The reason John Roberts went through so easily is because we put Roberts on trial, not George Bush. What we need to do for the Miers nomination is to put George Bush on trial, not Harriet Miers. This is what we did with the Gonzales and Bolton nominations; we were much more successful in generating opposition to them through highlighting Bush's incompetence than we did by putting Roberts on trial.
This is all about trust. Why should we trust George Bush when he says that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person to take O'Conner's spot? When Bush has had such a long record of telling lies, why should we trust him when he says that Mires is so qualified? I have a business deal in Nigeria, where you can hold some money from the corrupt former government that was overthrown that we are holding for safety. Or, if you're not interested in that, I have a bridge to sell.
Here is a pretty representative selection of Bush's lies and broken promises throughout his administration:
--The active conspiracy with Blair and others to doctor facts to support the case for war with Iraq;
--The forged evidence linking Niger to Iraq;
--The lies about progress in Iraq, including the "last throes" comment;
--His broken promise to fully fund No Child Left Behind;
--His broken promise to restore bipartisanship to Washington, which is now the most polarized its ever been;
--His claim that he does not condone the use of torture when he does;
--His repeated hiding of evidence from Congress, suggesting he has something to hide;
--His claim that he is a born-again Christian when he routinely flouts the commands of Christ;
--His vicious attack on Valerie Plame because her husband told the truth about Iraq;
--His administration's repeated firings of civil service employees who tell the truth about Bush's policies;
--His forging of evidence, in conjunction with Colin Powell, that Iraq had alumunum tubes capable of delivering nuclear weapons to this country;
--His claim that Iraq possessed massive quantities of biological and chemical weapons that could be used on our troops;
--His promise to the Democrats not to go to war with Iraq during the leadup except as a last resort;
--His broken promise that he would restore civility to Washington by sending thugs to Florida to disrupt the recount;
--His hiring of partisan secretaries of state to be his state campaign chairs in important states like Florida (Kathrine Harris) and Ohio (Ken Blackwell);
--His promise to restore civility to Washington broken by his Swift Boat smear against John Kerry.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but you get the picture. Now, Bush says that Harriet Miers is the most-qualified person to be the next SCOTUS justice. Given this long record of lies and broken promises, why should we trust Bush when he says that she is so qualified? And why should we trust Emperor Dobson when he says, in his exact words, "You'll just have to trust me on this one."
I take no position on Miers as of now. Yes, she is a born-again Christian who expresses revulsion at abortion. We find this troubling. But O'Conner came from a similar background.
It could be argued that Bush will just pick one extremist after another, and it will not do us any good. Some people will accuse us of opposing any nominee Bush throws up just because he is Bush. But that is not true.
All we want is for Bush to release records of Miers' writings and for her to give straight, honest answers to questions on human rights issues. The burden of proof is on her to prove that she is qualified for office, not the other way around, given the fact that Bush has forfeited our trust. If Bush and Miers refuse to cooperate with Senators who honestly want to know her views on important legal issues, then we should filibuster her and make Bush appoint someone who either has a proven track record or who he had nothing to hide with them.