Mierd [sic] in the morass

Who on earth is Harriet Miers, and why did Smirky nominate her? I'm afraid we may never know, if early indications of blockage from the right-wing are to be believed. Many bloggers, politicians, and even some respectable people on the far side are questioning Miers' competence or suitability for a seat on the Bench. The fact that she thinks Smirky is the most brilliant man she's ever met should be enough to disqualify her from holding any position requiring intelligence, but that's not why the right wing is upset, of course. They're bummed because she isn't conservative enough--as if anyone who could stomach being house counsel for anyone associated with this Administration could be anything but a rock-ribbed loon! I suppose the problem for the right wing is that Smirky hasn't lived up to all their dreams, but in that they are quite mistaken. He has done more than even the Grand Wizard (Reagan) himself to push the Norquist-Atwater-Rove vision of destroying the federal government to its conclusion. The problem for the right wing isn't that Smirky isn't catering to them anymore, it's that there's nothing more for him to do. He's simply not smart enough not to try and put all his friends in positions of power, and it was Miers' time for a payoff. With all his other top aides and cronies on the verge of being indicted or convicted, he merely wants someone he can trust (and that's not a big circle of people) where she can do the most good for the gang. That those Republicans who aren't so welcome in his inner sanctum (read: actual run-of-the-mill conservatives who want simply a smaller, not an utterly destroyed, federal government) are displeased is kinda funny; what did they expect from this clown? Smirky has done nothing but pay off his nearest and dearest, either with jobs or through federally legislated (or directly paid) windfall profiteering for his entire term of office.
Of course, we don't have a freaking clue who Miers is or what she stands for, and it's extremely unlikely we are going to find out anytime before she's presented for confirmation, given how feeble the attempts to uncover Roberts' actual thoughts were. Is she as bat-shit crazy as Scalia or Thomas? Is she a moderate in disguise like Kennedy? Who can tell? She's never been a judge or held any position of power (unless you count being head of the Texas lottery, which I don't), and her record as an attorney is acres slimmer than Roberts' was. Is cronyism in and of itself a non-confirmation vote rationale for the Democrats? I dunno. It sure didn't stop any of Smirky's cabinet appointments from sailing through unimpeded, even if they were comprised of psychotics like Ashcroft or incompetents like Brown. Is her lack of conservative ideals (as if anyone not "in the know" can figure that out!) enough to have right wing Republicans vote her down? Heck if I know, although it would be nice to see them devouring "one of their own" (we on the left see the resemblance, even if they don't) for a change.