[BushMeister]

Not to be cruel or anything, but this is just plain asinine. A female attorney who is old enough to have PERSONALLY experienced sex discrimination and the "glass ceiling" decides to sponsor the creation of a series of women's studies lectures and some of the lecturers later chosen to speak BY OTHER PEOPLE turn out to be barking moon-bat feminists. And you blame HER for it?

The article seems to suggest that ALL of the speakers for the first 3 years were barking moonbat feminists. If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures.

It doesn't look good.

[flashbunny]

There are a lot of little things that are adding up to make me more ill at ease with her nomination.

Like her vetoing the white house christmas card one year because they were 'too christian'.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498078/posts

-----

I worked with Miers at the White House. Though my interaction with her was limited, since I was merely a Presidential Writer and she was the Staff Secretary, I had a unique experience with her. In 2001, I was given the task of writing the President’s Christmas message to the nation. After researching Reagan, Bush, and Clinton’s previous Christmas messages, I wrote something that was well within the bounds of what had been previously written (and in case you are wondering, Clinton’s messages were far more evangelical than the elder Bush’s).

The director of correspondence and the deputy of correspondence edited and approved the message and it was sent to the Staff Secretary’s office for the final vetting. Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian. She wanted me to change it. I refused to change the message (In my poor benighted reasoning, I actually think that Christmas is an overtly Christian holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ and the beginning of the redemption of man.).

The director and deputy of correspondence supported me. I even emailed Ken Mehlman (then the Political Director at the White House, now the Republican National Committee Chairman), to see what he thought about the message. He was not offended by it in the least. Miers insisted that I change the tone of the message. I again refused, and after several weeks, the assignment was taken out of my hands. I was later encouraged to apologize to Miers. I did not apologize.

----

[FredTownWard]

"The article seems to suggest that ALL of the speakers for the first 3 years were barking moon-bat feminists. If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures."

"SEEMS", BushMeister? "One would have to ASSUME", BushMeister?

This isn't quite the weakest argument against confirming her, but it's pretty darn close.

[rollo tomasi]

"If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures."

I would add even if initial input was not given, approval of those moon bats certainly was.