Replies

Those who hold firm to the "trust GWB" defense cannot change their position with respect to the Miers pick on the basis of her performance at the hearings. To do so would mean their trust was misplaced.

I became a conservative during Ronald Reagan's tenure. "TRUST BUT VERIFY."

It is possible to trust someone, but also to look for more information. The president is not some divine figure to me; he's a fallible human being.

My approach has been to keep a score sheet of facts with pro and con sides.

The "con" side has two items on it: (1) Supports proportional affirmative action, (2) Turned in a weak questionaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee (she should have known better in this climate)

It is possible to trust someone, but also to look for more information. The president is not some divine figure to me; he's a fallible human being.

Which is why I took care to note that I wasn't directing my observation to you, personally.

I had a STRONG objection to this nomination from the first moment, due solely to the application of "stealth," "this nomination will have us debating the wrong issue(s), something other than the value of traditional jurisprudence."

Since then, based on independent research, I object also on the quality of the nominee - both her judicial philosophy which I see as elitist and modern, and her ilntellectual level; and the sentiment that he is rewarding Ms. Miers based on her loyalty, not on her ability.

I think she is probably a very nice person, and I feel badly that she's in this spot. But back to my point ...

The "trust GWB" position (that is, those who say this is a good pick solely because GWB makes good picks, and/or has a good track record, etc.) has no way out that does not result in diminution of trust. If this is NOT a good pick, for WHATEVER reason, then there was an overextension of trust.