Probably because they're so enjoying the apparent tizzy into which she's thrown the conservatives (I know I am). But MG reminds us, in the words of Gershwin, that It Ain't Necessarily So...
The latest "evidence" is that, as a member of the advisory board for the SMU law school, she advocated funding a program for women speakers. There's no indication that she had a hand in the selection of actual speakers, or just how active she was in the effort.
... reading anything into this as being reflective of her actual views is simply wishful thinking.
--As it is wishful thinking to believe she supports gay rights (while opposing repeal of Texas sodomy laws?)--
--As it is wishful thinking to believe she's pro-choice (while running for office as a born-again "pro-life" conservative?)--
By lending too much credence and significance to these rather oblique reports on Miers, the SCLBs are coming off as stretching the truth to try to fit over their hopes. I can see pointing at these tidbits of information as helping to paint a fuller picture, and perhaps even offer cause for hope (against hope). But why the veritable campaign to color her liberal? I just don't get it. And I ain't buying it.
The tripping ground for a lot of people is the fear that if we "make" Bush choose another, this time s/he won't be nearly so "liberal." But even if there is hope that she is not a Bushlike nut, I oppose her confirmation on the simple grounds of qualification.
She shouldn't be, because she isn't. That seems to me concrete, and I have to go with that over a lot of "what-ifs."
No comments:
Post a Comment