Monday, October 03, 2005

My Indefensible Lack of Substance

I'm having a lot of trouble finding my morally outraged center over the nomination of Harriet Miers as a replacement Supreme. In fact, I just got off the phone with an outraged friend, who is sputtering mad--"upset," actually, was her word--about the nomination. I spent most of the phone call asking her if she expected the President to nominate Michael Moore or Hilary Clinton (actually, that last woulda been sorta brilliant, now I think on it). Or if it really would've been better had he nominated (and thereby either martyred or infiltrated onto the Court) Prissy Owen or Janice Brown.

With Miers, there's the crony card. G'wan, confirm her relatively quietly--no procedural posturing necessary. Just scream about the President nominating his buddies to key positions, vote against her, and serve your revenge cold in some enchanted upcoming November. There's really no need for Democratic Senators to piss people off by doing their jobs in this case; it makes the American people very impatient when the legislature does its job. And any sort of lasting negativity here hands the moral high ground back to the fascists.

Choose your battles wisely, and fight them to the death. This one ain't worth a deathmatch.


Geggy said...

I might have agreed with you, buddy, except I have no way to examine her record. Mainly because she doesn't have one.

So it's conceivable that she's vastly preferable to some whose names I have heard bandied about. It's also just as conceivable that she may be so far right that she makes Antonin Scalia look like Abby Hoffman.

I'm pissed because she has been chosen specifically because of her blank record, which cannot be challenged or questioned. I say they have at her as hard as possible and not let them get away with a stealth nominee.

Dweeze said...

Personally, any choice that pisses off the right wing as much as this choice seems to have pissed them off can't be all bad.

Geggy said...

Hmmm, Dweez, I didn't know they were pissed. Well, if that's the case, pass her today!

Buggy said...

She was a member of the Dallas City Council.
A pretty fucking disfunctional group, always, no matter whose on it.

That might be one place to start on some reserch of her.

beannie said...

Worst case scenario is we get what we figured we'd end up with anyway. A right wing fascist pig in high heels and too much make up.

Best case scenario, David Souter in high heels and too much make up.

Wheeze said...

My theory is that Harry Reid is orchestrating a bumbling strategery by giving her 'such high praise', as the media reports. Yes, she is brilliant at returning phone calls--an important work ethic to have as a supreme.

Reid, and this is only a hope, is really not as stupid as he appeared when he stood next to her and 'praised' her yesterday. P'raps his plan is to outrage the republicans by standing up so quickly, thus causing an uprising and impending mutiny of the republican party, ousting Mier in a way that the dems cannot do on their own for lack of power.

Either that, or Rove needed a Plame/DeLay distraction at the moment (when does he not?), and when Rove needs a distraction, he tells W to do something silly that will take the media's attention off of him and put them on a wild goose chase so the bush admin can internally combust in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Yet, I must ask: What sorts of questions can the committee ask this woman? If I remember correctly, even though she's white house counsel, she isn't protected by the attorney/client privilege, is she? Maybe, just maybe, the dems will ask some non-judgy types of questions and watch her squirm a bit...
...but then, I'm an optimist, and I keep thinking the dems will pull their heads out one day. *sigh*

jomama said...


...a non-event.

So many distractions, not enough time.