AddieStan

And so, as the New York Times predicted last night, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to the vice president of the United States, has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. As they've been doing for the last week, Republican wags can be expected to characterize those charges as no big deal .

Now that the right has been served its pound of flesh, its leaders seem to have only the nicest things to say about Harriet Miers. And they're oh, so willing to be helpful to the president as he sets about choosing (with Ms. Miers' help?) his next nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court. Here's today's missive from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council : Rebound, Retrench and Rally Harriet Miers graceful withdrawal of her candidacy for the Supreme Court speaks well of her loyalty and her wisdom--no mean traits. She has generously given the President a second golden opportunity to restore the historic and vital role of the Supreme Court. The President campaigned on the promise to appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He won the 2000 and 2004 elections on the strength of that promise. He and his party's candidates won back control of the U.S. Senate in 2002 by appealing for an end to liberal obstructionism on the confirmation...

And so it has come to pass that, as your blogstress predicted last Saturday , the White House has put the kaibosh on Harriet Meirs's nomination to the Supreme Court. Perhaps this fine piece filed yesterday by the New York Times 's David Kirkpatrick was the last straw. His opening and closing paragraphs say it all. Most telling is his interaction with the very conservative Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. LEAD: The drumbeat of doubt from Republican senators over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers grew louder Tuesday as several lawmakers, including a pivotal conservative on the Judiciary Committee, joined those expressing concerns about her selection. CLOSE: Asked if the debate had become "one-sided," with too few defending Ms. Miers, Senator Sessions, the Alabama Republican, struggled for words, then pushed a button for a nearby elevator in the Capitol building and told an aide, "Get me out of here."

From the Fabulous Frankie G. (your blogstress's partner in musical crimes), comes this biting question: With legal tribulations looming for the administration, just how long will we have to wait before a "code orange" terrorist threat? Tomorrow? Today? Counting... 1 2 3 4 ... Now, the Fab F may be a bit mad (as good musicians are), but that doesn't mean he isn't right. Check out Keith Olbermann's chronology of the mysterious coincidences of bad news for the administration and elevated terror alerts.

Indictments to come down tomorrow, says Steve Clemons of The Washington Note . It would be a sight for sore eyes, that of Vice President Dick Cheney in an orange jumpsuit. Yes, your blogstress knows she is speculating wildly (as she does all things), tantalized as she is by today's New York Times front-pager (by David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson And Douglas Jehl) that tells of how Scooter Libby learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the Agency: he learned it from his boss, the vice president of the United States. Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby's testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said. The notes, taken by Mr. Libby during the conversation, for the first time place Mr. Cheney in the middle of an effort by the White House to learn about Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. ...

If you've found your blogstress to be negligent on the subject of the New York Times ' infamous reporter, Judith Miller, your blogstress herein offers her mea culpa , accompanied by a fascinating take on the unholy mess by William Powers of the National Journal . In this week's column (you really should be reading him weekly, dear reader), Powers draws a strong analogy between how the Roman Catholic Church has addressed its pedophilic priests problem and how the Times is addressing its problem with journalists who lie (and the editors who let them): Think about it. A powerful institution of enormous prestige and global importance, one that has unusual sway over our collective life, turns out to have troublesome elements in its ranks, some of them downright corrupt. The story has been dribbling out for years in small isolated cases, but it blows open when a member of the priesthood is revealed to be a serial abuser of the truth. Click here to read the complete piece Power...

Here in Our Nation's Capital, people who believe themselves to be in the know have already declared dead in the water the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers. Today's revelations of her support for affirmative action have surely done her in on the right, while the do-over demanded by senators on the Judiciary Committee of the committee's questionnaire has pretty much finished her off for everybody else. (Her answers were described as "insulting" and "incomplete".) At your blogstress's Oppo Factory, a mere saunter from the Great Temple of the High Court, visitors wonder aloud at the truly bizarre trajectory of this nomination. Your cybertrix, you'll recall, was the first to pronounce Ms. Miers too much of a hack to merit a nomination. (Three days later, The New Republic designated Miers as the Number One Hack in what it called the Bush Administration Hackocracy .) The far right had their own issues with Miers, of course: she is a woma...

This past weekend, your blogstress had the great good fortune to be interviewed by Mary Glenney of The Women's Show at WMNF, an excellent public radio station in Tampa, Florida, on the subject of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Glenney proved to be one of the most informed interviewers your cybertrix has run across, and managed even to stump your oh-so-astute Webwench once or twice. To hear the sound of two broads dishing on one who might have once been of our kind, click here and go to the item labeled "October 8, 2005." The segment featuring your écrivaine begins at around 13:05, though if you check in around 09:55, you'll be treated to Lizz Wright 's delicious cover of Neil Young's "Old Man".

A delicious item has met your blogstress's eye, courtesy of the Family Research Council (FRC) e-mail list. Apparently FRC President Tony Perkins has the same reading habits as your cybertrix. (You'll remember FRC as the folks who brought us Justice Sunday .) Today we find him citing Lou Chibarro's piece in the Washington Blade --the one excerpted here yesterday in which Lou scooped the mainstream media on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' interaction with a gay and lesbian group during her run for Dallas City Council. Perkins is most concerned, it seems, about the fact that, per the Blade 's report, Louise Young of the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, said of Miers, "She was not hostile [to gay and lesbian people]..." Herewith, the Perkins missive : Second (Day) Thoughts President Bush has earned a substantial measure of trust and confidence from pro-life, pro-family Americans. He has shown every indication that he understands the crucial ...

Kudos to you, Lou Chibarro, Jr. , cries your blogstress, for scooping the mainstream media with his report on Harriet Miers' views, discerned through her interaction with a Dallas gay group during her successful 1989 run for Dallas City Council. Chibarro is the veteran reporter at the Washington Blade . In his discussions with members of the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, Chibarro learned that (in 1989, at least), Miers was anti-choice and opposed a repeal of the Texas sodomy law that targeted homosexuals. He also learned, however, that she had appointed a prominent out, gay attorney to a city board, and otherwise supported nondiscrimination against gay and lesbian people. Here's Lou: White House Counsel Harriet Miers, President Bush’s latest nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, met with members of a gay rights group during her successful campaign for a seat on the Dallas City Council in 1989 and later appointed a prominent gay attorney to a city board t...

Finding herself perplexed over her failure to flog her latest piece , published yesterday by The American Prospect Online, your blogstress now gently calls her readers' attention to her scintillating argument as to why Democratic senators need to show a bit more moxie on the Miers nomination than they displayed at the Roberts hearings.

Your blogstress opened her e-mail this morning to discover a missive from her friends at the Family Research Council (FRC)--the folks who brought us Justice Sunday --with the subject line, "Wait and See." The object of all that waiting and seeing is, of course, Harriet Miers, President Bush's pick to fill the shoes of Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. It appears that, so far, on this one, the right is more jittery than the left, though your cybertrix would advise her progressive pals to be less reticent. It seems that Ms. Miers' nod to the right in her acceptance remarks--that bit about the majesty of the legislative branch--did little to appease the wing-nuts. Here's the text of today's missive from FRC President Tony Perkins: President Bush's announced this morning that White House counsel Harriet Miers is his nominee for the Supreme Court. President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mol...

Your blogstress does not recall having ever heard a more political acceptance speech for a Supreme Court nominee than we heard today from politician Harriet Miers. Her comment regarding her "appreciation for the role of the legislative branch" was hardly a subtle signal to the president's right flank that she's on the same page with the Justice Sunday crowd, who would like to get the Supreme Court out of the constitutional interpretation business once and for all. Here's the money question for Harriet Miers in her confirmation hearing: Do you believe that Marbury v. Madison--the landmark 19th-century case that determined the court's obligation to interpret the Constitution--was correctly decided?

As an occasional propagandist, your blogstress wincingly questions the president's choice of White House Counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. (Your Webwench, however, has not been named to the Supreme Court, despite her womanly wisdom. Alas, no bustier will lurk under the High Court's black robes--at least as far as we know--right, Nino?). With no judicial experience to recommend her, journos and pontificators have only Ms. Miers's political record to regard in assessing her qualifications for the high court, and it bodes not well so far--unless one is comfortable with a spin doctor on the Big Bench. Here's Miers in an online discussion on WhiteHouse.gov , almost a year ago, back when Miers was President Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff for Domestic Policy: James, from Mountain View, CA writes: Are we better off now than we were four years ago? Harriet Miers: Thanks, James, this is a very good question, and I am pleased to give you my views. What we did not kn...