Something about Harriet
(Crossposted to
Lifelike)
John Fund's
column in the Wall Street Journal today makes me think that Harriet Miers' nomination is doomed. It's one thing when bloggers and pundits come out against her; it's quite another when one as influential and well-known as Fund
changes his mind.
I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal's Political Diary that "while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself."
But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.Fund was on the Hugh Hewitt program today to discuss the column. As you can imagine, the conversation was lively and interesting. I definitely felt Hugh had the better of the argument, but Fund made terrific points as well. The part that scared me is that as he closed, Fund mentioned that there are several stories brewing about Miers' past, including a story on contracting at the Texas Lottery Commission (where Miers apparently served). Fund felt that none of the stories would fatal to a strong candidate, but of course nobody thinks Miers is that (speaking politically here, not about her qualifications).
Fund does bring up some stinkers from Myers' past:
The scantiness of her philosophical record has led reporters to focus on the two years of her career where she had to take stands: her one term as a member of the Dallas City Council during 1990 and 1991. There she established a record as an advocate of good government, increased funding for the arts, and building a light-rail system. Her one moment of high drama came when she quieted an angry crowd alleging police brutality. She apologized to the protesters on behalf of the city and called the behavior of the officers "unprovoked and inexcusable."Against that we have largely the word of the President and Dr. James Dobson. As I've said before, I'm a team player, and we've got to win. I am getting concerned that we are headed for a loss on Miers, possibly self-inflicted. The starting numbers are 55-45, and I suspect that there will be more than five defections from the Republican side, and it's hard to believe that Democrats will break ranks (and Jumpin' Jim will stay with them). Dobson's endorsement hurts us
enormously with that side, and some on our own (Darlin' Arlen, for example). And forget about Harry Reid; if he sees a chance to help the Democrats and hurt the president, he'll take it.
I'm agnostic on the merits of the nomination; these things come up fairly irregularly, and
I agree with Steyn:
Conservative commentators have been withering about the inner-circle cronyism of the Miers pick. Where do I stand? To be honest, I haven't a clue. A vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court, and for a month or so every columnist is expected to be an expert on the jurisprudence of a couple of dozen legal types he'd never previously heard of.It's not worth my time to get up to snuff on this. But I feel like I am up to snuff on the politics of confirmation. This nomination is in big trouble. We're close to the point where Harriet Miers may have to be the team player.
