We really do agree... I'm serious. The only problem is that it takes two sides to have a reasonded discussion of issues etc. You and I can do that all day... but if the other side doesn't ... we just lose.
I would not advise Miers to be upfront and transparent with this committee if she wants to be on the court. I would advise her to do just what Roberts did. Be vague. Roberts was smart about it. Miers is going to need to rely on social skills. That's the bottom line I think.
The left is waiting for her. They saved all of their amo for this nominee. She's got a tough fight after being shot up by our side too.
If we agree to battle on unprincipled grounds, because those are the grounds the DEMs choose, we've lost.
It's just a matter of time. Building on past bad precedents (not objecting to Ginsberg as a matter of principle, tolerating "stealth" answers, submitting to the DEM battleground of issues advocacy instead of the traditionalist-modernist judicial philosophy battleground) will not succeed in advancing the conservative agenda for the long haul.
I think Miers is to the left of O'Connor, on the law. And so, in that regard, she has to be vague - because if that came out in testimony, not only would we wacko-ideologues be upset, so would the "follow Bush" crowd.