The latest "evidence" is that, as a member of the advisory board for the SMU law school, she advocated funding a program for women speakers. There's no indication that she had a hand in the selection of actual speakers, or just how active she was in the effort.

In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community. A strong advocate for women, Ms. Raggio helped persuade state lawmakers to revise Texas laws to give women new rights over property and in the event of divorce.

Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.

But hold those liberal-parade horses a moment! Aren't these advisors supposed to raise money for the school, no? Isn't that the purpose of their appointment in the first place? And don't conservative women advocate women speaker panels?

Besides, Molly Ivins notes that Miers and Raggio were friends across the divide:

One of Miers' key backers was Louise Raggio, a much-revered Dallas feminist lawyer. The women lawyers groups favored Miers despite her stand on abortion because she was a candidate acceptable to the Establishment, thus making her electable as a woman.

So there's no reason to think that Miers' efforts as a member of a fundraising board is anything but scratching the back of her own back-scratcher. In fact, it's clear that Miers was quite active with women professionals, without compromising her conservative credentials at all:

Miers sometimes took women judicial candidates through her very prestigious firm Liddell, Sapp for the obligatory meet 'n' greet and even donated to Democratic candidates. Both these behaviors were well within the conventions of Dallas city and judicial politics, particularly in the 1980s. Dallas city politics are nonpartisan, and rather like Texas tea ("sweet or un?") come in only two flavors -- Establishment or less Establishment. Miers qualifies as ur-Establishment, despite "being a girl," as a few of the old dinosaurs still put it. The slightly feminist tinge to her credentials is a plus, but she is quite definitely anti-abortion.

In other words, reading anything into this as being reflective of her actual views is simply wishful thinking.

--As it is wishful thinking to believe she supports gay rights (while opposing repeal of Texas sodomy laws?)--

--As it is wishful thinking to believe she's pro-choice (while running for office as a born-again "pro-life" conservative?)--

By lending too much credence and significance to these rather oblique reports on Miers, the SCLBs are coming off as stretching the truth to try to fit over their hopes. I can see pointing at these tidbits of information as helping to paint a fuller picture, and perhaps even offer cause for hope (against hope). But why the veritable campaign to color her liberal? I just don't get it. And I ain't buying it.

Why is liberal columnist Molly Ivins (who knows her Texas conservatives) singing one of the few solitary notes of concern? ("Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble.")

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.