Considering Miers

Cronyism. There's that word again following Bush like a shadow on a sunny day. Is he guilty of it? Probably. With so many positions to fill when a new President takes office, I would venture to guess that it would take the full 4 years just to fill them all should they use the goverments' typical service hiring methods.

.

I would also venture that EVERY President sometimes looks to those who suround them for possible advancement. I try to advance myself in my current "company." And, I hope that my boss is looking at me as a candidate to fill roles of a greater responsibility in our company. So why would we expect the government to be that different? Probably because there is the "impression" that positions are granted to the least qualified as payoff for political support. This was surely the case with our removed FEMA head. Definitely unqualified. But how about Harriet Miers?

.

Most feminist's would love the fact that she had broken many a glass ceiling in the legal world. Even headed the Texas Bar Association. Worked hard in positions in the private workplace, city government, State Government, and the Federal Government. She is not an Ivy League lineup candidate. Another mold broken. So why are the feminist's not fawning over Harriet? Could it be merely who she has supported? I think so. As many personal ties as the media can draw up that may exist between the President and Ms. Miers, they shall.

.

The liberal communist Teddy Kennedy who could not bring himself to vote for probably the smartest and wisest choice for the recently appointed position, John Roberts, is again batting lefty and swinging wildly for the release of privileged materials protected under lawyer-client confidentiality. He has said that the lawyer-client privileged materials should be produced in the case of a public servant. Funny though, we have yet to see released these same communications and documents between Teddy and his lawyers the day after he drove Mary-Jo Kopechne off that little bridge at Chappaquiddick. I guess like the bridge, it's a one-way street.

.

Has she demonstrated immense abilities in the arena of law? Yes. Has she remained out of the tabloidesque Globe and Times for inapproapriate behaviour? Yes. Does she possess the intelligence needed to not only comprehend the massively complex galaxy of constitutional law? Yes. Then this is not idilic cronyism so let's move forward with jurisprudence and expect a vote.