"Can she take the one quality that means the most to the president who just nominated her--loyalty--and leave it completely behind as her work address moves several blocks east?"
The answer is probably not, otherwise, Bush would never have nominated her.
You're giving her too much credit--she's been a cultist since 1989. The rambling crap that she published in Texas Lawyer just goes to show that she's intellectually inconsistent and is easily impressed by small minds.
Posted by buck turgidson at October 5, 2005 05:21 AMmore strong research on the candidate...
Posted by headxray at October 5, 2005 06:37 AMActually Buck, The NYT has an interesting personal history on Miers. I get a strong impression that before her Evangelical conversion, she had a different legal mind which those writings reflect. one that was more moderate, or even *gasp* Democratic . .
But that's then, this is now. Miers is not qualified for the high court. I'd even argue she's probably not qualified for anything above a District Court position, and that's highly dependent on the contents of her confirmation hearings.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 5, 2005 06:59 AMI agree. The Right is putting out stuff about her "conversion" so it seems she's in the cult, and we can throw out anything from before. And, of course, the White House will refuse to release anything she wrote since.
There's just no way of knowing. This is more of the the under-the-radar stealth anti-democratic strategy of the Dominionists. The ideal of democracy is people get the information they need to make an infored decision. This crowd opposes basic democratic principles.
Posted by Dave Johnson at October 5, 2005 08:39 AMDave, I agree. I say it all the time, but WTF is this about not releasing information that would afford people the ability to make a sound judgement based on facts.
Oh HELL, I forgot that facts are no longer important in the New World Order.
Posted by Judith at October 5, 2005 09:40 AMA simple question the Democrats must ask: If you have to choose between doing what the Biblke says its right, and what the Constitution says is right, whcih one would you choose to do?
If she says some bullshit like: "There's no contradiction between the two" then filibiuster her ass.
At least get her to say she'd put the Constitution first, and make the wingnuts nervous.
Posted by Hesiod at October 5, 2005 01:47 PM