National Review Calls For Harriet Miers To Withdraw Her Nomination

The National Review Petition For The Withdrawal Of The Nomination Of Harriet Miers To The U.S. Supreme Court

Agent Cupcake (Right Thinking Girl Is Back!)

Blackfive

Bloggledygook

Tammy Bruce

David Frum: "(A)ll Over Washington At This Very Moment Administration Representatives Are Quietly Warning People: "Keep Quiet On Miers - Or Else."

Gerard Baker: The Trouble with Harriet

Harriet Miers's Blog!!! =D

Hilarious Video Of A Reporter Doing a Report From A Canoe In A Few Inches Of Water

Macho Nachos

No Oil For Pacifists

The Nose On Your Face

Retro RWN: The Case Against The Harriet Miers Nomination In Quotes

Retro RWN: The Miers Nomination -- A Marriage Analogy

Retro RWN: From Comparison's Sake: Reaction From The Right Side Of The Blogosphere To The Roberts Nomination

Using The Miers' Precedent To Pick A Fed Chairman

Watch The First 9 Minutes Of "Serenity"

One of the most insulting, obnoxious, and "Maureen Dowdishly" silly memes that has sprung up since the Harriet Miers debacle began is that opposition to her nomination is based on elitist snobbery, out-of-touch beltway conservatism, and membership in something called a "Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism" that to the best of my knowledge was heretofore unknown to humanity until the last week or so.

While there have been a few people in the anti-Miers camp who have made a point of noting that Harriet Miers didn't go to a particularly distinguished law school, none of them, even Ann Coulter who talked about the issue extensively in one of her columns, has treated the fact that Harriet Miers didn't go to an Ivy League school as a primary reason to oppose her nomination. Nor should they.

Instead, opponents of the Miers nomination, myself included, have noted that:

-- Harriet Miers would not have had the slightest chance of being tapped for a Supreme Court appointment had she not been friends with the President. On the basis of cronyism alone, Miers should be voted down 100-0 in the Senate.

-- Ms. Miers has led an accomplished life. However, compared to the "A-List" candidates for the Supreme Court, her qualifications for the job are embarrassingly sparse.

-- We have no objective proof whatsoever that Harriet Miers believes in originalism.

-- Because of Ms. Miers' almost non-existent track record on questions of Constitutional law, we have little significant evidence to support the contention that Miers will strictly interpret the Constitution beyond the President saying, "Trust me." After previous Republican Presidents have given us John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter, "Trust me," just isn't good enough.

-- Moreover, the preponderance of the available evidence seems to suggest that aside from her pro-life position, Harriet Miers is a moderate or perhaps even a left-leaning moderate, not a conservative. In other words, the chances that she'll turn out to be another O'Connor or even another Souter in the long run, are inordinately high.

-- To top it all off, Harriet Miers will have to recuse herself from some crucial war on terror related cases because she worked on those issues as the counsel to the President.

Put it all together and you have a very strong and substantial case to be made, from the right, against the Miers nomination.

Of course, just because it's a strong and substantial case, doesn't mean everyone on the right will agree with it. There are also plenty of bright, competent, well meaning conservatives who support the Harriet Miers nomination. While I don't agree with them, they are, just like those of us who oppose Miers, taking an honorable position and it should be treated as such.

That being said, conservatives who have opposed the Miers nomination should not be slurred as Brie eating, elitist eggheads who have turned up their nose at Harriet Miers because she didn't go to Yale and doesn't know how to play Polo.

Consider some of the people that have opposed or at least heavily criticized the Miers nomination:

Gary Bauer, Robert Bork, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen, Ann Coulter, John Fund, David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Michael Graham, Bill Kristol, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, Rich Lowry, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Manuel Miranda, Peggy Noonan, John Podhoretz, & George Will among many others.

Now, they're all snobs, they're all bad people? Gee, most conservatives didn't seem to think they were bad people BEFORE they opposed the Miers nomination...well, OK, you got me on Buchanan. Still, if all of these prominent conservatives who've hopped into the trenches for the GOP so many times before are saying, "There's something terribly wrong here," it should set off alarm bells on the right instead of prompting some Miers defenders to disdainfully assume that her detractors on the right have ulterior motives.

"It is really amazing how things have changed in Iraq; three years ago Saddam “won” 100% of the votes in a pathetic referendum that he designed in order to give legitimacy to his reign while yesterday even security detainees were allowed to express their opinion on the constitution through voting and the government and parliament are almost begging the 15 million plus voters to say ‘yes’!

...I am so excited but a flashback from Saddam’s referendum three years ago still hurts; he wanted a 100% as the 99.96% of the previous one shocked the dictator. I was depressed that way and I decided not to go to the voting office and so did the rest of the family but my father was afraid that not going could be dangerous.

He said that maybe one member of the family could go alone and cast votes for the rest of us. We looked at each other thinking who’s going to volunteer to do this ugly job to protect the family. At that moment my father said “it was my generation that caused the misery we’re living in so I’m the one who should do this”.

I couldn’t stop him and I couldn’t utter a word but I felt sad for him; his sacrifice was big and I had teary eyes when I watched him taking our papers and heading out.

It is different this time father, no more 100% and a ‘no’ would make me happy just like a ’yes’ would do and no one ever will force us to do something against our will anymore.

Tomorrow will be another day for Iraqi bravery. May God protect you my people…you have suffered so much and you will still be suffering for some time but I am sure the future will be bright. God bless you my people and all the freedom lovers who keep sacrificing to make this world a better place." -- Mohammed from Iraq The Model

Ethal Adams was driving along minding her own business when a pickup truck (travelling in the opposite direction) was forced into her lane by another driver. Adams was in a coma for nine days, had a collapsed lung, 17 broken bones and now can only stand with the aid of walker. Amazingly here insurance company, Farmer's Insurance, has denied her claim saying the incident was not an accident.

But a Farmers' affiliate, Truck Insurance Exchange, argues that Adams' state of mind is irrelevant. Even though it was Adams' insurance policy, the uninsured-motorist portion is designed to cover Testa's liability. Therefore it's Testa's state of mind that matters, and Testa meant to cause the wreck, so it's not an accident.

Explains a letter from Farmers' Seattle-based attorney, Ronald Dinning: "The common meaning of 'accident' does not depend on the perspective of the injured insured, but instead essentially depends on the intent of the person causing the injury or damage."

He cited a 1990 Pierce County case in which a woman purposely crashed into a car driven by her ex-husband. The state Supreme Court ruled then that insurance didn't have to cover the ex-husband's injuries in part because the outcome wasn't "unexpected or unforeseen" — that is, it wasn't an accident.

"It's also not unexpected or unforeseen that if you are ramming a car from behind with the intent of pushing it into oncoming traffic, you're going to hit some people," Dinning said in an interview. "That's what Testa did. Liability insurance is only for accidents, and this wasn't an accident."

My problem is that while the initial part of the crash (Michael Testa's attempt to force his girlfriend off the road) was not an accident, the secondary and tertiary accidents involving others including Ethel Adams likely were accidents. In fact, it is because of things like this that I buy insurance. I want insurance incase some guy goes bonkers and in trying to do something dumb involves me in the process. From all the data provided by the article there appears to be nothing indicating that Testa wanted to do anything at all to Ethel Adams. Farmer's Insurance and all of its senior officers are despicable humans for not immediately correcting this kind of thing.

This content was used with the permission of Outside the Beltway.

On Wednesday of this week, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to interview foreign policy guru Richard Perle via phone. Mr. Perle was an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and was a chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee during George W. Bush's administration.

During the interview, we discussed Iraq, the war on terrorism, Iran, North Korea, China, Israel, the European Union, and military coalitions among other topics.

In order to take a look at the transcript of the interview, which was edited slightly for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition, click here.

Over the past few days, there have been several columns and articles written focusing on the "big year" Democrats are going to have in 2006 like, "Bush's fall should give Democrats hope," "The conservative crack up," & "Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form." So, is it all true? Is the GOP in trouble in 2006?

Maybe, maybe not.

The GOP may have the wind in our face right now, but there are also a lot of things in our favor. With the vote on the Iraqi Constitution, Saddam's trial, another election, and some of our troops likely to start coming home next year, the polling numbers on the war are likely to head north. Furthermore, the economy is still solid, gas prices are likely to drop significantly over the next few months, and there are some signs that the GOP in the House is starting to see the light on spending. Those are all big pluses.

On top of that, when you start digging deep into the numbers, all is not as gloomy as it may appear to be at first glance. For example, the GOP's polling numbers are in the tank, but the Democrats aren't doing significantly better:

"(T)he Pew Research Center shows the approval rating for Congressional Republican leaders at 32 percent, with 52 percent disapproving, a sharp deterioration since March. (The ratings of Democratic leaders stood at 32 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.)"

Next, consider that because of gerrymandering, it's practically impossible for the Democrats to take the House back right now. Theoretically, there are 435 seats up for grabs. However, back in the real world, there will probably be about 20 competitive races and the incumbents will have such a big advantage over their challengers that it would be a surprise if either party could capture more than a handful of seats from the other side.

In the Senate, the odds are against the Democrats as well because the GOP is "defending 15 Senate seats, 14 with incumbents; Democrats are defending 18, including four open seats. The GOP says it has recruited top candidates for those open seats."

That's the good news.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of bad news as well. Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are both being investigated for ethics charges and although they'll probably be cleared when all is said and done, it doesn't look good. Add to that the possibility of indictments over the Valerie Plame leak and you have the makings of a great talking point for the Democrats in 2006. You may be thinking, "Wait a second, when it's all said and done, there may not be a single conviction that comes out of all these investigations." True, but in politics, perception equals reality and there are a lot of people who'll figure that where's there's smoke, there's fire on the corruption charges.

Then -- and some of you are going to hate hearing this -- there's the fact the White House and Congress have been resting on their laurels for a year. They've paid little attention to issues the American people have been screaming about -- like deficit spending & illegal immigration -- and George Bush has allowed the Democrats to use him as a human punching bag since the election while refusing to fight back. Meanwhile, Bush's biggest policy issue, Social Security reform, went absolutely nowhere. Then there was Katrina. The media blew things way out of proportion, but nevertheless, considerable political damage was done.

This is where we were BEFORE the Harriet Miers nomination.

You think the last two weeks of political knife fighting have been bad? Well, the actual Senate vote on her confirmation probably isn't going to be until sometime around Thanksgiving, which means we have about 5 1/2 weeks of this intra-party brawling to go unless there is a withdrawal of the nomination.

Assuming there is no withdrawl, then it gets really fun for the Senators involved. Imagine you're poor Mike DeWine, who is expected to have a tough fight for reelection next year. DeWine was pummeled by the base for signing on to the "Gang of 14" compromise and this nomination could have been an opportunity for him to redeem himself. Imagine a Janice Rogers Brown or Karen Williams being sent to the Senate and DeWine loudly telling the press that he would vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats tried to filibuster. That would have shored up his credibility on judges and helped him get back in the good graces of the conservatives who are angry at the Republican members of the "Gang of 14."

Now, because Miers is the nominee, DeWine will be put in a position where he'll have part of the base telling him, "Either you show your loyalty to the President by voting for Miers or we won't support you next year," and another chunk of the base telling him, "If you want our support next year, you'll vote against that under qualified crony!" DeWine and the other Republicans up for reelection next year are going to get to see what, "damned if you do and damned if you don't," really means if and when it comes time to vote on Harriet Miers.

Bush will have it even worse if he manages to shove Miers through in the Senate. If Miers ends up on the Supreme Court, this isn't going to be a passing storm for him, it's going to permanently damage him with part of his base. That doesn't mean you're going to see Charles Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, and National Review ripping Bush day in and day out like the Daily Kos, but Bush will pay a terrible price all the same. Not only will a lot of unhappy conservatives be much more willing to criticize Bush when he deviates from the conservative line, they'll also be much less willing to go to the mat to defend him. It'll be like a football game where the offensive lineman suddenly become very ambivalent about whether the quarterback is sacked -- except worse. In a football game, at least you can put in other offensive lineman. In politics, you only have one base, and if they're anxiously counting the days until you're out of office, you're in deep trouble. In Bush's case, he may not have to run for office again, but spending 3 years with an approval rating "Miered" in the forties because half his base thinks he stuck a shiv into their back on the domestic issue they care the most about will likely prove to be rather unpleasant.

Right now, the base is down, demoralized, disappointed and things are likely to get much worse before they get better. President Bush and the rest of the GOP in Washington had better take notice of that and start doing something about it -- and fast. There is still time to turn things around for 2006, but it's going to require doing more than aimlessly stumbling and bumbling forward, hoping things will work out for the best. The GOP's poll numbers aren't in the toilet today because everything's ducky, they're low for a reason, and it's well past time that the Republican leadership started pushing popular programs, appeasing the base, and tearing the hide off of the Democrats to get those numbers up.

How about clicking on 7 of these ads? What? 2? How about 5? 4? You're killing me here? You can't do 4? What's that? Then 3 it is! We have a bargain! Ehr...please?

Doctors For Medical Liability Reform
Get A Free IPOD Nano!
Jack Lewis
Miracle 'Fatty Acid'!
Patriot Blog
Bet On Iraq
Realm Dekor
Right Wing Stuff: Conservative Tees
SIRIUS Radio Silences Christian Voices

PS: I still have two banner ads available. They're $60 each and the technical details are here.

"If George W. Bush were just a rich Texan and Harriet Miers was back in her Dallas law offices, do you know what she would do if he walked in off the street today and asked her to take a case involving constitutional legal issues?

She'd refer him to someone else. That's what a good lawyer does with cases she is not qualified to handle.

...And so we face a future in which a woman who would never get hired to appear before the Supreme Court will soon be sitting on the Supreme Court." -- Michael Graham

Robert Bork Says Miers Should Be Withdrawn

Hidden Testimony Reignites Miers Fires

Asked If There Were Any Circumstances Under Which (Miers) Would Ask That Her Name Be Withdrawn, Presidential Spokesman Scott Mcclellan Told Reporters: "No One That Knows Her Would Make Such A Suggestion."

Window Into Miers' Legal Thinking In The 1990s Reflects A Glint Of Liberalism (Free LA Times Reg Req)

WSJ Poll: After Roberts Nomination: 65% Said He Was Qualified For The Supreme Court And 10% Said He Wasn't. With Harriet Miers: 29% Say She Is Qualified And 24% Say She Isn't

Wall Street Journal / NBC News poll: 27% Support Miers Nomination Vs. 21% Oppose Vs. 51% No Opinion

James Carville Sees Miers Withdrawing

More On The Miers Testimony From James Taranto

Miers Praised Federalist Society In Speech (So What? She's A Republican, She's Supposed To Do That)

Tradesports: The Miers Trendline. Down, Down, Down

Was Bush Teleconference with Soldiers in Iraq Scripted?

More Than 9,000 Mobile Homes And Campers Meant For The Victims Of Hurricane Katrina Are Sitting Unused At Government Staging Areas While Displaced Families Continue To Live Out Of Tents And Shelters

'Giddy Dems' Point to Bush's Sinking Poll Numbers

Tab For Evacuees' Hotel Rooms: $11 Million A Day

Prosecutor Subpoenas DeLay Phone Records

Scott McClellan Says Helen Thomas Opposes 'Broader War on Terrorism' (Seems Like A Fair Statement To Me)

Bomb, Not Katrina, Broke Dikes. Red Cross "Too White": Farrakhan

US Soldier Fires On Fellow Troops (No Details On His Name, Beef, Or Religion)

Al Franken's Radio Partner Splits

Chechen Terrorists Murder 85 In Russia

India's First Female Bomber Strikes

Iraq Steps Up Security Ahead Of Historic Vote

Egypt Taking Charge Of Palestinian Authority (Fascinating)

Al Qaeda Claims Letter Is a U.S. Fake

Pat Buchanan: 'Sexism' And The First Family

Michael Graham: Stop Miers Now!

Jonah Goldberg: Harriet Battiness Takes The Beltway!

Bill Bennett: I Have Been Slandered, Defamed, Misrepresented And Libeled

Ryan Chittum And Joe Hagan: Student's Suicide Sets Off Explosion Of Theories By Blogs

Log Cabin Republican Leader Dodges Pie (Ridiculous)

Town Official Refuses To Remove God Bless America Signs (Applause)

59 Year Old Sylvester Stallone Prepares For Rocky VI

A Moonbat Gets A Nobel Prize

Video: The Conservative Ice Age Over Miers

Website Of The Day: Daily Pundit

Quotes on:

How Conservative Is She Really?
Cronyism
Qualifications
Recusals?
To Know Her Is Not Neccessarily To Love Her
Damned With Faint Praise
Some Prominent Conservatives On Miers

Read 'em all here.

The White House has been desperately flailing around, trying to find some way, any way to quell the cacophonous din from their own base over the Miers nomination. Unfortunately, one of the straws they've clutched at is the religious argument:

"President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

The message here is essentially: "Conservatives should support Harriet Miers for the job because she's a Christian." The problem with basing support for Harriet Miers on those grounds is that religion is largely irrelevant to the job.

Remember John Roberts' famous description of what the role of a Supreme Court Justice should be?

"Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."

Could it be said that it's a plus if an umpire is a devout Christian? In a general sense, yes, it may be indication of character. But, is it a pivotal factor? No. Having an umpire who knows the rules and calls the game fairly is the important thing, not what the religious beliefs of the umpire may be.

The same thing applies to Supreme Court justices and that's why it's so disingenuous and hypocritical for the Bush administration to try to use Harriet Miers' Christianity to convince people to support her nomination.

Keep in mind that if and when Harriet Miers is asked by the Judicial Committee whether she will let her religious views interfere with her judgement on the bench, she's going to say, "No." That means if she's telling the truth, the people who are supporting her based on her Christianity are being sold a bill of goods. On the other hand, if she's lying, then that means that whether she's an Evangelical Christian or not, her character isn't so great after all.

That's why the White House is wrong to try to prominently promote Harriet Miers' religious views as a selling point for her nomination.

Oh, yeah, this is a great idea:

"SAN FRANCISCO — Elected leaders here Tuesday took a step unusual for politicians: They sided with felons.

With no debate, supervisors unanimously urged the city and county to delete the question about prior convictions from public employment applications.

The resolution is not binding. And it does not prevent employers from conducting criminal background checks or asking about prior felonies during job interviews.

"It's very important, because it gives you an opportunity to sell yourself to the employer," Robert Bowden, 42, an ex-convict who has been out of prison for seven years, said after the vote. "It gives you another option other than going back to what you did…. If they want us to be productive members of society, they've got to let us back into society."

In introducing the measure two weeks ago, Supervisor Tom Ammiano stressed that it would broaden the city's pool of qualified applicants while reinvesting in ex-convicts who are working to rehabilitate themselves."

We like to say that people who've gotten out of prison have paid their "debt to society." While that may be true, it doesn't mean that the fact they owed society a debt in the first place should be forgotten by potential employers.

To take the "prior convictions" question off of a job application is to in effect say that it's irrelevant if a former child molester works in a government run day care center. It means that it should concern no one if a man convicted of embezzlement can get a job as a government accountant. It is to imply that a rape conviction would be irrelevant to whether someone should be able to get a government job that may allow them to have access to people's homes.

If businesses or even the government want to hire ex-convicts, that's fine. In fact, depending on the situation, it may even work out very well. But, for very obvious reasons, that's a decision that employers should be able to make with open eyes. You'd think that even liberals from San Francisco would get that...

George Bush may be blithely ignoring the firestorm of criticism he set off when he selected Harriet Miers, but "Apocalypse Harriet" has apparently caused Republicans in the House to suddenly start to once again become attuned to the concerns of their biggest supporters.

From the Hill:

"In an apparent attempt to address any conference concerns, DeLay made an impassioned speech to his fellow House Republicans on Thursday night, according to several members in attendance. He asked conference members to hold off on launching leadership races to replace him and even took responsibility for some of the budgetary concerns that have overwhelmed congressional leaders in recent weeks.

“We lost sight on spending, and for that I apologize,” DeLay told his fellow House Republicans.

There has been growing unrest among some rank-and-file members, particularly conservatives, that Republicans in Washington have discouraged their base with increased government spending. Some members and aides are afraid that the rapidly expanding deficit could result in low GOP turnout during the critical 2006 midterm elections.

“We need to change the way we spend,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said. “We need to find ways to start paying for Katrina.”

Calling the immigration issue an “Achilles’ heel,” Brady said the House must also pass some form of border security this year because voters have grown frustrated with congressional inactivity on the issue.

“The frustration level is so high that we need to move now,” Brady said.

...Asked about his impression of DeLay’s speech, freshman Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said, “He absolutely knows the temperature of the conference, and that is a rare gift.”

Even Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), an outspoken conservative who has openly challenged leadership in recent weeks to reduce federal spending, seemed pleased by DeLay’s comments at last week’s conference meeting.

“Finally, we’re all singing from the same hymnal,” he said."

Granted, they're talking the talk and yet to walk the walk on spending. But, given that less than a month ago, Mike Pence was reportedly being flayed by the House leadership for wanting to get the budget under control and Tom DeLay was talking about the "ongoing victory" over spending, talking the talk is a big step in the right direction.

Howard Dean just doesn't know the value of subtlety. Now, he's criticizing Ken Mehlman for talking to the Connecticut NAACP.

"I'm shocked that he would have the nerve to show his face in front of any African American organization after the way they treated those people in New Orleans," Dean said.

Let's not even get back into the arguments about whose fault the delays after Katrina were. I personally think that people are beginning to get a fuller picture of who did and didn't do what to help alleviate the effects of the hurricane. Only those most vicious race-baiters truly believe that there was some deliberate effort to harm people in New Orleans because of their race. But those are the people that Dean is playing to with his remarks. His attitude seems to be that the Democrats own the black vote and Mehlman is showing some nerve to try and speak to them. I suspect that there are some blacks who realize that it is to their benefit to listen to both sides and not be a total subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Reaction was mixed.

Ursalene Taylor, a Democrat from Hamden, said, "I thought his points were excellent."

Her husband, Walter Taylor, an unaffiliated voter, said he appreciated the Republican emphasis on jobs and economic development, as opposed to social programs that he sees as the bedrock of the Democratic Party.

"I work hard for what I get. I believe that's the way it should be," he said.

Joyce K. Jones, a Republican politician from the Waterbury suburb of Prospect, said Mehlman's invitation for black people to explore the Republican record was "wonderful."

"I am always going around trying to encourage my African American friends just to try it," she said. "It's so very important we always to try to have many points of view."

But a man seated at a nearby table listened to Mehlman's speech without applauding. Asked his reaction, he said, "No comment."

Carolyn Nah, the president of the Bridgeport chapter of the NAACP, rolled her eyes at what she called the competing appeals of both parties to black voters: "The Republican doesn't pay us any attention, and the Democrat takes us for granted."

"We've known that for years. Somebody got to come here and tell you that?" she asked. "It's b.s. It's all b.s."

Mehlman has been making strong efforts to chip away at this voting bloc that has voted overwhelmingly for Democrats since the New Deal. Republicans such as Bush have been criticized for avoiding the NAACP and now Mehlman is being criticized for going and speaking to them. Does the Connecticut NAACP, which invited Mehlman to speak, enjoy having a white Democratic politician express an opinion on who should and should not talk to them?

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page

*** Sign The National Review Petition For The Withdrawal Of The Nomination Of Harriet Miers To The U.S. Supreme Court ***

Ken Mehlman On Blogger Conference Call: Miers May Have To Recuse Herself From Some War On Terror Related Cases

White House: Two High Court Candidates Withdrew

Miers To Face Hostile Queries From Both Sides Of Aisle

Miers Foes See Law Questions As Way To Derail Nomination. Groups Aim To Make Her Seem Unqualified.

Pat Robertson Threatens Right Critics Of Miers

Concerned Women For America Declines To Endorse Miers

Bush-Miers Texas Correspondence Reveals Mutual Admiration Society

Were Winners Cheated On Miers' Watch At The Texas Lottery?

Evangelicals, Gambling, & Miers

Vote In The Instapundit Miers Poll

Tom DeLay: "We Lost Sight On Spending, And For That I Apologize."

President George W. Bush's Job Approval Rating Has Fallen To A New Low Of 39 Percent In An NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll

Bush Panel May Curb Tax Breaks For Homeowners, Health

Gore Not Running For President. Accuses US Of "Routinely Torturing People."

Syria's Interior Minister, Who Effectively Controlled Lebanon For Two Decades, Was Found Dead In His Office Wednesday, Days Before The Release Of A U.N. Report That Could Implicate High-Ranking Officials In The Murder Of Lebanon's Former Prime Minister

Bush Demands Syria Be 'Good Neighbor'

Alleged Al Qaeda Militia Leader Calls For Islamic Rule In Somalia

Richard Brookhiser: The Modest Abilities Of Harriet Miers

John Fund: How She Slipped Through. Harriet Miers's Nomination Resulted From A Failed Vetting Process

Peggy Noonan: Fasten Your Beltway. It's Going To Be A Bumpy Ride

Ann Coulter: Does This Law Degree Make My Resume Look Fat?

Bob Barr: President Ought To Take Mulligan On Miers Pick

Mac Johnson: Are Conservatives the Black Voters of the Republican Party?

The Waning Influence Of The New York Times

Cartoon: The Miers Nomination Is Only A Flesh Wound

Ken Lammers For The Scotus: Because The Supreme Court Is Not Just For Intellectual Giants Anymore

Website Of The Day: Stop Miers Now!

From the latest Ann Coulter column:

"The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school."

"Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?

I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880. And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the "most qualified" of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75."

"There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material, but – oddly enough – not when we're talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter defended Miers on the grounds that "Miers' professional qualifications are excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law" – and Specter ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing."

"The problem with Miers is something entirely different – and entirely within the meaning of "advice and consent": Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious.

I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that."

RWN's blogger poll made it into a Fox News piece about the conservative split over the Harriet Miers nomination:

"Frum also said a survey by Rightwingnews.com of 200 conservative bloggers showed 49 percent thought Miers was bad or terrible nomination. Of the respondents, 53 percent said it had lowered their view of Bush."

It's actually 79 bloggers out of over 200 bloggers polled, but the percentages are right and it's certainly nice to see that Fox picked up the poll.

One of the things a lot of people are starting to wonder about at this point is: Why was Harriet selected for the Supreme Court when there were so many better qualified candidates?

It's a given that Bush could get enough votes for any of his nominees to get them confirmed. However, many people are speculating that Bush nominated Miers because he didn't think any of the top notch candidates could make it through without getting filibusters. Don't believe it.

Last time around, even before Bush selected Roberts, McCain, Graham, and DeWine basically said they'd vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats filibustered over ideology. Chaffee has a tough primary challenge this time that would make it extraordinarily difficult politically for him to vote against the nuclear option. Some people have speculated that Specter might not vote for the nuclear option this time, but that would cost him his Judiciary Chairmanship and given how desperately he begged for the job over fierce conservative opposition, it seems unlikely that he'd throw it away now by siding with the Democrats on a Bush SCOTUS appointment.

So, if Bush had the votes for the nuclear option, why not nominate a stellar nominee?

Here's my theory: the Democrats took a lot of heat from their base for being too soft on Roberts. So, it's likely that Harry Reid played hard ball. He probably went to Bush and said either you take a third rate and/or liberal candidate whom we find acceptable or we filibuster. But, what difference would it make if the Democrats filibustered if the GOP had the votes for the nuclear option?

That's just it: I don't believe George Bush nominated Harriet Miers because he thought he couldn't get his nominee through. To the contrary, I believe George Bush nominated Harriet Miers because he feared the consequences of winning with a better nominee. The Democrats have openly threatened to shut down the Senate if the nuclear option is used. It is entirely possible that George Bush was so concerned about having his agenda sidetracked for a few months and being portrayed as a, "Divider, Not a Uniter," by pouting Democrats, that he caved and decided it would be better to stick it to his own base than take on the Dems.

There's no way to know for sure at this point, but it seems quite likely that George Bush and Harry Reid got into a staring contest and it was Bush who blinked with the Miers nomination.

Over at the The M. Sheldon Show, I ran across this:

"I am about to commit a few nearly unforgivable sins...at least as far as right-of-center bloggers go. I am calling some of my fellow bloggers' recent irrationality and (apparent) developing hatred for our President.

First off, I'll start with on of the biggest... Michelle Malkin. It stings just typing this. Let me start off by saying that I in no way esteem myself to be anywhere near as great as Ms. Malkin, and have defended her on many occasions. Also, I have a great deal of respect for her both as a journalist and conservative. However, since the Miers nomination, it seems as if maybe she's being a little too critical of every move in the White House.

...Among those who are "'illin" (over the Miers' nomination) is the man who inspired me to start this puny little weblog in the first place...John Hawkins. (In case you were counting, that's nearly unforgivable sin #2) It seems as if now, if you want the epitome of Bush bashing...go to Right Wing News."

First of all, let me thank Mr. Sheldon for saying that I inspired him to start his weblog. That's very flattering.

Now, let me tell you why M. Sheldon is the biggest jerk in the blogosphere for disagreeing with me....just kidding =D! Still, believe it or not, I have actually had a couple of pro-Miers bloggers I'm friendly with, who've seen my reaction to this nomination, ask me if I'm mad at them for supporting Miers.

The answer to that is, "no." Nor should other conservatives bear any ill will toward their brethren on either side of the debate. The Miers nomination brawl will not last forever. In fact, it may be over sooner than many people think if, as I expect, her nomination is withdrawn. Conservatives on both sides of this fight should keep that in mind lest they say things they'll grow to regret in the coming weeks.

That being said, there is one person whom I am unhappy with. That's the man responsible for this entire mess: George W. Bush.

He took a surefire winner, a Supreme Court pick that should have inspired and motivated his base, that should have improved his approval rating, that should have helped the GOP in 2006, that should have been the fulfillment of a campaign promise, and instead, because of pure political incompetence, this may turn out to be one of the biggest political debacles of the past decade for the GOP.

Now here's the kicker: when George Bush nominated Miers, he may not have realized how bad it would get, but he did undoubtedly know this would be a deflating, demoralizing moment for conservatives. He knew conservatives would complain about the nauseating cronyism, Miers' unimpressive credentials for the job, and her questionable track record as a conservative. Yet, he chose to select her anyway.

Now, we're in a situation where we have a nominee who's so underwhelming that it has set off a fight that's getting progressively uglier between people like James Dobson, Hugh Hewitt, Newt Gingrich, Thomas Sowell on one side and George Will, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh on the other. All of this is over a nominee who, accomplished though she may be in many respects, ranks as a bottom of the barrel selection for the Supreme Court.

Any other President, Bush 41, Clinton, Reagan, would just accept that this nomination is a political bomb and withdraw Miers. But, so far, Bush is holding off. Why? Pride? Mule-headed stubbornness? Because Laura likes her? Because Harriet Miers wrote Bush embarrassingly sycophantic notes on a birthday card and he'd feel guilty if he didn't stand behind her? Whatever the reason may be, Miers is an albatross hanging around the neck of the whole GOP at the moment. Bush made a horrible mistake by nominating Miers and he's making it worse by continuing to stick with her when he could stop the intra-party warfare by withdrawing her. Beyond that, much of the damage done so far could even be repaired by picking an exceptional candidate in her place.

Some of you are probably thinking: "Even if that's true, you should shut up about it because criticizing Bush isn't helping the Party." I'd answer that by saying that politics isn't like sports. You don't support a political party because you want to see, "your team win," but because you believe that supporting your party is the best way to get an agenda enacted that's good for the country. Sometimes, in order to move that agenda forward, you've got to be willing to make certain sacrifices and compromises for the greater good.

That being said, the Supreme Court is as important as it gets in domestic politics and, quite frankly, with a Republican President and 55 Republican Senators, conservatives should not be willing to settle for a 4th rate crony as a nominee. If we're willing to look at a nightmare candidate like Miers for the SCOTUS and then roll over and say, "This is the best we can do," well then quite frankly, it's hard to blame people who say: "Gee, what's the point of working so hard to help Republicans build a majority if this is what we get in return?"

That's why it's worth a grueling, pitched battle with the President and those who continue to support him on this. Even if we lose and Miers is confirmed, at least we can say we drew a line in the sand based on conservative principles and then fought for every inch of ground. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

As most of you may have heard, a letter from Al-Qaeda's number two man al-Zawahiri to their man in Iraq, Zarqawi, has fallen into our hands. It's full of intriguing information, but there is one particular part worth focusing on because it shows how our "strategery" in Iraq has put Al-Qaeda's neck in the noose.

First of all, here's the overall strategy Al-Qaeda is pursuing:

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

So basically, they want us to cut and run -- which incidentally, it is worth noting, is exactly what many people in the anti-war crowd want as well -- and then, while the Iraqi government is too weak to defend itself, Al-Qaeda will "fill the void." But, if the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, then Al-Qaeda is doomed in Iraq because there will be no void to fill.

Moreover, as al-Zawahiri admits later in the letter, the attacks on Iraqis are so unpopular that they're self-defeating. First, he emphasizes with Zarqawi and explains that he understands why attacks on civilians, particularly on the Shias, have been made. But then, he goes on to say:

"We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia. The sharpness of this questioning increases when the attacks are on one of their mosques, and it increases more when the attacks are on the mausoleum of Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib, may God honor him. My opinion is that this matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue.

Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that is unavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger? And if some of the operations were necessary for self-defense, were all of the operations necessary? Or, were there some operations that weren't called for? And is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision? Or, does this conflict with the Shia lift the burden from the Americans by diverting the mujahedeen to the Shia, while the Americans continue to control matters from afar? And if the attacks on Shia leaders were necessary to put a stop to their plans, then why were there attacks on ordinary Shia? Won't this lead to reinforcing false ideas in their minds, even as it is incumbent on us to preach the call of Islam to them and explain and communicate to guide them to the truth? And can the mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that? And why kill ordinary Shia considering that they are forgiven because of their ignorance? And what loss will befall us if we did not attack the Shia? And do the brothers forget that we have more than one hundred prisoners - many of whom are from the leadership who are wanted in their countries - in the custody of the Iranians? (Hawkins' Note: That's an interesting little detail, isn't it?) And even if we attack the Shia out of necessity, then why do you announce this matter and make it public, which compels the Iranians to take counter measures? And do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other at this time in which the Americans are targeting us?

...Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.

And your response, while true, might be: Why shouldn't we sow terror in the hearts of the Crusaders and their helpers? And isn't the destruction of the villages and the cities on the heads of their inhabitants more cruel than slaughtering? And aren't the cluster bombs and the seven ton bombs and the depleted uranium bombs crueler than slaughtering? And isn't killing by torture crueler than slaughtering? And isn't violating the honor of men and women more painful and more destructive than slaughtering?

All of these questions and more might be asked, and you are justified. However this does not change the reality at all, which is that the general opinion of our supporter does not comprehend that, and that this general opinion falls under a campaign by the malicious, perfidious, and fallacious campaign by the deceptive and fabricated media. And we would spare the people from the effect of questions about the usefulness of our actions in the hearts and minds of the general opinion that is essentially sympathetic to us.

...(W)e are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma."

Translated, basically what he's saying is, our supporters don't mind when you kill Americans, but when you kill Muslims, they become upset with you. So, what happens when the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias have approved their own Constitution, had elections, and are policing themselves? Does Al-Qaeda admit defeat or do they continue murdering other Muslims which will make them less popular by the day with many of their current sympathizers? That's the dilemma Al-Qaeda will face and whichever choice they make, they will still lose.

"(Internal Revenue Service data shows) that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes in 2003, although they earned just 16.8 percent of the adjusted gross income. The top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than half of all federal income taxes, the top 10 percent paid two-thirds, and the top half of taxpayers paid 96.5 percent, meaning that the bottom half paid just 3.5 percent.

Another IRS report decomposed the top 1 percent and found that the top 10 percent of the top 1 percent (the top 0.1 percent) increased its share of all federal income taxes from 7 percent in 1980 to 15.3 percent in 2003. These 129,000 tax filers earned 7.6 percent of the income and paid an average tax rate of 23.6 percent. This came to $114.6 billion -- four times more than all the taxes paid by the 64 million taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent -- who paid an average tax rate of 2.9 percent." -- Bruce Bartlett

Laura Bush: Harry Miers Critics Possibly Sexist. Only 54 Percent Of Conservatives Currently Favor Confirmation

Gop Aides Join Resistance Over Miers Nomination (NYT Reg Req)

Dobson Reveals 'Privy' Miers Info

Jonah Goldberg Predicts The Nomination Of Harriet Miers Will Be Withdrawn

Terror Suspect Confesses to Bush Plot

Claim: N.Y. Subway Threat Tip A Hoax

DeLay Lawyers Subpoena District Attorney Ronnie Earle

Libby Did Not Tell Grand Jury About Key Conversation

New Orleans Is Dry

Rathergate. Threatened To Take Memos To The Times; Later Admits He Had His Doubts All Along

Iraqis Reach Deal on the Constitution

Insurgents Launched A New Salvo Of Attacks Five Days Ahead Of A Crucial Constitutional Referendum, Killing At Least 18 Iraqis And A U.S. Soldier

Claim: Elite Troops From Iran Accused Of Training Iraqi Bombers To Kill British Soldiers

Israeli Ambassador To U.S.: Syria Is Sheltering 10 Or 11 Terror Groups

Zawahiri's Advice

Rich Lowry: The Case For Miers Is A Mess

John Podhoretz: Why Right Balks At W's Miers Talk

Ed Morissey: So Laura Bush Thinks We're Sexist For Opposing Miers

Edward Morrissey: The White House Isn't Saying Much About Harriet Miers

Jonah Goldberg: The Disappointing Arguments Of The Pro-Miers Nomination Camp

Jonah Goldberg: In (Qualified) Defense of Cronyism

David Frum: The Miers Revolution

Fox Video: Laura Ingraham On Miers

Charles Murray: The Inequality Taboo. It's Time To Start Talking About Differences Between Groups Of People

Hugo Chavez: Capitalism Caused Quakes

Smurf Down! Smurf Down!

Humor: The Smoking Gun That Will Kill The Miers Nomination

Website Of The Day: Harriet Miers's Blog!!! =D

Imagine if you will, a marriage on the rocks. There's a lot of fighting, a lot of strain, & things seem to be getting progressively worse.

But, all is not lost. The couple's 10 year anniversary is coming up, the husband is promising to take a week off so he and the wife can go on a surprise trip the next Friday. This idea thrills the wife to no end! Are they going on a Caribbean cruise? To Vegas? Maybe they're even heading to London! The wife doesn't know where they're going; she can't wait! Things may not have been so great lately, but this trip is going to turn things around. She just knows it!

So, the wife's bag is packed, she has told all her friends about the romantic "mystery trip" her husband is going to take her on, and she is so excited she can hardly think straight. Then her husband walks in the door and asks her if she's ready for the "trip?" She says, "yes," looks expectantly at her husband and he reveals that -- drumroll, please -- they're going on a trip to the bowling alley every day for the next week! Hip-hip-hooray!

The wife's jaw clenches, her hands ball up into fists, and she gets so angry she looks like she's about to explode. "The bowling alley," she says? "But, you know that I don't like bowling."

"Oh, but it'll be fun, honey! It'll be just you and me, bowling all day long! It'll be a blast!" Then, he starts to notice that his wife's face is getting red, she's breathing harder, and her teeth are clenched.

Then one thing pops into the husband's mind, "Uh-oh."

The wife erupts, she's livid, she's outraged, and she starts looking at her suitcase and mentions something about, "going to her mother's house for a while."

At this point, the husband has a few different ways that he can proceed.

#1) He can try to show his wife who's boss and demand that she go bowling and like it!

#2) He can spend the next 20 minutes talking to his wife and trying to sincerely convince her that she'll have a great time bowling. Then, if and when he fails, he can just throw up his hands and tell her that bowling is her only option.

#3) He can say: "Sometimes I am so thoughtless, I just don't know what I was thinking. Forget about bowling. Instead, right now, right this moment, I'm going to get on the phone and book a flight for the two of us to London. You've always wanted to go there, right? Well, we're getting on the first flight out, we're going to have a wonderful time, and then when we get back, I'm going to romance you like I did when we were first dating."

Whether the husband thinks his wife is overreacting or not, if keeping the marriage together is important to him, he goes with option #3.

Today, George W. Bush is in the same situation as the husband with a significant percentage of his base.

Even before his selection of Harriet Miers, many conservatives were not particularly happy with George Bush. That's part of the reason why his approval rating has been hovering around 40%. So if ever there was a lousy time for George Bush to say, "trust me," it was with this Supreme Court pick. But, that's water under the bridge now. He has nominated Harriet Miers, there is an ugly ongoing fight over that nomination that will last for weeks if something isn't done, and he needs to decide where he wants to go from here.

If George Bush wants to shove the Harriet Miers nomination through, he can probably get enough GOP Senators and happy Democrats on board to help him do it, but the political cost is going to be staggering. By the time she is confirmed, the public will believe Miers is an under qualified crony because they'll have heard people who are normally the President's biggest supporters say it over and over again.

Furthermore, the conservatives who justifiably feel betrayed by this pick -- and there are a lot of them -- will be deeply unhappy with Bush, the Senators who vote for Miers, and maybe even the whole Republican party. That "demotivating" discontent will cost the GOP fund raising dollars, volunteers, votes, support, and probably multiple Senate seats in 2006.

The idea that Bush is going to convince the dissenters that Miers is actually an OK pick through endorsements from prominent conservatives who say they are willing to "trust Bush" or at her hearings is a pipe dream. The only things that could turn conservatives who are unhappy with Miers around are the three things she lacks: rock solid conservative credentials, superb qualifications for the job, & a track record that gives some indication that she's an originalist.

The obvious solution would be to pull the Miers nomination and select a candidate who would satisfy the base. Many people don't think that will happen because Bush is famous for his bulldog like tenacity. As Rogers Cadenhead put it:

"The president's so stubborn that were he captain of the Titanic, he would have run the ship into a second iceberg to prove he meant to hit the first one."

That's a great line, but it doesn't necessarily ring true in this case. Remember Linda Chavez and Bernard Kerkik? Since their nominations were withdrawn earlier in his administration, there's no reason to believe that Bush will stick with a nomination until the end, regardless of the political cost. That's doubly true in this case since there are plenty of far superior candidates to Miers waiting in the wings.

However, some people might wonder: could Bush really get a top notch conservative with a track record through the Senate? Absolutely he could, especially after the furor the Miers pick has created.

Without question, the 51 votes necessary to confirm a judge like Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen would be there. Moreover, Bush could get the 51 votes needed for the nuclear option as well. Keep in mind that there were 48 Republican votes for the nuclear option initially, which means that the GOP only needs 2 members of the "Gang of 14" to change sides, along with a vote from Cheney, to win the day.

Out of the 7 Republicans who were against the nuclear option last time, at least 4 of them would be highly likely to change their tune this time around, especially after seeing the raw fury the base has unleashed over the Miers nomination. Mike DeWine is up for reelection next year and Lincoln Chafee has a credible opponent for the Republican primaries. If either of them would like to be reelected as US Senators next year, they would vote for the nuclear option. Then there's John McCain, who can kiss his dreams of being President good-bye if he goes the wrong way on the vote and Lindsey Graham who has as much as said he'll vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats filibuster a SCOTUS nominee over ideology. Given the way that the votes are lining up, it's doubtful that Harry Reid would even want to pursue a filibuster he'd be guaranteed to lose, but if he did, the GOP would come out on the winning end of the fight.

That's why those who say the President would be seriously harmed politically by withdrawing the Miers nomination have it exactly backwards. The political damage is being caused by conservative infighting and it would stop if Miers were withdrawn. Furthermore, if the President decided to replace Miers with a credible nominee, many of very same people who are slamming the nomination today would turn around and enthusiastically support Miers' replacement. Also, consider how many conservatives who are standing behind Harriet Miers today would truly prefer to have her on the Supreme Court as opposed to candidates like Edith Hollan Jones, Michael McConnell, or Karen Williams? Judging by the damningly faint praise of the Miers' nomination so far, very, very, few.

Which brings us back to the central question George W. Bush needs to ask himself: is the marriage worth saving or is getting Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court more important? Put another way, would George Bush prefer to be on the receiving end of the same sort of backlash his father was blasted with after breaking his, "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge or would he rather withdraw the nomination and send up a better candidate?

Sure, Bush doesn't have to run for reelection again, but he does have more than three years left in office. If he's content to basically twiddle his thumbs for that long it really doesn't matter what his base thinks. But, on the other hand, if Bush wants to push an agenda during that time and retain or increase the size of the GOP majority in Congress, it would be advisable for him to withdraw Harriet Miers rather than permanently damage his relationship with a sizable portion of his base.

This is the choice George W. Bush faces and the impact of his decision will reverberate not just throughout the 2006 election cycle, but for the remainder of his term in the White House.

The Laffer Curve in theory.

The Laffer curve, popularized and promoted by economist Arthur Laffer and often used to justify tax cuts, is intended to show that government can maximize tax revenue by setting a tax rate at the peak of this curve and that raising taxes further actually decreases revenue. The idea is clearest at both extremes of taxation—zero percent and one-hundred percent—where the government collects no revenue. At one extreme, a 0% tax rate means the government’s revenue is, of course, zero. At the other, where there is a 100% tax rate, the government collects zero revenue because (in a “rational” economic model) taxpayers have no incentive to work or they avoid taxes, and the government collects 100% of nothing. Somewhere between 0% and 100%, therefore, lies a tax rate percentage that will maximize revenue.

The Laffer Curve in practice.

STAY-AWAY motorists have left the council with an £800,000 headache after shunning parking in the city centre.

Thousands fewer drivers have been using pay-and-display parking meters in the Capital in recent months. …

[T]he number of drivers using pay and display machines fell dramatically in the four months since April 1. Councillors have been warned that if the trend continues they will collect £780,000 less than they expected.

The council raised hourly charges in many city centre streets to £1.60 from £1.20 last year. …

Councillor Allan Jackson, the Conservative transport spokesman, said he was not surprised by the problem.

“If you have a dramatic increase in parking charges, then demand starts to fall away,” he said.

“The retail industry in the centre is really suffering because people are now driving miles away to find free parking.

“The ruling Labour group have made it impossible to get into the city centre.

“The Central Edinburgh Traffic Management scheme is a shambles. The council has killed the goose that laid the golden egg."

Ah, the joys of socialism. Here we see just the latest example of the undeniable proof that you cannot keep raising taxes with the expectation of increasing revenue.

This content was used with the permission of Lee from Right Thinking From The Left Coast.

Not only did the blogger poll on the Harriet Miers Nomination make Laura Ingraham's web page and radio show yesterday, David Frum mentioned it in today's anti-Miers column in the National Post:

"CBS last week also released new presidential approval numbers, based on a survey conducted October 3-5. Bush is down to 37%, the lowest presidential approval rating since the Carter years. That number is buoyed, though, by the President's continued high approval rating among conservatives: 80%.

But Oct. 3 was the date that the Miers nomination was announced. As conservatives digest their disappointment and betrayal, their approval of the President is likely to decline. It's hard to say how powerful this effect will be overall, but here's one clue: A poll Monday of 200 right-of-centre bloggers by the RightWingNews.com Web site found that 49% regarded the appointment as a "bad or terrible" decision. Only 9% rated it "good or excellent." And while 4% of the bloggers said that the decision raised their opinion of President Bush, 53% made them view the President less favourably.

While it would seem unlikely that conservatives overall would react as strongly as these intensely political bloggers, the trend and tendency are both clear."

Laura, David: thanks for mentioning RWN!

*** Update #1 ***: Here's a minor correction on the Frum article. While there were 200+ bloggers who were sent emails, only 79 responded.

The Harriet Miers nomination may be a complete political disaster, but it has had at least one beneficial side effect. According to Robert Novak, Republicans in the House are getting so freaked out about the Miers debacle that they've actually started cutting spending in an attempt to placate conservatives:

"House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is an old wrestler, and last Thursday night he used a classic move of his sport by quickly reversing positions. On behalf of the Republican leadership, Hastert went before his colleagues to embrace essentially the same package of spending that two weeks earlier he had scourged conservative House members for proposing. The change was a matter of necessity rather than choice.

It was required to quell the first really serious split in House Republican ranks since the GOP took control of the chamber a decade ago. But the rancor was not limited to Capitol Hill. As House Republicans convened their closed-door conference, 1,000 conservatives were in a foul mood eight blocks away at a black-tie dinner celebrating the 50th anniversary of National Review magazine. They were outraged by the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, viewing it less as an aberration by President Bush than a last straw.

In that climate, it was a bare minimum for Republican leaders to back away from their scandalous browbeating two weeks ago of the conservative Republican Study Committee for proposing Operation Offset. So, Hastert echoed the RSC's plans to offset massive Hurricane Katrina spending with reduced spending elsewhere. The question will be how serious the leadership is in stuffing these offsets down the throats of free-spending senior Republicans who hold positions of power in the House.

...Hastert's plan would increase cuts in mandatory spending from $35 billion to "at least" $50 billion, offset disaster spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis, press rescission of existing spending, and eliminate "duplicative, wasteful and/or unnecessary" programs. It was about what Pence and his colleagues proposed two weeks earlier. What's more, Hastert is pushing the first mid-session amendment of the budget in 28 years.

...Had House members been able to attend the National Review banquet, they would have gotten an earful. While there to honor the magazine's founder, William F. Buckley Jr., and all he has done for the conservative movement, these faithful conservatives were not shy about privately expressing their intense unhappiness. I could find nobody there who was not disappointed by the Miers nomination, but they also were aggrieved by the record of spending and big government by the Republican president and the Republican Congress. Hastert's somersault is just the beginning of what is needed to satisfy them."

Granted, conservatives had to raise holy hell to make it happen and there's always a chance the House Republicans will backslide, but it looks like there is going to be at least one silver lining to the Miers cloud.

On the other hand, is it a coincidence that these spending cuts are happening now that big spender Tom DeLay is out of a leadership position because of the trumped-up indictment Ronnie Earle has levied against him? While I believe Tom DeLay is innocent of the charges against him and also expect him to beat the rap, this may be another indication that the House would be better off with a different Majority Leader. That would certainly be my preference.

"If all we need is President Bush to get somebody to rule the way he wants then I could do it. I could get up there, put on my stylish robe and do Bush's bidding. My law experience is limited to watching a few episodes of The Practice. Still, I'm capable of sitting up there, looking somber and leaning over to Scalia and saying "hey bro, which way are you going to go on this one?"

Here is the problem with that idea -- most people realize that it is just inherently wrong. They realize it is inherently wrong for somebody like me to sit in that chair when other folks have put in long nights brushing up on constitutional law. They paid their dues and I didn't. If you would realize that instead of just calling people "elitists" this whole opposition thing might make sense to you.

Even though it is a reality, people still inherently hate when somebody gets a job because of who they know vs. their qualifications. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? People see Miers get the Supreme Court slot and it reminds them of when they played Little League baseball and didn't get to pitch because the coach's son got the slot even though he wasn't as good." -- Blackjack

"I don't have an agenda. I'm not trying to get (Miers) withdrawn. I'm not trying to affect the outcome of this. I'm just telling you...(the nomination) was disappointing for a whole host of reasons. The opportunity missed; the fact that it has emboldened the Democrats because it looks like it came from a position of weakness.

...I'm trying to clue you in, those of you that haven't sensed it yet, what (the Miers' Nomination) has triggered...is a big push-back in the conservative movement.

Let me stir the pot a little further. For five years we've had a great president when it comes to the war, when it comes to tax cuts, when it comes to a number of things. But there are a lot of things that as you know we've been scratching our heads about; nothing on immigration, campaign finance reform, letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill. All of the federal spending, doing whatever we can after the hurricane to send the message, "We'll do whatever it takes," meaning spend whatever it takes to keep you happy. Now, during all of this, there are some -- and, by the way, let me remind you that during all this I have fielded phone calls from many of you who have been complaining royally. You know who you are. You know you haven't liked it. But there are two things that have kept all of us steadfastly unified behind George W. Bush, the war on terror and the fact that we cannot let the left in this country gain control of national security. That's number one, and that's paramount. Number two: the left in general, outside of national security, they're still kooky, and they're mean-spirited, and they are extreme, and they are attempting to mischaracterize us and an attack on the president is an attack on us.

...This Harriet Miers thing has just brought it all to a head, folks. The Harriet Miers nomination has just brought it all to a head, and so there's a kick-back or a push-back taking place now among conservatives who have for five years been back and steadfast and strong in defending the president because of the two things I cited. But the president's not running for reelection again. He can't, and I'm going to tell you what: If you think it's bad now, wait 'til you see all the Republicans who purposely start distancing themselves from him. You're going to see Republicans who will not want George Bush coming in to campaign for them in their local districts because they're going to be talking a pedal-to-the-metal conservative agenda, and it's going to be tough to sell that with nothing on immigration reform and campaign finance reform. You know all these issues. I'm not saying the loyalty is gone; I'm saying life goes on...

...One more thing on this business that my reaction to Harriet Miers was "reflexive."...We've been -- conservatives have been -- thinking deeply about the Supreme Court for 30, 40 years. This is one of the reasons it has been so important to get the Senate as the Republican majority and elect a conservative president, folks, because of what the court has become. You've heard me just go on and on and on about this, and since Harriet Miers' nomination, nothing about the information we've received has changed. There hasn't been anything new. If you ask me, the reflexive reaction is to take "trust me" as the last word. That's being reflexive." -- Rush Limbaugh

The PAC, Run By The Law Firm Harriet Miers Was Co-Managing In 2000, Gave Money To Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Richard Gephardt, & Mary Landrieu Among Others. Miers Personally Contributed Money To The PAC, Which Supported More Democrats Than Republicans In 1999-2000

James Dobson Will Publicly Explain Miers Information

Miers's Firm Backed Sham Shelter, Senate Report Says

Texas Opens Records on Court Nominee Miers

White House Targets Doubts On Miers Nod

Explosives Found Near Georgia Tech Dorms. Police Say They Were Part Of A "Terrorist Act"

Explosive Found In Midvale

Attorney: Rove Didn't Circulate CIA Operative's Name

Earthquake Toll May Reach 40,000

Claim: US Weighed Strikes In Syria

Saddam's Trial To Begin Next Week

Germany Gets First Female Chancellor As Schroeder Concedes

John Fund: Conservatives Are Right To Be Skeptical Of Miers

Polipundit: Harriet Miers Must Not Be Confirmed

Pat Buchanan: Where Bush Went Wrong

Andrew Cohen: Miers Is Simply Not Good Enough

Patterico: Merit Vs. Knowing The Boss

Jospeh Farah: Why Miers Must Be Defeated

Robert Novak: Conservative Rift In GOP Hard To Heal

Mark Steyn: Bush's Religion & The Muslim Religion In Britain

Vogue Editor Hit With a Pie in Paris (Ridiculous)

Shield Law Sponsor Lugar: Bloggers 'Probably Not' Considered Journos

Part Of The Blogger Poll On Harriet Miers In Graph Form

Man Whose Web Site Shows Pictures Of War Dead Is Arrested

Python Swallows Cat In Florida Backyard

Hi, I'm John Podhoretz And I'm An Elitist

Humor: Pick A Side And Stick To It On Miers

Website Of The Day: Stop Miers Now

Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 4 questions about the Harriet Miers nomination. Representatives from the following 79 blogs responded...

Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, Accidental Verbosity, Althouse, AnalPhilosopher, The Anchoress, Ankle Biting Pundits, Annika's Journal, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, AtlanticBlog, Balloon Juice, La Shawn Barber, Betsy's Page, Blackfive, BlameBush!, Boi From Troy, Brainster's Blog, Byrd Droppings, Capitalist Lion, Cold Fury, Collected Miscellany, Commonwealth Conservative, Cut On The Bias, Daily Pundit, Daly Thoughts, The Dawn Patrol, dcthornton.blog, Dodgeblogium, Dummocrats, Four Right Wing Wackos, Fraters Libertas, Gateway Pundit, Generation Why?, Guardian Watchblog, Heretical Ideas, Hog Haven, Hyscience, IMAO, Inoperable Terran, Iowa Voice, JackLewis, Knowledge Is Power, Michelle Malkin, Mountaneer Musings, Moxie, Multiple Mentality, No Speed Bumps, The Nose On Your Face, Not A Desperate Housewife, Nykola, Patio Pundit, The Patriette, Shrink Wrapped, Southern Appeal, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, The Patriot Blog!, Peaktalk, PoliPundit, Pundit Guy, QandO, Reasoned Audacity, Red-State, Riehl World View, Right Side Redux, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Wing News, Sane Nation, Isaac Schrödinger, Sister Toldjah, Six Meat Buffet, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Natalie Solent, Solomonia, Stolen Thunder, Stop The ACLU, Stark Truth, This Blog Is Full Of Crap, Vox Popoli, Winds Of Change

Here are the questions the bloggers were asked and their responses. The percentage & number of bloggers that chose each option follow the question.

1) Do you think George Bush made:

A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)

2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:

A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)

3) Would you prefer that George Bush:

A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)

4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:

A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)

One word we've heard tossed around with regularity since Harriet Miers was nominated is, "elitist." This word has been used by defenders of Miers against those who've pointed out the truth: that Harriet Miers is a minimally qualified crony who was selected for the job primarily because of her relationship with George Bush.

Left by the White House with no way to effectively rebut those charges -- because they're true -- her supporters have been forced to cry, "snob," and, "elitist," in order to try to redirect attention. That's why we keep hearing arguments that go about like so from the pro-Miers camp:

"These so-called anti-Miers conservatives are saying that they don't like her because she's an under qualified candidate with questionable conservative credentials who got the job because of personal favoritism, but that's not it. Actually, they dislike her because they're really snooty upper crust types who sneer with disdain at anyone who isn't part of the whole Ivy League set. Why didn't we all see it sooner?"

Unfortunately, there is a huge problem with that line of reasoning. The problem is that before Monday of last week, Harriet Miers had a fan club of one: George W. Bush.

Back then, had you spoken to those who are today the most ardent defenders of Harriet Miers or her most vituperative conservative critics, not only would their top selections for the court have been almost exactly the same, they'd have also agreed that Harriet Miers would be a poor selection by the President for many of the same reasons that are today being espoused by her opponents. The only reason more people weren't saying that publicly at the time (although some were pointing out that Miers would be a poor choice) was because she was such an obviously bad pick that very few people seriously thought Bush would nominate her.

So just to be perfectly clear, it's the Miers' boosters who have made a 180 degree turn from the now presumably elitist position of, "Oh God, not Miers," to what some of them apparently believe is the position of the common man: "Thank God George Bush had the wisdom to select Harriet Miers instead of one of those hoity-toity, high falutin' nominees like Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, or Michael McConnell."

Wait...that's not exactly true because it's also worth noting that if you pin them down on the subject, most of the apostles of Miers will admit, even today, that they'd prefer the same candidates the "elitists" are touting, despite their support for Miers. What does that make them: closet elitists?

Everyone on the right, on both sides of the Miers debate, should be willing to admit the truth about this nomination. It's a split that was caused by George Bush selecting a fourth rate candidate for the most important court in the land and then saying, "Trust me."

The overwhelming majority of conservatives who are behind Miers today are taking that position either because they have an almost unshakable faith in the President or because they are willing to put loyalty to the Republican Party first. Those of us who want the Miers nomination to fail are just not willing to support a Supreme Court appointment based on little more than blind trust, especially since in the past, well meaning Republican Presidents have told us to, "trust them," as they've given us John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter among others.

That is the essence of what this conservative dogfight is all about, not "elitism."

Back in 2003, the animal rights kooks at PETA started giving children gory comic books called "Your Mommy Kills Animals".

Now, at long last, they've come up with a sequel: "Your Daddy Kills Animals".

Here are some of the charming details:

"PETA operatives began handing out the graphic flyers to children on September 24, "Fish Amnesty Day" (apparently for the liberation of all those piscine political prisoners). This comes nearly two years after PETA activists, clad in animal suits, began forcing the similarly inspired "Your Mommy Kills Animals" comic into young children's hands.

...Equally disgusted, Hook, Line & Sinker editor Karen Wall guts this most recent PETA initiative with a few choice observations, saving her best barbs for anti-fishing coordinator Karin Robertson, a woman who once changed her name to "GoVeg.com" -- at least for as long as it took major news outlets to notice:

Though Robertson said the group would never try to give the flyers to any child younger than 13 -- "We would hand it to the parent instead," she said -- the flyer is clearly geared toward elementary school children through the language it uses, making references to "doggies and kitties" and referring to fathers as "Daddy."

The most troubling passage reads, "Until your daddy learns that it's not 'fun' to kill, keep your doggies and kitties away from him. He's so hooked on killing defenseless animals that they could be next!"

Can you imagine the reaction parents must have when these kooks from PETA hand their child a flyer like this? It would be like walking into the middle of an anti-war protest wearing an "I heart George Bush" t-shirt and carrying an "I question your patriotism" sign.

Even for a group of moonbats, PETA is really out there...

Hat tip to Moonbattery & Ace of Spades HQ for the story.

-- Sometimes, the dog that doesn't bark tells a tale. In this case, why is it that the blogosphere doesn't seem to be stepping up to help the victims of a cataclysmic earthquake that has killed so many people in Pakistan? Is it that they're not big fans of Pakistan? Are people too distracted by the Miers nomination? Is it donor fatigue after the Tsunami and Katrina that's responsible?

Personally, I think the US government should pay particular attention to this quake, even if the public doesn't. Pakistan, which has taken a big hit in this earthquake, has been a real help in the war on terror and Pervez Musharraf has caught a lot of hell for it from his own people. Now might be a great time to show everyone in Pakistan that there's no better friend to have in a crisis than the United States. Also keep in mind that Bin Laden is likely still hiding out in the Pakistani back country. Helping Pakistan in their time of need might be just the thing to set a few tongues wagging about his whereabouts.

Most of the time, we help other countries in a situation just because it's the right thing to do. In this case, it might actually have some strategic value to us as well.

-- Just for comparison's sake, I decided to look back to find my initial reaction to Bush's nomination of John Roberts. Here it is:

"Yes, yes, yes! Bush came through in the clutch with a great candidate!"

Things certainly have changed quite a bit, haven't they?

-- I caught "Serenity" this week-end and while I didn't want to do a full review, I will tell you it is the best Sci-Fi flick I've seen in years. The movie had a great story line, scintillating dialogue, real suspense, great action sequences, solid special effects, one of the best villains I've seen in a long while, unapologetically ruthless good guys.... This is just a movie with no weaknesses. In fact, I already can't wait to see it again when it comes out on video. This movie gets a huge thumbs up....

-- Speaking of excellent Sci-Fi, I've been enjoying Surface, a new show on NBC at 8PM on Mondays. To make a long story short, these mysterious sea dragons have started appearing all over the planet and causing havoc. Scientists and the military are studying them, the plucky heroes are trying to find out more, and a young boy is actually raising one he found in an egg. I know, I know, you're thinking: "Dragons? That sounds a little cheesy." You won't say that after you watch them swallow a small boat full of people whole with one giant gulp....or maybe you will if you're not into science fiction. Let me just say this much: it has been so far, so good with the show and if you enjoy Sci-Fi, the show is probably worth checking out.

-- Normally, I'm the first guy to defend the police when someone cries, "police brutality." In fact, I once posted -- and still stand behind -- a strong defense of a police officer who used a taser on an injured 75-year old woman. But this assault by police in New Orleans was just indefensible:

"Two New Orleans police officers repeatedly punched a 64-year-old man accused of public intoxication, and another city officer assaulted an Associated Press Television News producer as a cameraman taped the confrontations.

There will be a criminal investigation, and the three officers were to be suspended, arrested and charged with simple battery Sunday, Capt. Marlon Defillo said.

...The APTN tape shows an officer hitting the man at least four times in the head Saturday night as he stood outside a bar near Bourbon Street. The suspect, Robert Davis, appeared to resist, twisting and flailing as he was dragged to the ground by four officers. Another of the four officers then kneed Davis and punched him twice. Davis was face-down on the sidewalk with blood streaming down his arm and into the gutter.

Meanwhile, a fifth officer ordered APTN producer Rich Matthews and the cameraman to stop recording. When Matthews held up his credentials and explained he was working, the officer grabbed the producer, leaned him backward over a car, jabbed him in the stomach and unleashed a profanity-laced tirade."

Even though the suspect was struggling to break free of the officers, there was no excuse for punching him in the face over and over. And attacking a producer who happened to be on the scene and doing nothing wrong is even more inexcusable. Watch the video and you'll see what I mean.

All three of the officers who have currently been suspended -- at a minimum -- deserve to lose their badges over this.

"Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter says he has no doubt Ms. Miers is taking "a crash course" in constitutional law. She will be primed with talking points and her compelling success story when the hearings begin. The presumption that she should be confirmed will weigh heavily on Republican senators who will be constantly reminded that the president has made dozens of good judicial picks for lower courts.

But that ignores the fact that every Republican president over the past half century has stumbled when it comes to naming nominees to the high court. Consider the record:

After leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower was asked by a reporter if he had made any mistakes as president. "Two," Ike replied. "They are both on the Supreme Court." He referred to Earl Warren and William Brennan, both of whom became liberal icons.

Richard Nixon personally assured conservatives that Harry Blackmun would vote the same way as his childhood friend, Warren Burger. Within four years, Justice Blackmun had spun Roe v. Wade out of whole constitutional cloth. Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe, and made clear he didn't even understand what the court was deciding: "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

Gerald Ford personally told members of his staff that John Paul Stevens was "a good Republican, and would vote like one." Justice Stevens has since become the leader of the court's liberal wing.

An upcoming biography of Sandra Day O'Connor by Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic includes correspondence from Ronald Reagan to conservative senators concerned about her scant paper trail. The message was, in effect: Trust me. She's a traditional conservative. From Roe v. Wade to racial preferences, she has proved not to be. Similarly, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation recalls the hard sell the Reagan White House made on behalf of Anthony Kennedy in 1987, after the Senate rejected Robert Bork. "They even put his priest on the phone with us to assure us he was solid on everything," Mr. Weyrich recalls. From term limits to abortion to the juvenile death penalty to the overturning of a state referendum on gay rights, Justice Kennedy has often disappointed conservatives.

Most famously, White House chief of staff John Sununu told Pat McGuigan, an aide to Mr. Weyrich, that the appointment of David Souter in 1990 would please conservatives. "This is a home run, and the ball is still ascending. In fact, it's just about to leave earth orbit," he told Mr. McGuigan. At the press conference announcing the appointment, the elder President Bush asserted five times that Justice Souter was "committed to interpreting, not making the law." The rest is history.

Harriet Miers is unquestionably a fine lawyer and a woman of great character. But her record on constitutional issues is nil, and it is therefore understandable that conservatives, having been burned at least seven times in the past 50 years, would be hesitant about supporting her nomination." -- John Fund

*** Update #1 ***: Truthfully, I'm posting a little more of Fund's column than I should. But, this is such important information about Miers' conservative credentials that as many right-wingers as possible need to see it. From Fund:

"The scantiness of her philosophical record has led reporters to focus on the two years of her career where she had to take stands: her one term as a member of the Dallas City Council during 1990 and 1991. There she established a record as an advocate of good government, increased funding for the arts, and building a light-rail system. Her one moment of high drama came when she quieted an angry crowd alleging police brutality. She apologized to the protesters on behalf of the city and called the behavior of the officers "unprovoked and inexcusable."

Reactions to her from her former colleagues were mixed. Craig McDaniel, a liberal council member, praises her ability to get along with diverse groups of people and tells the Dallas Voice, a gay newspaper, "This is as good as we would ever get out of a Republican administration." Jerry Bartos, a conservative council colleague, rated her effectiveness at "zero" and called her "the consummate loner." But Sharon Boyd, a longtime friend and GOP activist, says many conservatives resented her solely because she had remained a Democrat until 1988. Ms. Boyd calls Ms. Miers's record on the council "very conservative." Yet when pressed for examples, she could only offer Ms. Miers's opposition to civil unions for gays and support for a constitutional amendment against flag burning.

On other issues, Ms. Miers's record is one of initially supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it. She started out backing a plan to redistrict the City Council that had received the endorsement of two-thirds of Dallas voters in a 1989 referendum. When it appeared that plan would lose a court case on account of its alleged effect on minority representation, she backed a plan for single-member districts supported by liberals. "I formally debated her on the issue," recalls Tom Pauken, a former chairman of the Texas Republican Party. "She was a liberal then. I don't know about today, but in the last week all the liberals who've been on the council have been singing her praises."

Similarly, Ms. Miers was originally part of a council majority that urged Congress to repeal the Wright Amendment, a law that restricts flights from Dallas Love Field. Southwest Airlines and free-market advocates had long attacked the restriction as favoritism toward American Airlines, which has a hub at Dallas-Fort Worth International. Ms. Miers reversed her position after 10 months and sponsored a resolution in favor of the Wright Amendment. She called her move "a triumph of reason over rhetoric" and cited two studies that claimed flying more planes out of Love would lead to traffic congestion. Most aviation experts dispute that conclusion.

Finally, a 1990 budget crunch forced the Dallas City Council to consider a property tax increase--its third in four years. Ms. Miers initially resisted the tax increase, then came around to the view that a property tax hike would be the fairest. The key vote came when the council voted 6-5 to add $900,000 to the budget proposed by the city manager as part of a 7% increase in the tax rate. Ms. Miers cast the deciding vote. Mr. Bartos, who had proposed an alternate plan for 5% across-the-board spending cuts on all departments except the police, was bitter that almost all of the proposed $900,000 budget increase was slated for library and arts funding rather than public safety."

I found this little excerpt to be interesting mainly because of the way Miers is being sold to conservatives as this diehard evangelical Christian, a James Dobson in a skirt, who can always be trusted to toe the conservative line on certain issues, like abortion, because of her religious beliefs.

Of course, your religious beliefs shouldn't effect how you rule on issues before the court in the first place, but even if that's what you want, this small but significant incident suggests that religious though she may be, Miers is not necessarily a "reliable Christian vote" on the court.

I'd also note that it fits in well with what David Frum, someone else who knew Miers personally, said about her: "Inside the White House, Miers was best known, not as a conservative, not as a legal thinker, but as a petty bureaucrat."

Here's the excerpt:

"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.

That is my one personal anecdote about Harriet Miers. Some will probably write that incident off as an insignificant, almost meaningless, occurrence. And perhaps it is. But Miers purposefully sought to dilute the Christianity of the message, thus revealing to me at least a willingness to compromise unnecessarily without outside pressure. That is my opinion based off that experience and I would be more than happy to be proved wrong." -- Ned Ryun

We have conservatives who are expecting Miers to overturn a decision as controversial as Roe v. Wade based on her Christian beliefs. Meanwhile, back in the real world, she's getting weak kneed at the thought of the President sounding "too Christian" at Christmas. That's not very encouraging...

*** Originally, I believed Ryun was talking about the White House Christmas card. That was an error and the post has now been corrected. ***

In the midst of a Republican firestorm over his so-called 'stealth' appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President George Bush today would only hint at who he has in mind to replace Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who will retire January 31, after 18 years steering the nation's monetary policy.

"I can't give you a name," Mr. Bush told the White House press corps, "but let me just say that I've known her personally for more than 20 years, and have first-hand knowledge of her philosophy on fiscal policy. I've actually watched her balance a checkbook at the kitchen table. She'll make a swell Fed chairman."

Mr. Bush said the as-yet-unnamed nominee "has a charming personality, a smile that lights up the room, and I can trust her like I trust my own wife."

This content was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Half Of Senate Republicans Doubt Miers (Now Let's Start Working On The Other Half)

Robert Bork Calls Miers Nomination A 'Disaster'

Private Emails Revealed. The Cheerleaders For Bush's Judicial Pick Found Little To Cheer

Democratic Senators Barbara A. Mikulski, Tom Harkin, & Mark Pryor Stand Up For Harriet Miers (Free NYT Reg Req)

Miers Espoused Progressive Views As Elected Official, Records Show

Miers Disses The Federalist Society

Miers Favored Affirmative Action When She Was A Member Of The Dallas City Council

Arlen Specter: "(Miers) Needs A Crash Course In Constitutional Law."

James Taranto From The Wall Street Journal: "When President Bush Nominated Harriet Miers On Monday, We Saw It As A Missed Opportunity. It Left Us Underwhelmed, Not Appalled. But Having Spent Last Evening Communing Here With Some 1,000 Conservatives At National Review's 50th Anniversary Dinner, We See A Political Disaster In The Making."

Why Should Miers Get Credit For Bush's Appellate Nominees?

Conservatives Urge Bush To Withdraw Supreme Court Nominee Miers

Death Toll Surpasses 30,000 in Asia Quake

Earthquake Relief Charities

Al-Qaeda Job Openings?

Military Investigators Have Determined That A Helicopter Crash That Killed Five Army National Guardsmen In Afghanistan Last Month Was The Result Of Hostile Fire, Not An Accident

Third Suspect Nabbed in NYC Subway Terror Plot

Miller Hands Prosecutor Old Notes In Plame Case

Victor Davis Hanson" The Quiet Consensus On Iraq

New Orleans Police Beating Caught on Tape

The Daily Herald: In Our View: Withdraw Miers, Or Reject Her

Confirm Them: Please Withdraw Her — The Politics

Michael J. Totten: Meeting Hizbollah

George Will: The GOP's The GOP's Border Guard

The Mesopotamian: The Americans Didn't Get This Far Because They're Made Of Sugar Candy

Woman Trapped In Car For Four Nights With Dead Companions

Dutch Princess Wants To Initiate Peace Negotiations With Al-Qaeda

Humor: Their Dissent Will Not Be Chilled!

Humor: The Top 10 Reasons I Like Harriet Miers

Humor: Harriet Miers Confidential Job Application

Humor: Chris Matthews Goes Back To School

Website Of The Day: Patterico's Pontifications