Log in

No account? Create an account
If She Wasn't Lavender Already. . . - De File
Does Collecting Make You Feel Dirty?
If She Wasn't Lavender Already. . .
The nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court gets stranger by the minute. I take it for granted that the Bush Administration is incapable of acting in good faith. But when right-wing activists are making that call with the vigor of contributors to The Nation, my mind does a triple lutz and falls on its ass:
Every White House effort to cool conservative opposition to Miers seems to backfire, including Bush's explanation of why the White House is stressing Miers' evangelical Christianity.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush said Wednesday. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background ... And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

On Thursday, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, called the administration's efforts to woo religious conservatives by stressing Miers' religion "out of bounds."

"We are the last people on Earth to object to the news that she is a committed Christian," Perkins said in a statement. "By the same token, this fact is not grounds for certifying her to us or to the public. ... Inferences drawn from an individual's religious affiliation have no place in decisions to nominate or confirm a judicial appointee."

Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative Concerned Women for America, issued an extensive position statement Monday, saying, "We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers."

LaRue also presented a list of 17 questions that may offer a preview of the questioning Miers will undergo -- from Republicans -- in her confirmation hearings, which have not yet been scheduled.

"Was Miss Miers' corporate practice primarily transactions (contract writing and negotiations), or was it primarily litigation? How many of her cases involved constitutional issues? What were the issues? Did Miss Miers do most of the research and writing herself? Has she argued constitutional issues before a court? How many times? In what courts? In how many did she prevail? Are there any published opinions?"

White House efforts to sell Miers to conservatives by emphasizing her religion and her loyalty to Bush only provide ammunition to Democrats when they choose to use it, Miranda warned.

"So let's say they want to attack," he asked. "Who will defend her?"
It's enough to make the hardiest soul undergo a metamorphosis. Of course, if Miers is already of non-normative persuasion -- and the vitriol being directed at her from the Right suggests to me that someone knows something that hasn't yet gone public -- that conversion would turn her into the ideal mate for the President. Not that he's interested in mating or anything. Remind me to tell you that story about former California Governor Pete Wilson the next time we're together in meatspace. . .
4 comments or Leave a comment
commonalgebra From: commonalgebra Date: October 14th, 2005 07:35 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
I am always--regardless of the number of years he has been in office--shocked at how incoherent mr. pres is. take the quote in this article. what is he...saying? I mean, really? Compare the quote to the other people quoted. As a journalist, it must be a struggle to actually fit his words into articles at times. You know? You'd have to do too much explaining...or it would just be abstract and...weird. It reminds me of the Sarah Jessica Parker character in David Mamet's State and Main--it seems like she's responding...but she's really not saying anything at all.

I mean, everyone talks about how bush is dumb, etc. etc. Maybe he is, mabye not. I feel that's somewhat irrelevant. The administration is criminal and horrifying, that's what matters. Still, I am interested in the absurdity of it all. I mean, sometimes I really DON'T understand what he's talking about. Does he always? Hmmm.

This Miers fiasco is providing many opportunities to meditate on the absurd, I must agree.
cbertsch From: cbertsch Date: October 14th, 2005 10:45 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
It's nice to see the Republicans wallowing in absurdity for once, after all the Monica Lewinsky crap.

I do think Bush knows what he means. I talk that way a good portion of the time. He's fearful of saying anything that's going to get him directly attacked. It comes from having a domineering mother, an old-money political father, and a smarter younger brother, I think.

Great to see you back in LJ space!
chefxh From: chefxh Date: October 14th, 2005 11:33 pm (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
like I said, Janet Reno redux...
gpratt From: gpratt Date: October 15th, 2005 04:41 am (UTC) (LINK TO SPECIFIC ENTRY)
At first, I thought she was being nominated only because there was no way in hell she'd be taken seriously- giving shrub the chance to nominate a man. Now, I dunno. One of the questions suggested from above: "Has she argued constitutional issues before a court?" Is the key question to ask this person, above all others.
4 comments or Leave a comment