When it comes to the Miers media circus, my reaction is something like Liberty's:

I watched the media spin last night and this morning in a state of utter disbelief; conservatives are worried about the woman who stands shyly behind Bush wearing a giant crucifix and has had her nose up Bush's butt for the past ten years?

SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE they are. What a crock! I have called these kinds of stunts before, and that is what this is, a stunt to try to ease her through confirmation. This woman is a fanatical Christian conservative who worships the ground Bush walks on and will fulfill his agenda with her every breath, and "conservatives are worried"? Puh-lease, kids, give me a break!

Liberty points to the Seattle times, which reports:

Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas City Council, and said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute — a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed — in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

So it seems Miers' "equal rights" stance for gays means that gays and straights can equally endure government policing of the bedroom. Honey, watch your aim now. Harriet's watching us from the closet.

We also hear notes of caution from more well-known liberal voices, too. For instance, today, while John Aravosis ponders the meaning of unmarried Harriet Miers' "wedding ring," columnist Molly Ivins, whom, I think it's safe to assume, knows her Texas conservatives, focuses on real concerns:

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

And as to all the crowing that Ms. Miers is pro-gay rights:

She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic political sidestep answer.

When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.

As for those who seem not very concerned about Miers evangelical fundamentalist born again attitudes about religion and society, Ms. Ivins notes how "we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance," adding:

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

This seems like a very clear call to consider the Miers nomination with extreme skepticism.

...to which Echidne says:

Some good points there, but it is already too late. Ms. Miers will be the fifth vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and she will add to the full quiver of holy arrows on the Supreme Court. Gilead and all that.

Too late? We're on Day 3, and despite the initial votes of praise or concern from various politicos, nobody has declared his or her position yet. We're just getting started. Aren't we?

Aren't we?

Other reactions:

Stirling Newberry sounds some warning notes:

Miers is part of the dirty political apparatus in Texas, currently being backed by Swift Boat backer Merrie Spaeth. Her observations confirm what I have heard from others - Miers had a born again moment because of personal crisis, and that she is immensely capable at dealing with careerist men who don't have a goal other than their own self-advancement. That is how you get to be on top of a 400 man law firm in any state.

Given that the press wants the reactionary revolution to work out - and this is a constitutional moment whose weight is growing by the day - the very people who promoted slander of Kerry are now going to be portrayed as butter won't melt in their mouths southern ladies. Well, perhaps in a South that has Tammy Faye Baker as something other than the scullery maid they are. I wouldn't know, the Southern Lady I grew up under the watchful eye of would not have had them in her parlor.

While reactionary anger is very real, it is also meaningless - while they know that a golden opportunity to install their revisionist - and frankly dishonest - reading of the constitution and its history - has been passed up in favor of a button from the "Arbusto Crime Family" - there is nothing else they can do. You see, Bush knows he has bought their loyalty with defense pork, revenue reducitons and construction corruption - their feet are litterally poured into concrete, and should the neo-Confederate impulse start to get serious about our modern day President Tyler - prosperity can evaporate very quickly for those that "walk into the propeller."

torrentprime offers a "recovering Republican" perspective, offering some detailed thoughts, concluding:

In short, I don't get why Democrats and progressives don't want to fight this with every bit of energy they showed during the Roberts confirmation hearings. Or, for those who wished to keep the powder dry--isn't this the time to use it? Are Democrats so disappointed that they don't have a clear right-wing ideologue to fight and rally their base with that they will let a crappy candidate wander into the Supreme Court?

The comments are worth reading, too.

Rachel Neumann gives some opposition pointers:

Instead of continuing on about her lack of "judicial" experience, opponents should stick to the facts. Like Michael Brown, Harriet Meirs is a crony disaster appointment. Unfortunately for all of us, she's a disaster that would last a lifetime.

Deanna Zandt picks up on Echidne's observations of what women in traditionally male career paths go through, and notes, "Combine cronyism with pseudo-affirmative action and we get Miers. This is gonna be great!"

Michael J.W. Stickings relishes watching the right "come apart at the seams."

Lakshmi Chaundhry wonders "What does James Dobson know" and concludes:

Perhaps all this is just a red herring -- a lot of noise that distracts from Miers' very real failings as a nominee. And as one of my very smart readers points out, there aren't any good options on the table right now: "The problem is that we'll probably learn even less about Miers views than we did about Roberts and have to 'trust' Bush or the lack of public ideological zeal that they've demonstrated."

Maybe that's why I still can't seem to find a clear, well-defined position on this one. Or perhaps the Bush administration has set the bar so low that a little voice in my head keeps saying, "Incompetence isn't that bad."

Now that's bad.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.