Friday, October 07, 2005

As if it weren't obvious enough ...

that the Miers nomination is doomed, check out the following Washington Post story. In particular, see check out this nugget:
While generally well received, Miers has had a few awkward moments, including one during her Wednesday session with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade. Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.
So, we can glean from this that 1) Miers likes Earl Warren; or 2) she, unlike every other lawyer in America, likes and respects Warren Burger ... no wait, he is her favorite justice of all time; and/or 3) she is on a first-name basis with "Warren"; and/or 4) she is not smart at all; and/or 5) she is liberal.

At least 2 or 3 of the foregoing not-so-good things appear to be true. However, one thing is for sure from the aforementioned exchange with Leahy: She is not for overruling Roe v. Wade.

I am so glad the President saw her heart.

And if that isn't good enough for you, check out Ned Ryan's gem of a column. Ryun is a former speechwriter and WH staffer. And he's a conservative Christian, you know one of the types that this pick is supposed to appease. Here is the money:
Another item of concern to me, despite hearing all the arguments to trust the President on the key issues like abortion, is what happens when Harriet Miers is confronted with the choice of whether to stand up for basic principles or whether to compromise. 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.
And neither do I for opposing this abomination of a nomination.

Good thing she is a person of faith and we should support her nomination on that basis, huh?. Man ... there is much, much coming out that shows Miers is no conservative at all.

Get over to and get informed. And write/call your senators and the WH.

The momentum is building to critical mass. Let's roll.