Sandy Berger, the guy who thought he could get away with jamming classified documents in his pants, was busted. Again:

Two days after he was placed on probation last month for taking classified documents, former national security adviser Sandy Berger was accused of reckless driving in Virginia by police who said he was traveling 88 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone.

He was stopped on Sept. 10, and two days later he informed the probation office of the U.S. District Court that he had been speeding because he was late to a meeting and was unaware of how fast he was traveling.

Why even try to explain yourself, Sandy? Do you really think the judge who sentenced you for stealing government secrets is gonna buy your excuse for going 33 mph over the limit?

Gotta love the guys over at SportsPickle:

Hoping to give their bland, cookie cutter ballpark a bit of flare before the playoffs begin, the Houston Astros installed a 40-by-190-foot pond in the outfield of Minute Maid Park on Monday.

“Sure, our left field fence is only Little League distance from home plate. And sure, we have a pointless, manmade hill with a flagpole stuck in it in centerfield. And sure, we have a giant choo-choo train drives around the perimeter of the field, but the novelty of that stuff has worn off since we opened the stadium six years ago,” said Houston general manager Tim Purpura. “It was time to change things up a little bit again.”

Purpura said the team’s plan to install a giant Ferris wheel behind the pitcher’s mound was scrapped due to construction delays.

Heh.

The folks at the Chron are not known for their love of Representative Tom DeLay, so imagine their glee when he was indicted by Travis County DA Ronnie Earle. Well, perhaps glee is not the right word, as even the people at the Chronicle can see that there is something smelly about the whole business.

Case in point: Rick Casey. The Chron columnist has opined on the second indictment of Mr. DeLay, and he seems to be having difficulty containing his disappointment. Ronnie Earle bears the brunt of his wrath for failing to secure unassailable indictments, while DeLay receives the usual gritted teeth.

Casey first takes a shot at the second DeLay indictment:

The resulting impression is of a quickie indictment that recalls Earle’s earlier history.

Mr. Casey then goes on to put some of those “highlights” on display:

I’m not just talking about Earle’s mishandling of the case against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. I’m talking about the fact that he has been an even-handed mishandler. In fact, he’s mishandled more cases against Democrats than against Republicans, probably for the simple reason that Democrats were in power for most of Earle’s nearly 30 years in office.

Hutchison is the best-remembered of Earle’s failures, partly because it’s the most recent (1994)…

Then there was the reportedly dismal performance of his office in the 1985 bribery trial of then-Attorney General Jim Mattox. Mattox, a liberal Democrat, was acquitted by a jury and re-elected by the public.

But this being the Chronicle, Mr. DeLay just cannot catch a break. Casey finishes the above reference to Earle’s Hutchison failure by including a dig at the DeLay camp:

…and partly because DeLay supporters beat it like a drum.

Obviously Mr. Casey believes he is the only one qualified to detail Mr. Earle’s shortcomings. Then there is this cheap shot at the beginning of the story:

But even without the heated rhetoric of DeLay’s lead attorney, Houston’s Dick DeGuerin, it made some Democrats nervous. (Emphasis added by LST)

Just what is DeGuerin’s “heated rhetoric?”

Read more

SOUTER……..

The name invokes fear and trepidation in the hearts of true Conservatives.  It is THE fear that Miers may be another SOUTER.

The logic is not without foundation:

1. Bush Sr. put in Souter.
2. We didn’t know anything about Souter.
3. We were told Souter was going to be a Conservative’s pal, and he wasn’t.

On the other hand, for Miers:

1. Bush Jr. nominated Miers.
2. We don’t know much about Miers.
3. We are being told Miers will be a Conservative pal and to have faith in that

Ipso facto, Miers is SOUTER in a dress and high heels!

However, there is one HUGE, BIG difference between the two, best summed up by the Amercan Thinker I linked to earlier:

The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it.

In other words, Miers has been by and worked for Bush Jr. for decades; Souter was not. Miers has been in very trusted postitions; Souter was not.  Miers is a confidant for Bush Jr.; Souter was a friend of a friend.

Does that mean that Miers is incapable of betraying her friend and benefactor’s confidence in her? Is she a shill that will turn her back on Conservative principles or Christian beliefs? Can Miers succumb to the Washington D.C. Group think that can drive a member of the Supremes to conclude certain things in order to get an approving nod from The New York Times?

In summary: only time will tell.

However, I do wish to point out that that Bush Jr.’s "Coin of the Realm" is loyalty.  If you do not have loyalty to him and his administration and principles, you are gone. Persona non grata.

Miers is VERY aware of that.

Some day, Miers would be on the Court (if confirmed) and Bush would be back home in Crawford. She would no longer be beholden to her old boss.  The question is, would that matter? Would that change any of her actions? Views?

That’s the real question.

P.S.: The next time my kids are acting up when it is time for bed, I’m not going to threaten the Boogy Man will get them, I am going to invoke the dreaded SOUTER will come and take them away via Court Order! I imagine they’ll get right in bed and behave.

P.P.S. I’m making fun of the Dreaded Souter; I know he was a poor choice. But even if we have rock solid writings, speeches and other tasks pointing that any person is not a Souter, there is no guarantee that person may not change into a Souter. Only time can tell.

I agree with Ree-C that much of the hoopla surrounding the Miers nomination is a wee-bit much, considering that many of those conservatives who are currently slamming Miers were only too acquiesent when Bush nominated John Roberts, another putative “conservative” with no record to prove it. If we’re going to be against “stealth” candidates, we ought to do so consistently.

However, I do not have “faith” in the GOP’s ability to put forth stealth candidates, because they usually turn out to be leftists.

Remember, Souter was supposed to be a conservative, or at least a moderate. There were some signs he was pro-life, and although they weren’t conclusive, the evidence pointed to another fairly reliable conservative vote. Wrong. Souter is among the four uber-liberals on the court, and they only need one more leftist to ram through their entire agenda.

Bush could have nominated a known conservative. He has the votes to kill a filibuster, and a Republican majority in both houses. It would have been a dogfight, but he would have probably won. Now he’s avoided that scenario, but has nonetheless drastically increased the chances that the liberals on the court will get their fifth vote — another reliable liberal. If either Roberts or Miers turns out to be something different from what they appear, we’re doomed.

Bush gambled with the Supreme Court, and I don’t have faith in games of chance.

Time to comment! How do you REALLY feel?

The problem with having to nominate someone to serve on the Supreme Court is that "After Bork" (or AB), the longer and more defined the paper trail, the less likely the candidate will be confirmed; especially if they are a nominee of a Republican President. Unfair. Yes. Unreasonable. Yes. But that is the political reality.

In order to get around this, the President is nominating people that have little, if any, paper trail. Without knowing what a person is like, the public or officials trying to size up the nominee, can only speculate. This speculation is an excellent indicator of what the speculator is like; this could be termed a "Rorschach Test" (you know, the ink blot test).

So far, a lot of so called Conservative "thinkers" have been very down on Mier. The poor lady hadn’t even been a nominee for 24 hours and she was being called a "closet lesbian" because she wasn’t married; being declared as mediocre because SMU Law School (the law school she attended) wasn’t an ivy league Harvard law school; and being characterized as incapable or not qualified because she wasn’t a high flying, spectacular lawyer or judge.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

We bemoan every election cycle the lack of great candidates to choose from. This forces us to choose the lesser of two (or three) evils and vote AGAINST someone, instead of voting FOR someone. If you want to know why no one runs for office, just look at how Harriet Miers is being characterized. Who would willingly go into that fray?

I know a lot of you are feeling jittery about this. We all want proof that the President has not "betrayed" the Conservatives once again. Frankly, doesn’t every human being want proof of everything? But sometimes, we have to have a little faith.

In the meantime, here a few blogs and articles that might help you with your faith……..

From the American Thinker, Don’t misunderestimate Miers:

President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.

From the great city of Houston, BeldarBlog a/k/a William Dyer. A real live lawyer (a good one), that is bringing sanity and analysis to this debate that only a practicing Texas attorney can bring:

Miers versus Roberts (comparison of the two candidates):

Harriet Miers now holds the office (Counsel to the POTUS) that Fred Fielding held in the Reagan Administration. John Roberts was Fred Fielding’s subordinate. Were John Roberts to return to his first job in government, he’d now be Harriet Miers’ subordinate. The position to which, during the Reagan Administration, John Roberts addressed all those eloquent memoranda on matters of policy — with which many skeptics of his nomination were justifiably impressed — is the same position that Harriet Miers now occupies.

Correcting Rich Lowry’s "pro-Bush legal type" source on Harriet Miers’ credentials (side note: the esteemed Mr.Lowry had to make several corrections because of Mr. Beldar’s information.)

A rebuttal to Prof. Barnett’s "Cronyism" op-ed re the Miers nomination:

If you restrict Supreme Court nominations to those individuals who’ve spent their lives living in that rarefied atmosphere, pondering constitutional minefields to the exclusion of everything else, then you’re going to end up with a Supreme Court whose members are out of touch both with America and with nuts and bolts legal practice. You’re going to end up with a Court full of prima donnas who can’t "just" concur, but instead feel compelled to write countless separate opinions.

This is all good stuff. BeldarBlog will probably be an excellent blog to monitor as this nomination progresses.