Harriet Miers gave money to Al Gore!
The first big "issue" of the Harriet Miers nomination seems to be her $1,000 donation to Al Gore's '88 campaign. Does this mean she's not an ideologue? Not a Bush crony? What does it mean?
I'll tell you what it means: very little.
Sure, you could argue that every successive donation was made to Republicans, culminating in Miers' notorious loyalty to Bush. Or you could (as Raw Story's John Byrne does) note that that donation came at a time when future Texas governor Rick Perry, was Gore's Texas campaign chairman. But this is all besides the point.
Let's not lose sight here. Will she be a good Justice? That's the question. How will this question be brought to a satisfying conclusion for the Senate? What are her views on the issues most important to Americans: the death penalty, women's health, the Geneva Convention/Torture?
As with Roberts, can anyone honestly look at the past 5 years and believe that Bush would nominate someone who isn't prepared to do his bidding? And if that person is an unknown -- a stealth candidate -- doesn't it signal that that unknown is not likely to be acceptable to the Democrats' base?
Do I sound like Rumsfeld?
But the David's (Corn and Sirota) seem to have the right idea. Again. The issue most likely to bring public opinion around, to counter what is likely to become a crappy debate of mealy-mouthed statements in the media, is the fact that she is undeniably a crony appointee. Mike Brown could be "retired"; Harriet Miers is forever -- or a lifetime, anyway...