime a dozen. Ms. Miers will be before the committee with millions watching. If you are sure she supports these things, it will become apparent.

There is abundant evidence, extending over 25 years, that the 60 year old Miers has the touchy-feely sensibilities of a social worker, that she's borderline illiterate, and completely disengaged from weighty intellectual pursuits especially of a constitutional dimension. She's a glad-hander and everybody's pal. That's all the "gravitas" she has.

At this late stage of her life, no amount of cramming for her Senate Judiciary Committee final exam is going to transform her into something she is not. That doesn't mean she won't give the appearance of being qualified. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are carefully choreographed dog-and-pony shows. If the administration's tactics are successful, you'll hear Miers fling zingers she's carefully memorized that will make you pause and say, "Hmmm. There's more depth to this nominee than her most cynical critics ever dreamed of."

Only there isn't.

Miers is a shallow pool. Playing angles with the cameras may give the appearance of depth, but only a fool would discount what is already known and attempt to launch a ship in that pool.

A better question is, "why not let the Senate Judiciary Committee ask her about these issues."

I have no problem letting the committee ask about the issues - the very issues being raised by journalists, commentators, message boards, etc. Without them being raised here, they aren't "issues" now, are they?

Attempting to silent critics or discussion in the name of "letting the Senate do its job" is the same thing as attempting to turn us all into sheep.

So the real question is.. What is wrong with the people conducting their own investigation to insure the Senate does its job properly? After all, it may be Senate's job to provide advice and consent, but it is OUR job to ultimately consent with respect to the Senate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussion before the hearings, as you seem to imply.