Boy, the Miers hysteria is something to see! Drudge is trotting out 15+ year old information on Miers as if it was relevant today:

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a copy of sworn testimony given by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1990 in which she said that she “wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society” – a conservative and libertarian lawyers’ organization – because it was “politically charged.”
…
But Bush’s Supreme Court nominee did not include in that category the NAACP and other liberal groups, the transcript reveals!

1990! You know what. I would guess that back then in the old media days before the internet (I have my first web browser Mosaic, the first one out, in 1991) that would have been a reasonable and widely held view. The NAACP began to lose its way during those times – and being a conservative was considered to be quite out there back then.

I mean really folks – is this what we have to back up the mind reading abiltities of the Anti-Miers crowd? 15 year old statements??

Miers testified in a voting rights lawsuit claiming the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members.

Maybe it did. To point out an elected delegation is not representative of the population does not mean defacto liberalism. I come from the only state in the union which elected a African American Governor. The Governors of this country obviously do not and have not represented the make of this great country. Another case of hyperventilating and code words.

Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.”

Her answer: “No, I don’t.”

In 1987, the NAACP launched a campaign to defeat the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court; In 1989, the group organized the Silent March; over 100,000 protested U.S. Supreme Court decisions the group claimed “reversed many of the gains made against discrimination.”

So? 1987 and 1989? Bork! Are we simply holding grudges so we can get vengeance? Count me out of this game. I want to fix the problems facing the country, I am not into a replay of the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Everybody knows she was a democrat until sometime in the 1990’s when she switched. This is news??

Is this the kind of media smear campaign we conservatives want to hold up to exemplify why we are more serious about issues than the liberals? When did we decide to use the KOS and Michael Moore playbooks against our own?

This is the garbage being touted by right wing zealots to damage Bush???

Thank the Lord I am still a conservative independent! I can honestly say I had nothing to do with this mud slinging whatsoever.

And is NRO close to following? I would say yes. NRO claims these statements to be true:

• “a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy”;

• “a person of unquestioned personal and political independence”;

• “someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues”; nor

• “a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.”

Their minding reading powers have obviously evolved beyond those of the normal Vulcans! Wait for the hearings before you go all premature on Bush.