5 October 2005 - 12:02am
Can't get enough Harriet
It really boggles my mind how enthusiastically and vehemently SCLBs are defending Harriet Miers. Here's what I see:
She has deep evangelical ties, and "views consistent" with such a background.
She seems to be a union buster in the mold of Ken Lay.
She seems to have been deeply involved in covering up Bush's draft dodging Texas Air National Guard non-service.
She's anti-choice, or just behaves that way ... quite convincingly.
And then there's the cronyism. And if it's not enough that Brownie demonstrated the dangers of that policy, there's the added dimension of her participation in the various Bush outrages. What does she know?
The White House's thinking is pretty simple: Democrats have now publicly said that a nominee with a largely unknown record is acceptable, and Miers has that. Should be smooth sailing, right? Wouldn't Democrats look hypocritical to oppose Miers on the basis of her lack of real Supreme Court-qualifying experience or adequate legal credentials, in light of Democrats recent willingness to confirm a nominee with similar drawbacks?
Yes, except for one big chink in her armor - and I stress BIG chink, especially in light of the President's weakened position and swirling storms over cronyism. It is true, Democrats would have a tough time making the we-don't-know-enough-about-her argument after their pathetic behavior in the Roberts' nomination. But, Miers has one defining characteristic that is both very troubling, and very politically potent: her major defining trait is her position as a Bush crony/ultra-loyalist.
And yet...
We're supposed to believe that, suddenly, Karl Rove had a stroke, Bush grew a conscience and that the Miers nomination is a liberal-directed stumble. ("Whoops! Did I accidentally nominate a liberal? Oh fuck!")
And we're supposed to believe that, quite suddenly and inexplicably, Bush is now afraid of the Democrats.
We're supposed to believe that Bush is secretly pro-choice (and thus Miers must be, too).
We're supposed to believe that Miers is pro-choice, despite her pro-life political campaign.
We're supposed to attribute this pro-gay-adoption memo to her personal views, even though there are 12 signatures on it. And we're supposed to extrapolate this alleged view to represent pro-civil rights views in general.
We're supposed to melt upon hearing of her article advocating legal representation for the poor.
We're supposed to believe that she's really a Democrat. Not only that, a liberal Democrat, even.
I can't see straight, for all the spinning in the so-called "liberal" blogosphere. Maybe they're right. Maybe she's a raving liberal. Some folks say that Dems and progressives should support her, simply because the wingnuts are up in arms. But I wonder just how much of that right-wing protest is simply a reaction to the nomination of a 60-year-old, unmarried, childless, career woman. Obviously her non-wife, non-breeder status casts a shadow on her conservative credentials. Ahem....
Maybe I was right the first time, and the conservatives will block her, paving the way for someone like Janice Rogers Brown. And leaving the GOP all fired up and fundraising-ready for the coming election season ... while leaving the Dems holding their certitudes in their hands, wondering where all the women went.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Just the fact that the woman has no judicial experience is enough to make me say she's unacceptable. Knowing that she thinks Shrub is the "most brilliant man she's ever known" is terrifying.
The Dems lost me the minute Harry Reid came out and supported her before any of us knew what was happening. They're going to have to actively get my vote back now. There's just no point in putting my energy into a party this impotent.
I'm looking at a war on my body, my sexuality, my religion, my lifestyle and my livelihood from an organized fascist regime with no opposition. Thanks a lot, Democrats.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
The trouble with a stupid President, he'll choose people dumber than him - not to say she's dumb, but he is missing a lot of well qualified people.
Does this blog find disingenuous the Conservatives' support of an "unmarried, childless, career woman?"
That little bit of snark was something I read, but alas I don't have a link. I missed it in all the excitement. Also alas, I believe it's true when it comes to many conservatives -- the kind, for example, that write up that law in Indiana they're working on that will require "gestation licenses" of unmarried women before they can get pregnant.
He supports Condi Rice. And I think she needs to face a tribunal.
I'm choking on the idea that Rove/Bush would willingly allienate the Republican Party. Surely, with all Rove's "genius", he saw what was coming. If you are down in the 3rd quarter but win the game anyway, the crowds cheer that much louder. I completely agree with you MG. Let's not buy any wooden nickels.
And I'm trying to watch that other hand. Is this bruhaha a calculated distraction?
It seems to come suspicously close to Delay getting indicted. Delay's indictment is closely tied to Jack Abramoff, who was passing a lot of dirty money around, according to rumor. I think that this has hallmarks of Bush shooting from the hip when he is under pressure. If Delay goes down, he will suck down a number of his cronies with his wake. Bush is scared because if that happens, his chances of social security rape are dead, even with-in the republican party. Bush has never stopped operating like it is 2002, that he can do no wrong and everything is going great and that he is the next Lincoln.
I'm with you. The voices of conservatives badmouthing Miers seems suspiciously like being "on message" to my ears. I just don't buy it. And Bush stumbling or bumbling with the nomination? Give me a break. I'll buy that for a dollar.