Kay Bailey Hutchison: Raging hypocrite

Over at ATC, Bill, X, and the gang have spent the better part of the day hyperventilating over whether or not Leonard Pitts, a Miami-based syndicated columnist, may have been hypocritical in a column about the death penalty. It seems that Pitts was critical of what he called the “cynical” use of relatives of murder victims to attack a Catholic politician who says his religious beliefs prevent him from fully embracing capital punishment (although he says he would still uphold the law). But a while back, Pitts praised Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, for using her “moral authority” to oppose the war.

My response. Who cares?

It’s clear to me that the bigger hypocrite today is our own U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison who went on the Sunday talk shows to test the waters on the Republican response to the pending indictments of top White House aides Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Hutchison’s tact is to poo-poo the charges as “some perjury technicality” and implies the 2-year investigation has been a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Here is the full quote:

"... if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

Of course, Sen. Hutchison was not so dismissive of indictable crimes a few years ago when the target was President Bill Clinton:

"I do not hold the view of our Constitution that there must be an actual, indictable crime in order for an act of a public officer to be impeachable. It is clear to this Senator that there are, indeed, circumstances, short of a felony criminal offense, that would justify the removal of a public officer from office, including the President of the United States. Manifest injury to the Office of the President, to our Nation and to the American people and gross abuse of trust and of public office clearly can reach the level of intensity that would justify the impeachment and removal of a leader."

So to sum up, Sen. Hutchison believes that in the case of a Democratic administration you do not need actual indictment to justify the removal of a public official from office. Vague charges of “manifest injury” to the Office of the President and “gross abuse of trust” is more than enough reason to have an impeachment in that case.

But, for a Republican administration, suddenly an indictment alone is not enough to warrant dismissal. Now, it has to be an indictment for something that she considers to be a crime and not something that the prosecutor might consider a crime but which she dismisses as a technicality.

Update

Sen. Hutchison's trial balloon over the weekend apparently got shot down because she is now backtracking on her "perjury is just a technicality and not a crime" theme.
Hutchison now says she was "misconstrued" and insists that perjury is a "terrible crime."
Welcome back to the reality-based world, Senator!

Future of the Democratic Party

This story in the Washington Post today gives me renewed hope about Democratic prospects of regaining the House.

With the Capitol all but deserted last Monday night, the Democratic "30-Something Working Group" seized the House floor and took aim at their Republican adversaries.
As C-SPAN cameras beamed their performance around the country, Rep. Timothy J. Ryan, 32, of Ohio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, 39, of Florida recited a litany of GOP misdeeds -- mismanaging Hurricane Katrina and neglecting education and health care, for example -- and offered the Democrats' alternatives.

Their conversation even veered to religion, a subject many Democrats are afraid to touch. Ryan described the problems of the poor as a moral obligation and asked of Meek: "Where is the Christian Coalition when you are cutting poverty programs? They are fighting over Supreme Court justices."

The two newcomers -- who have served a combined six years in the House -- are part of a new generation of Democrats who are working to try to topple the GOP. Their fresh ideas, modern media skills and aggressive political tactics have inspired a party that has drifted for much of the past decade -- wedded to old notions and seemingly incapable of capitalizing on White House and congressional Republican miscues.

As part of the new approach, House and Senate Democrats are devising an alternative agenda of key policies. Ryan is pushing proposals aimed at drastically reducing the number of abortions over the coming decade by offering support and services to pregnant women. Others are crafting a plan for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil by using more domestic agricultural products, an approach that would have significant appeal to Midwestern voters.

And what do you know? They are even being labeled as Pragmatists!

Unlike some of their forbears, the newcomers are pragmatists who view the past decade of GOP rule not as an aberration but as a sea change in political campaigning, fundraising and lobbying to which Democrats must adjust. They arrived in Washington as challengers and are comfortable questioning the establishment -- because they have not been part of it.

"Everyone recognizes the bottom line: We've got to win the House," said Van Hollen, who is in his second term. "So people are looking for creative alternatives, and they're much more willing to experiment now."

The Republicans, through their inept incompetence, have opened the door for the Democrats to make a comeback that might otherwise have taken many more years to develop. If the old hardliners will allow this new blood to energize the party we could be back in the game sooner than expected.

Top 100 entertainment icons

Variety, the entertainment trade publication, has come out with their list of the top 100 entertainment icons of the 20th Century.
They ranked the Top 10 as:

The Beatles
Louis Armstrong
Lucille Ball
Humphrey Bogart
Marlon Brando
Charlie Chaplin
James Dean
Marilyn Monroe
Mickey Mouse
Elvis Presley

I think it is cute putting Mickey Mouse in the list, but I also think it kind of slights Walt Disney who should probably merit inclusion on the list in his own right.

The rest of the 100 in alphabetical order is listed below:

Woody Allen
Pedro Almodovar
Fred Astaire & Ginger Rogers
Josephine Baker
Brigitte Bardot
Jack Benny
Irving Berlin
Chuck Berry
Lenny Bruce
James Cagney
Maria Callas
Johnny Carson
Johnny Cash
Ray Charles
Kurt Cobain
Gary Cooper
Bill Cosby
Walter Cronkite
Bette Davis
Miles Davis
Marlene Dietrich
Kirk Douglas
Bob Dylan
Clint Eastwood
Duke Ellington
Federico Fellini
Aretha Franklin
Clark Gable
Greta Garbo
Judy Garland
Cary Grant
D.W. Griffith
Woody Guthrie
Vaclav Havel
Edith Head
Jimi Hendrix
Katharine Hepburn
Audrey Hepburn
Alfred Hitchcock
Billie Holiday
Bob Hope & Bing Crosby
Harry Houdini
Michael Jackson
Robert Johnson
Al Jolson
Janis Joplin
Gene Kelly
Grace Kelly
Lassie
Laurel & Hardy
Bruce Lee
Jerry Lewis
Little Richard
Sophia Loren
Madonna
Bob Marley
Marcello Mastroianni
Steve McQueen
Edward R. Murrow
The Marx Brothers
Paul Newman
Jack Nicholson
Laurence Olivier
Pac Man
Edith Piaf
Mary Pickford
Sidney Poitier
Robert Redford
Rodgers & Hammerstein
Will Rogers
The Rolling Stones
Mickey Rooney
The Sex Pistols
Tupac Shakur
Frank Sinatra
Steven Spielberg
Jimmy Stewart
Igor Stravinsky
Barbara Streisand
The Supremes
Quentin Tarantino
Elizabeth Taylor
Shirley Temple
Rudolph Valentino
John Wayne
Orson Welles
Mae West
Hank Williams
Oprah Winfrey
Stevie Wonder

I was upset at first when it looked like Bing Crosby had once again been snubbed until I saw that they had grouped him with Bob Hope. Still, that makes it seem like the only reason he is included is because of the popular Road movies he did with Bob. I would argue that Bing should have made the top 10 based on the fact that he was one of the most popular entertainers of the 1930s and ‘40s. But I’m still happy that he at least made the list.

One big omission in my opinion is Bruce Springsteen. How many others are there?

Smile!

I have to hand it to Tom DeLay. That was smart to make sure his mugshot looks like any other photo of himself that his PR people would be handing out.
When most people think of a mugshot they envision some guy who was just dragged out of bed, unshaved with his hair disheveled and a half-crazed look in his eye. But here we have a smiling Tom DeLay with his hair slicked back and dressed in his best suit and tie looking like he’s ready to shake your hand and kiss your baby.

Astros win the Pennant

Better a day late than never. The Astros have played much better this year than I had hoped. Last night’s 5-1 victory was a satisfying display of quality hit-and-run baseball combined with one of the best pitching performances you are likely to see these days from NLCS MVP Roy Oswalt.
I’d love to see the Astros go all the way and win the World Series, but even if they don’t it is great that they were finally able to get over this hump. I have to admit I did not have high hopes for the Astros this season after they lost Carlos Beltran to free agency and Jeff Bagwell went on the disabled list.
Oddly enough, the last two Major League baseball games I have seen in person was the Astros vs. the Reds at Enron, oops, I mean Minute Maid Park in Houston and the White Sox vs. the Tigers at U.S. Cellular Field in Chicago.

S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y Night!

I was reminded reading this CNN piece on the dearth of TV programming on Saturday nights that it wasn’t always that way.

...during the early 1970s, CBS on Saturday night had the single best night of prime-time TV ever: "All in the Family," "M*A*S*H," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "The Bob Newhart Show" and "The Carol Burnett Show."

Wow! I remember watching those shows on Saturday nights when I was a kid.
Of course, today I don’t watch much television on any night of the week unless it’s a recorded version of Barney the Dinosaur.
I’m not particularly devoted to any TV shows these days with the exception of “Lost” and “ER.” I have been trying to watch the new show “Invasion” although I don’t know how long that will last. I’ve also caught a few episodes of the new “Night Stalker,” but I’m predicting it will be canceled after one season.

It’s kind of a shame that the networks aren’t even trying to do programming on Saturdays anymore, but I suppose it was inevitable with the advent of cable, DVDs and DVRs.
I think it would be interesting, though, to find out how many people stay home on Saturday nights to watch their DVD collections of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “M*A*S*H” and “All in the Family.”

Hurricane Fitzgerald to hit D.C. next week

It could be raining indictments next week in Washington.
Rumors are rampant with some sources saying as many as 22 potential indictments could be handed down encompassing everyone from Vice President Dick Cheney all the way down.

Another widely circulated rumor states that if Cheney is forced to step down he would be replaced by Condi Rice.

Of course, no one knows what is going to happen at this point, a testament to the professional manner in which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has run a relatively leak-free shop.
But the NY Times reports today that

Fitzgerald “has no plans to issue a final report about the results of the investigation, heightening the expectation that he intends to bring indictments, lawyers in the case and law enforcement officials said yesterday....
By signaling that he had no plans to issue the grand jury's findings in such detail, Mr. Fitzgerald appeared to narrow his options either to indictments or closing his investigation with no public disclosure of his findings, a choice that would set off a political firestorm.”

I think there is zero chance that he would just shut down his investigation at this point, so the odds are that the political firestorm is about to begin.

One strike away...

Oh, agony! I can’t believe the Astros lost last night. They were one strike away from celebrating their first trip to the World Series ever and then everything just fell apart. That was one of the most painful, last-minute setbacks I have ever seen.
They still have two more chances to secure another victory and win a trip to the big game, but having that victory last night snatched away at the last possible moment may have shaken their confidence. I hope not.
The Astros and the Rangers are the two oldest teams in Major League Baseball to have never been to the World Series. It’s just not fair, I tell you!! If they don’t win tomorrow I’m going to stamp my feet and whine some more!

Comics contest

The Express-News is letting its readers pick the comic strip that will replace Calvin and Hobbes when its limited run ends at the end of December. The good news is that two of the five comics in the running look to be really good - Candorville and Retail (which oddly seems to have no web presense whatsoever). The bad news is that two other choices seem to be really lame - Brevity and Bliss - and one is just awful - Prickly City.

The fact that they might bring back the wretched Prickly City is motivation enough for me to participate in their little survey.

Missing deadlines

I didn’t get the big Valerie Plame/Judith Miller story in my Sunday New York Times this weekend and this appears to be the reason.
Miller was so uncooperative working with her own newspaper that they busted their deadline and couldn’t get the story into the edition that went out to national subscribers like myself. And to top things off, they didn’t deliver my Monday paper so I can’t even see if they ran it the next day or not. So I had to settle for printing up a web version of the story which is highly annoying.

Traditional values: $$$$

This story in the Washington Post really shows how rotten the core of the conservative movement has become since it gained power.

The Post tells the story of how a bill to ban Internet gambling went down to defeat back in the summer of 2000 after looking like it was on its way to being passed overwhelmingly. The bill was scuttled at the last minute, according to the story, by a senior aide to Tom DeLay at the behest of conservative super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. I guess that DeLay managed to keep his hands clean on this one since the Post is forced to lay the whole thing at the feet of his senior aide Tony Rudy, as if it was a freelance operation and DeLay wasn't fully versed with what was going on.

Abramoff helped scuttle the bill on behalf of his client eLottery Inc. which would have been out of business if the bill had become law. What is most amazing is that Abramoff was able to pull this off with the help of a number of the key players in the religious right establishment which is popularly believed to be opposed to gambling.

The work Abramoff did for eLottery is one focus of a wide-ranging federal corruption investigation into his dealings with members of Congress and government agencies. Abramoff is under indictment in another case in connection with an allegedly fraudulent Florida business deal...

Abramoff quietly arranged for eLottery to pay conservative, anti-gambling activists to help in the firm's $2 million pro-gambling campaign, including Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition. Both kept in close contact with Abramoff about the arrangement, e-mails show. Abramoff also turned to prominent anti-tax conservative Grover Norquist, arranging to route some of eLottery's money for Reed through Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform.

So the former head of the Christian Coalition and the leader of the Traditional Values Coalition were both on board this effort to prop up Internet gambling which is little more than outright robbery. That just shows that their real committment isn't to "values" so much as it is to the all-mighty dollar.

Will there be anyone left to turn out the lights?

What with former GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay doubly indicted and now GOP Senate Leader Bill Frist issued a subpoena as part of a growing SEC investigation into his all-too-convenient stock dealings, who is going to be left to lead the Republican’s in Congress?
And then, of course, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame scandal appears to be widening and is expected to soon lead to indictments of a number of Bush administration officials including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. This could lead to more infighting inside the administration and further deteriorate Bush’s anemic poll numbers which of course is all good news for Democrats in 2006.

No excuse for this

I used to think it was just a celebratory thing. After every strikeout the catcher would whip the ball down to first base and then it would go around the horn before being tossed back to the mound.
But last night the backup catcher for the Angels took the third called strike and just rolled it back to the mound in what proved to be a costly mistake that led to a White Sox victory in the ninth inning.
The catcher should have known better. Always throw to first after every strikeout, no matter.
I bet he doesn’t make that mistake again.

Bob Dylan: Song stylist

My good friend Jose Johnson has recently launched his own blog and commented the other day on the Martin Scorsese-directed documentary about Bob Dylan’s early days.

Joe notes that watching the film has made him rethink his opinion of Dylan who he admits he used to not like because of his “nasal, toneless voice that just absolutely grated on me.”

Now, Joe says he has a greater respect for Dylan as a songwriter and as “one of the few artists of that time who truly captured the zeitgeist of the era.”

But Joe concludes that he would still always prefer hearing Dylan’s music sung by someone else.

I have to disagree. While Dylan may not have the sweetest singing voice, it is still tremendously expressive and most of his songs are far from being what one would call sweet. Having a rough or gravely voice is certainly not an impediment to a singer, just look at Louis Armstrong.
Dylan was more than just a talented songwriter. He was a song stylist. Many of his songs were perfectly suited for his rough voice with their often-times bitter, angry and sarcastic themes.

While there are plenty of performers who did well singing Dylan’s songs - Peter, Paul & Mary, The Byrds, Johnny Cash - there are many more songs that wouldn’t be the same if they were sung by anyone else.

Chomsky Bashing

Expressing admiration or respect for Noam Chomsky these days can get a person into a lot of trouble. Chomsky is a popular target for ridicule and denigration from folks on both the right and the left.

While I don’t consider myself a Chomskyite or any such thing, I do acknowledge that he has influenced my political thought over time and I continue to hold him in high regard as an intellectual heavyweight of the Left. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or endorse all of his positions. Nor do I wish to defend all of his past controversial statements or make apologies for his mistakes. But I do like to read his thoughts on current issues. To that end, I find it interesting that he now keeps a blog which is updated fairly regularly and even allows for comments.

As an illustration of the unifying effect that Chomsky-bashing can have, I was amused to read the following exchange the other day by two frequent commenters at All Things Conservative in which they suddenly found themselves in agreement after going at one another for several rounds.

“I'm no fan of that putz Noam Chomsky,” declared commenter Libertas. “I am a socially conservative Libertarian. This is the direct opposite end of every spectrum from Chomsky's Atheistic Socialist totalitarianism.”

“It's a relief to know you are no Chomskyite,” chimed in commenter X “That was perplexing me. Someone so evenhanded, reasonable and generous in debate could not possibly be a Noam fan.”

It was almost touching the way these two fierce debating opponents were suddenly able to find common ground in their mutual disdain for Professor Chomsky. Maybe that has been Chomsky’s secret plan all along, to bring people with divergent views together by giving them a common enemy to despise. But, then again, maybe not.

Baseball playoffs

The Red Sox and the Padres are gone. The Yankees are on the ropes and now so are the Braves.
It's been a pretty good playoff series so far. Here is what it looks like for those who haven't been paying attention:

ALDS: Chicago White Sox defeat Boston Red Sox 3-0
ALDS: L.A. Angels lead N.Y. Yankees 2-1
NLDS: St. Louis Cardinals defeat San Diego Padres 3-0
NLDS: Houston Astros lead Atlanta Braves 2-1

I'd like to see the Yankees come back and I hope the Astros can finish off Atlanta in Game 4. If the Yankees don't make it, I will be rooting for the White Sox to go all the way and win the World Series, unless they end up playing the Astros. As long as the Astros are still in it they will be my favorites, but if they get knocked out I will revert back to either the Yankees or White Sox.

By the way, does anyone know why the Angels are now called the Los Angeles Angels if they are still playing in Anaheim?

Losing their grip

Republicans are starting to lose their grip in Washington.
They are having an increasingly difficult time getting their awful legislation through Congress.

Today we had another GOP arm-twisting marathon vote that resulted in a bill that would shovel more government largess to the oil industry at a time when they are already making out like bandits across the country.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - It took more than 40 raucous minutes of pleading and cajoling, bargaining and begging on Friday. But House Republican leaders managed to squeeze through an oil refinery bill in a tumultuous floor vote that severely tested a leadership team rocked by the indictment of Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas.

After teetering on the verge of an embarrassing defeat, desperate party leaders managed to persuade enough of their members to switch positions to win narrow 212-to-210 approval of a measure that its backers said would expedite refinery construction and crack down on price gouging.

"House Republicans have taken the lead in providing America with price stability and a bold plan for this nation's energy future," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who along with Mr. DeLay and other senior lawmakers buttonholed and browbeat resistant Republicans as the clock ticked on the vote.

Democrats attacked the substance of the bill and the process that the Republicans employed to force it through. The Democrats accused the majority of abusing House rules by stretching what should have been a five-minute vote to deliver a bill that Democrats said would benefit profitable oil companies but do little for American drivers.

"It took that long for the indicted leader of the House of Representatives to twist the arms necessary to get a vote against the American people, against the consumer, against the taxpayer and against the environment - in favor of the energy companies," said the minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California.

The good news is that the bill will probably die in the Senate thanks to a Democratic filibuster.

It could have been worse

The best that can be said of President Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is that it could have been much worse.
There is a big, long line of knuckledragging neanderthal judges anxiously waiting for the chance to roll-back all the advances of the 20th Century and take us back into the dark ages.
I don’t think Miers is capable of doing that even if she did share their views simply because she has no experience in the realm of constitutional law.
She might turnout to be the fifth vote that overturns Roe vs. Wade and sends thousands of poor women to the back alleys to end unwanted pregnancies. But she also might not be. And just the fact that there is that slight chance is about the best that we could hope for after Bush won the 2004 election.

I find the right-wing handwringing over Miers to be delightfully entertaining. But there is one line of criticism of Miers that reflects the nation’s elite east-coast, west-coast bias that I find highly offensive. I wonder if there would be as many people saying Miers is unqualified for the court if she had been an attorney with a major law firm in New York or L.A. and had attended an elite Ivy League school rather than Southern Methodist University?

Harriet Miers: stealth liberal?

More evidence that Harriet Miers is far from the ideal conservative that many on the far right were hoping for:

From a June 27, 1992 Texas Lawyer piece written while she was president of the State Bar of Texas:

How does a free society prevent a man from climbing to the top of a tower on a university campus and randomly killing whoever is in sight? How does a free society prevent a man from driving a truck into a cafeteria and executing patrons? How does a free society prevent a man from entering a courtroom and opening fire? We are loath to hear the answer to these questions as it comes from our lips, because the suggested solutions usually infringe on precious, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

...

The hearings also underscored that the lack of resources in some areas of the state not only has a dramatic impact on the courts' performance of all of their obligations, but also unduly burdens the ability of lawyers to maintain a private practice. Lawyers must, in the interest of the administration of justice, be aggressive advocates for increasing the resources available for the representation of indigent defendants.

Additionally, we are reminded that success in fighting crime in our nation is more than treating symptoms. We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes. All of us, men and women, young and old, must pledge ourselves to address the ills that surround us in our communities.

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.

It sounds to me like she could fit in quite well with the moderate/liberal wing of the court.

The stealth crony

President Bush’s selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court has infuriated movement conservatives and given some small hope to the rest of the nation that maybe we will get someone who will be more pragmatic than ideological.

The New York Times editorial board is somewhat hopeful in this aspect:

Ms. Miers's record is so thin that no one seems to have any idea of what she believes, and she was clearly chosen because of her close ties to the president, not her legal qualifications. Still, there is no evidence as yet that she is an ideological warrior who would attempt to return American jurisprudence to the 18th century...

Ms. Miers's résumé gives at least some reason to hope that she could be a moderate, pragmatic judge in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose seat she will fill if she is confirmed. She has spent much of her career in corporate law firms and bar associations, environments that encourage pragmatism over ideology.

But far-right conservatives are either angry or disappointed with the selection. Here is a handy rundown of right-wing reaction via Kevin Drum at Political Animal.

• Steve Dillard: I am done with President Bush.

• John Podhoretz: I think this was a pick made out of droit de seigneur — an "I am the president and this is what I want" arrogance.

• Peter Robinson: What people see in this is the Bush of the first debate, the Bad Bush, the peevish rich boy who expects to get his way because it's his way.

• Andrew Sullivan: Boy, does this pick remind us of who GWB is: about as arrogant a person as anyone who has ever held his office. Now the base knows how the rest of us have felt for close to five years.

• Stephen Bainbridge: I got a lot of criticism for saying that George Bush was pissing away the conservative moment via his Iraq policies....With this appointment, I'd echo Andrew's sentiment with something a tad more off color: Bush is now peeing on the movement.

• Rod Dreher: As for me, I am really, really disappointed in the president.

• Bill Kristol: It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy.

• Pat Buchanan: What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her....In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had — and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

• David Frum: The record shows I fear that the president's judgment has always been at its worst on personnel matters.

• Michelle Malkin: Message to the White House: Don't get stuck on stupid.

• Jonah Goldberg: Bush's instincts about where his principles should be are often right. But in this case the principle seems to be that Bush's instincts are principle enough.

And these are the reactions coming from Bush’s base!

I have to agree with Atrios about the source of right-wing angst being directed at Bush and Mier:

Wingnuttia is rather angry at the choice. I don't think this is because they're really concerned that she's not conservative enough for their tastes, although that's part of it. They're angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This was their moment. They didn't just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks. They wanted Bush to find the wingnuttiest wingnut on the planet, fully clothed and accessorized in all the latest wingnut fashions, not just to give them their desired Court rulings, but also to publicly validate their influence and power. They didn't just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their "WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT" moment.

But there are some on the right who are willing to fall in line and support Bush’s pick such as my friend Bill Crawford.

Bill has decided that he can support Mier because she has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for the last 25 years. One of the church elders describes it as a "conservative evangelical church” and from that Bill deduces that Mier must be in lockstep with the entire social conservative agenda.
That may be so, but does membership in this church prove that? If you look at what the church says it believes on its web site you find this interesting clarification:

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own. On these issues we take no official/dogmatic position.

Then they go on to list official church positions which are pretty much consistent with what any mainstream church believes.

Still, Bill clings to the hope that Mier is secretly a dogmatic right-wing ideologue on abortion because she tried to get the American Bar Association to change its position on abortion back when she was serving as president of the Texas chapter. Of course it was a pretty feeble effort. She wasn’t even trying to get the ABA to come out against abortion, she just wanted them to take a neutral position and she failed to do even that. But then she pragmatically continued to be a supportive member of ABA afterward.

Kevin Drum also points out several things about Miers that will likely rub movement conservatives the wrong way including her chairing a committee that wrote a report recommending support for the rights of gay couples to adopt children and the establishment of an International Criminal Court.

Then there is the fact that Miers was a Democrat throughout the Reagan years and even contributed money to Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.
The biggest thing going for her among conservatives is that she latched on to George W. Bush when he ran for governor of Texas in 1990 and had held a tight grip ever since.

The truth is that no one really knows what Miers would do on the Supreme Court. But I can say that her selection does not surprise me. In fact, it is the kind of nomination I have come to expect from Bush and is highly reminiscent of his appointment of Michael Brown to be the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.