I stated in a diary before the nomination of Miers that the Senate should ask the next nominee whether the nominee had ever discussed with the President, or his advisors, the nominee's judicial philosophy on abortion rights, privacy rights and other key issues. Another approach is that after a nominee gives a non-responsive answer, the Senator asks "Have you ever said anything more on the issue to the President or his advisors."
With Miers, this kind of questioning will be particularly troublesome. But we don't have to wait for the Senate questioning. The question about their conversations on abortion has already been put to Bush.
Now, the idea that Bush and Miers have never discussed abortion in all the time he's known her -- which has included the recent years when she was helping him select his appointees for federal judiciary -- is flat out absurd.
But, in further evidence that Bush can't even do the simple things right anymore -- when Bush got the question he became flustered and stammered through a lying response.
More below:
In his October 4, Press conference, Bush said this about his discussions on abortion with Miers.
BUSH: I have no litmus test. It's also something I've consistently said: There is no litmus test. What matters to me is her judicial philosophy; what does she believe the role -- the proper role of the judiciary is, relative to the legislative and the executive branch. And she'll be asked all kinds of questions up there, but the most important thing for me is what kind of judge will she be? And so there's no litmus test.
O'DONNELL: Sir, you've already said there was no litmus test --
BUSH: Correct. And I'll say it again: There is no litmus test.
O'DONNELL: But she is not someone you interviewed for the job that you didn't know. You've known her a long time. Have you never discussed abortion with her?
BUSH: In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion.
O'DONNELL: In your friendship with her, you've never discussed abortion?
BUSH: Not to my, not... not to my recollection... have I ever sat down with her -- what I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be.
You can hardly have two more direct questions and two more evasive answers.
Direct Question: "Have you never discussed abortion with her?"
Pathetic Evasive Answer 1: "In my interviews with any judge, I never ask their personal opinion on the subject of abortion." [Meaning: `Harriet and I have talked about it many times, but we did not talk about it during my interview with her".]
Direct Question: "In your friendship with her, you've never discussed abortion?"
[Obviously worded to cut out the wiggle room of the first response.]
Pathetic Evasive Answer 2 [Stuttering] "Not to my . ..not, not to my recollection... have I ever sat down with her - [unable to bring himself to finish the sentence, he jumps to his talking points] "What I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be." [Meaning: "Harriet and I have talked about abortion many times, but we never had a formal `sit down' conversation about it."]
Watch the tape on this over at
Media Matters.
It's going to interesting to watch when Harriet Miers gets this question at the Senate Hearings and has the chance to lie or contradict the President.