Harriet Miers Correspondence
How many of you have actually looked at Harriet Miers’s correspondence with George W. Bush? Actually reading it is different from reading about it. You can see it here. Here are some excerpts:
From a belated birthday card:
You are the best governor ever — deserving of great respect!
From a thank-you card:
All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing. The dinner here was great — especially the speech! Keep up all the great work. Texas is blessed!
I shall always treasure the letter. With great admiration,
Harriet
From a thank-you card:
Thank you so much for including me in your great Juneteenth celebration.
From a handwritten thank-you note:
Keep up all the great work. The state is in great hands.
From a 1998 handwritten note:
Great speech!
From a thank-you letter:
Thank you very much for taking the time to send your congratulations to Mrs. Emery, my partner Gene Emery’s mother, on her 95th birthday. I understand it was a great hit at the party held in her honor. She was touched, and her family greatly appreciated your thoughtfulness.
[Handwritten:] You and Laura are the greatest!
From an uncharacteristic thank-you letter:
You are the best! [But not the greatest? — Patterico]
Getting back on track with this thank-you note:
The Governor’s remarks were great, and I have received many, many compliments.
Is it unfair of me to quote this correspondence? It would be, if the Administration had given us much else to go on — but aside from a few Bar Journal articles (which I have already reported on), this is about all we have in the way of writing samples.
It’s a little tough not to wince as you make your way through this correspondence.
Which is not to say it’s not great.
Thank you very much for this great blog and the great forum you provide for all the great comments. You are great.
nk (41da82) — 10/15/2005 @ 5:12 pmNice to know she’s really more of a suck-up than a crony…
JeremyR (118b44) — 10/15/2005 @ 5:16 pmWhat is the WH hiding? This whole thing is disconcerting to say the least.
Stan (7c0b0f) — 10/15/2005 @ 6:32 pmGrrrrrrrreat…….
Christopher Cross (269d12) — 10/15/2005 @ 7:16 pmThat really makes me feel better about Harriet! But…I still have to question why Harry Reid approves of her? That is what bothers me most about her! I just don’t belive I have ever or could ever have anything in common with Harry Reid! AND… I don’t think I am a radical right winger either! I am just not a Socialist like Harry Reid! Ya know what I mean?
Zsa Zsa (7af64b) — 10/15/2005 @ 8:02 pmGreat analysis……
Flap (cc77c4) — 10/15/2005 @ 8:39 pmWonderful compilation, Patterico! The blogosphere is blessed. You’re the best! Err… I mean, second best, behind GWB. Or third, behind Steven Den Beste, whose surname means “the best.” But you’re definitely in the top 10, I assure you.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/15/2005 @ 10:07 pmZsa Zsa, I have two theories about Reid’s attitude (if you discount the theory that Reid just happens to like Miers). The first theory (which I wrote about here) is that Reid likes her because she is old and Reid doesn’t think she will be around long.
A more sinister theory is that Reid sees Miers as a capitulation by the right to an ideological Supreme Court. If Bush pushes someone for the Supreme Court on no more grounds than that she is a conservative Christian, it will undercut all the work that conservatives have done in trying to take the politics out of the Supreme Court.
Doc Rampage (b7bb1a) — 10/16/2005 @ 3:34 amMaster Patterico, it was good to see that you too were mentioned on CNN (thanks to Political Teen for having a video clip) showing that you too were a person of your own mind and not marching in lock step as a supposed Bush Brown Shirt…
Outstanding sir!
russ (8b209b) — 10/16/2005 @ 4:09 amSo, it seems that Miss Miers has used the same adjective a dozen times (plus once in the adverb form) since 1998. Truly damning, sir, truly damning! It shows that Miss Miers is completely unqualified for the position for which she has been nominated, because she is apparently insufficiently eloquent in that highest of all forms of literature, the thank you card.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/16/2005 @ 5:30 amDana,
The problem is not the writing in the thank you cards. The problem is the thank you cards are about the only writing we have got to look at.
Being forced to read tea leaves to try and figure out Miers judicial philosophy in a nomination this critical is sufficient reason to oppose her nomination.
After signing campaign finance reform, and promising to sign a new assault weapons ban, Bush does not get a “trust me” waiver on anything related to constitutional issues.
TJIT (6fce69) — 10/16/2005 @ 8:07 amSo, are you guy like saying that brown-nosing is not like a total qualification and cool skill-set? It’s who you know, not what you know, c’mon! BTW, keep up the great work here — you guys are like totally the greatest! We are so blessed and in awe!!! XOXOXOXO!!!!
The Family (a4f9c3) — 10/16/2005 @ 1:46 pmTJIT wrote:
The problem is not the writing in the thank you cards. The problem is the thank you cards are about the only writing we have got to look at.
Being forced to read tea leaves to try and figure out Miers judicial philosophy in a nomination this critical is sufficient reason to oppose her nomination.
After signing campaign finance reform, and promising to sign a new assault weapons ban, Bush does not get a “trust me” waiver on anything related to constitutional issues.
Well, I’ve got to ask: for whom did you vote in 2004?
If you voted for President Bush, you most certainly did give him a “trust me waiver” on constitutional issues, since you knew that you were voting for a man who would almost certainly be nominating at least one Supreme Court justice, along with a whole host of lower court judges. Whether it was Harriet Miers or anyone else, if you voted for him, you entrusted him and his judgement in just these kinds of decisions.
Of course, from the two things you listed, you might have voted for the Libertarian candidate (Michael Bednarik?), in which case you would have been perfectly logically consistent.
Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b) — 10/16/2005 @ 3:17 pmIf you voted for President Bush, you most certainly did give him a “trust me waiver” on constitutional issues
Ok that’s just lame. Seriously. If that’s the case, then on what basis can those that voted for Bush EVER disagree with a decision of his?
Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/16/2005 @ 4:32 pmHey Cross (#14), what planet are you from?
russ (8b209b) — 10/16/2005 @ 5:30 pmUranus.
Christopher Cross (292559) — 10/16/2005 @ 5:44 pmHey Cross, I guess all you cling-ons do things and think things in lock step, eh?
russ (8b209b) — 10/16/2005 @ 5:55 pm“Trust me.”
Christopher Cross (bf09c4) — 10/16/2005 @ 8:16 pmHer correspondence proves nothing more than she is a gracious guest!?
Recent reports that the US is ruder than ever are borne out by the post and comments.
Henriet Cousin' (ca8dc4) — 10/16/2005 @ 8:27 pmPatterico, the facts that she’s W’s lawyer and she accepted the nomination when there are obviously better people available are enough to convince me that she’s a suck-up. But if I weren’t already convinced, this wouldn’t do it. Birthday cards? Thank you notes? All this tells us is that Miers won’t be getting that job writing for Hallmark.
I can imagine that from the p.o.v. of someone still on the fence, this stuff makes the case against HM seem lightweight, in the same way that the WH’s “sexism” counterattack diluted its case.
TNugent (58efde) — 10/17/2005 @ 7:01 am