Harriet, Harriet, Harriet

What are we going to do with you, Harriet? She's looking a bit squirrelly to me. After all the talk about her lack of intellectual prowess (particularly compared to John Roberts), wouldn't you think someone at the Bush administration, let alone Miers, would have vetted that completed Senate Committee questionnaire pretty darn carefully? Overstating the importance of various talks she gave, not listing all interviews given, misstating the issue with her license. Hardly seems the hallmark of a meticulous attorney, as she's been presented to us by the Rovian Republicans.

And what about the continuing issue of her seeming to tell senators one thing, then contradicting them? She tells Arlen that she supported Griswold, then tells reporters she doesn't. And Republican Specter proclaims he's now finished with discussions with her that are not on tape. That's a ringing endorsement from a Republican. And, as Kos says, seems like there's a whole lot of miscommunication by Ms. Miers.

Interesting. You'd think that this news of anti abortion activity would assuage the shakes of the conservative evangelical right. But Sam Brownback, Senate Republican who's been up in arms about her for a while, still says, "It is a piece of evidence," and not as indicative of her legal views as a judicial opinion or a law review article might have been (according to the NYTimes).

The newspaper reports provide little to reassure those who are concerned about her lack of constitutional experience. The answer to a questions asking for a detailed response regarding her work as an attorney in constitutional matters was vague to an extreme."I am called upon to advise the president and White House officials on presidential prerogatives, the separation of powers, executive authority and the constitutionality of proposed regulations and statutes."

Um. Okay. Would you care to expand on that just a bit? Maybe discuss which regulations the constitutionality of which she advise Bush on? Say a bit more about executive authority or the separation of powers?

Apparently not. Sounds like a continuation of the Rovian Republican plan to keep the paper trail as short as possible. Even during the nomination. If this truly is their plan, it is backfiring. When Republicans are this cranky about a Bush nominee, you know that Rove has screwed up. Perhaps he's a bit preoccupied at the moment with his machine falling apart left and right.

Perhaps he's been reading the New York Daily today, and is dismayed by the scoop there indicating his Boss (as in Dubya, as in the President who said he would fire anyone who leaked the CIA info) knew Rove was the leak all along. Or maybe he's heard a little something about there being a warrant issued for former House Leader Tom Delay's arrest.

My nomination for the headline when Miers loses the nomination (by vote or crook)? Stealth Nominee Bombs.

Until tomorrow,
Liz