Given the love fest given Harriet Miers by anti-choice Democrat senator Harry Ried, echoed by some prominent so-called liberal bloggers, it's quite interesting to learn that Miers once ran for office ... on a "pro-life" agenda. Reports the Dallas Morning News today:
As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989.
"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Ms. Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.
"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Ms. Bartos said Monday.
This should reassure wingnuts and right-wingers in Democrats' clothing.
Ms. Bartos said Ms. Miers was supportive of abortion rights in her youth. She said Ms. Miers then underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion.
So what we have here is a lawyer with at least proto-dominionist views who's worked loyally for our born-again president being appointed in what may be his last chance to spike the Supreme Court with some Jeebus juice.
Ummm..... red flag?
What will happen now? Already we have so many (mostly) men who fell all over themselves yesterday trying to praise Ms. Miers. Will they come out swinging now? Will they at least own up to the possibility that they might have been wrong? Will Markos, who, like Bush, loves to proclaim how he's been consistent all along about everything, change his tune now, after he's already proclaimed victory?
Ask tough questions, definitely. Highlight the cronyism, corporatism that pervades everything Bush touches, sure. But knee-jerk opposition without regards to the facts on the ground is not healthy. Let's enjoy the Republicans eating their own for now. And if information arises that places her in the extremes of American jurisprudence, then we open up.
Otherwise, Miers is an even better candidate for the next Souter than Roberts. We won this round. This nomination is born of Bush's weakness, just as Clinton's nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer, at Hatch's urging, were born of his own weakness.
Perhaps the important lesson learned by progressives in these Supreme Court battles is not that Republicans Senators are really the radicals they are, but that allies you had assumed were watching your back are perhaps not so staunch or loyal or reliable as they'd have you believe.
Clearly there is a fundamental question about Miers' commitment to civil rights, human rights, equal protection under the law, and separation of church and state.
The question is whether Democrats and their would-be advisors consider this to be "important shit."
[news link via Tim Grieve at Salon]