Miers’ Christmas card

As an example of Harriet Miers’ attention to detail, the Washington Post noted today that Bush’s Supreme Court nominee was literally responsible, as White House staff secretary, for handing every piece of paper that went to the president. At times, apparently, her uncompromising standards drove other White House staffers nuts.

“You had to meet her standards, which are very, very high standards, to get documents in to the president,” said one former administration official who agreed to speak of a former colleague only on the condition of anonymity. “I would be fibbing if I didn’t say at times that was frustrating.”

In 2001, Bush’s first year in office, Miers rejected the text of the White House Christmas card and ordered a new version because, the White House said, she did not think it was written well enough.

Now, my first thought after seeing this was, “Wow, up until recently, a nominee for the Supreme Court was proofreading Christmas cards.” As it turns out, however, this little assignment may become the latest in a series of flaps for Miers.

Ned Ryun, son of Rep. Jim Ryun (R), was the one responsible for that rejected card in 2001. As he tells the story, there was more to this than bad writing.

I worked with Miers at the White House. Though my interaction with her was limited, since I was merely a Presidential Writer and she was the Staff Secretary, I had a unique experience with her. In 2001, I was given the task of writing the President’s Christmas message to the nation….

The director of correspondence and the deputy of correspondence edited and approved the message and it was sent to the Staff Secretary’s office for the final vetting. Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian. She wanted me to change it. I refused to change the message (In my poor benighted reasoning, I actually think that Christmas is an overtly Christian holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ and the beginning of the redemption of man.).

The director and deputy of correspondence supported me. I even emailed Ken Mehlman (then the Political Director at the White House, now the Republican National Committee Chairman), to see what he thought about the message. He was not offended by it in the least. Miers insisted that I change the tone of the message. I again refused, and after several weeks, the assignment was taken out of my hands. I was later encouraged to apologize to Miers. I did not apologize.

…Miers purposefully sought to dilute the Christianity of the message, thus revealing to me at least a willingness to compromise unnecessarily without outside pressure. That is my opinion based off that experience and I would be more than happy to be proved wrong.

I’m not suggesting that Miers’ handling of a White House Christmas card offers valuable insight into her judicial philosophy. Still, this is exactly the kind of thing that could annoy a significant number of conservative activists, most of whom are just looking for excuses not to like Miers anyway.

Indeed, here we have a Supreme Court nominee whose commitment to Christianity helped get her the appointment in the first place. She’s generating support from some segments of the religious right, at least in part because she’s a devoted churchgoer.

But given an opportunity, Miers apparently watered down a Christmas message to be more secular. Does James Dobson know? For that matter, does Bill O’Reilly know?

Bravo for Miers – shows a maturity and sophistication about the role of government that often seems to be completely alien to the worldview of Christian activists. Maybe there’s hope for the old girl afterall.

  • If we believe the squeaky wheel gets the grease, would a Miers replacement be further left or right? I think it’s time to support Miers…

  • shows a maturity and sophistication about the role of government that often seems to be completely alien to the worldview of Christian activists.

    I agree but this seems like it will drive the right to hate her even more. CB, stoking the fires again…

  • The Democrats should definitely hold their noses and support Miers because if she is rejected, the next nominee will be worse. Bush, having alienated his base of Theocrats, will try to mollify them by nominating a right-wing fireeater whose record of opposition to Rowe vs Wade will be clear and unambiguous.

  • It’s like watching the python attempt to swallow the alligator.

    By the way, it is either naive or intentionally blinkered for anyone to assume that Christmas is a purely “Christian” holiday in this day an age.

    Proof, people sendChristmas cards without really knowing beforehand if the recipient is Christian.

    I get them myself. I am Ba’al……

  • It must be painful being in her position. You’ve got the founder of your religion saying (Matthew 6:5-6) that you should keep your religion to yourself. You’ve got the US constitution saying (VI.3) that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. Then you’ve got POTUS Bubble Head nominating you for your religious beliefs and which church you attend. Now you’ve got this snot-nosed brat saying your Christmas card isn’t Christian enough (and supported by, wow, Ken Mehlman, too). What’s a Pharisee/Hypocrite to do?

  • What’s a Pharisee/Hypocrite to do?

    Actually, I did just think of answer to my own question: it’s in Chapter XVIII of Machiavelli’s The Prince (“Concerning The Way In Which Princes Should Keep Faith”).

  • We should be carrying Miers into the court on our shoulders. She is a gift from an idiot. She is the best candidate for the Dems that Bush could ever imaginably nominate, and the only reason it is imaginable is because he actually did it.

  • I see this as a no-lose situation for Dems. Show bi-partisan spirit by supporting Miers which, in turn, infuriates the Talibornagains, which, in turn, forces BushCo, Inc. to rescind the nomination (i.e., Miers “voluntarily” withdraws her name) which, in turn, results in an overtly unacceptably right wing nominee which, in turn, gives the Dems the excuse they need to filibuster…having their earlier bi-partisan position slapped down.

  • If we believe the squeaky wheel gets the grease, would a Miers replacement be further left or right? I think it’s time to support Miers…

    The Democrats should definitely hold their noses and support Miers because if she is rejected, the next nominee will be worse. Bush, having alienated his base of Theocrats, will try to mollify them by nominating a right-wing fireeater whose record of opposition to Rowe vs Wade will be clear and unambiguous.

    No. People of all political persuasions should oppose Miers. Because she’s simply not qualified. We shouldn’t even bother getting to the point of discussing her political beliefs.

    As for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, this is an overrated concern. The Republicans enjoy yelling about it, because yelling about it gets wingnuts excited and voting. Overturn it, and two things happen:

    (1) They can’t yell about it anymore, and get less votes out of it. This is totally contrary to their actual purpose in the matter, despite what they would like you to believe their purpose in the matter is.

    (2) One day, every woman in America wakes up and sees the front page banner headline: “YOU CAN’T GET AN ABORTION”.

    This would be political suicide for the Republican party.

  • >Miers rejected the text of the White House Christmas card and ordered a new version because, the White House said, she did not think it was written well enough.

  • The people saying that Democrats should hold their noses and support Miers because alternatives would be worse are mistaken. Alternatives would be worse on the abortion issue, and on issues of separation of church and state. But Miers is such a total, total Bush loyalist that she will rule in Bush’s favor on all conflicts between the executive branch and other branches. After she and her allies rule that Bush can detain anyone at will or torture anyone at will on just his say-so, you’ll soon start seeing progressive activists accused of terrorism and jailed, with only classified evidence against them (if they even get a trial).

    On the other hand, most conservatives who are actual judges have some principles. It’s not clear whether Ms. Miers has any.

  • Hmmm – my computer ate my comment…

    “Miers rejected the text of the White House Christmas card and ordered a new version because, the White House said, she did not think it was written well enough.”

    How funny, as David Brooks writes that Meirs doesn’t write well enough to be a SC Justice. Then again, maybe she IS stuck at the Christmas card level.

  • Sounds to me like another attempt by the fundies to undermine the nomination. It sure is fun to watch.

  • Harry Reid’s kiss of death was one shrewd move, wasn’t it. Hell, he recommended her for consideration beforehand and Card/Bush fell right into the trap. Color me impressed.

  • ahhh, i screwed up the HTML — I was trying to quote Comment by John — 10/13/2005 @ 12:02 pm

  • Christmas – Engaging in Germanic pagan traditions on the anniversary of the birth of Mithras to celebrate the birth of a Jewish guy..

  • No chance Roe vs Wade will be overturned. If a Christian Wing-Nut gets onto the court and they actually did overturn Roe vs. Wade, it would be the end of the conservative movement. I think the conservatarians realize that the “goal” of overturning Roe vs Wade is a powerful motivator of their mindless minions. Better to keep dangling that carrot because once the Mule eats it, the cart stops.

  • Geez, it takes a Presidential Writer, a director of correspondence, a deputy director of correspondence and a Staff Secretary a “few weeks” to write a freaking Christmas Card text? And then the little weasel goes behind everyone’s back to show it to Ken Mehlman?

    A real hive of bureacratic activity, the Bush White House.

  • Here’s hoping this story (in all its ludicrousness) stays alive for as long as possible.

    After what we’ve been through the last five years, it’s refreshing to watch these people devour their young.

  • Ryan doesn’t quite grasp that the White House holiday card might be a bit different than the Bush family Christmas card. He’s just the kind of writer who should be furloughed to Focus on the Family immediately.

  • December 20, 2001

    Presidential Christmas Message

    Christmas is a time of wonder and joy, of generosity and peace, that brings family and friends together in celebration and song. We sing old hymns and familiar carols, we show love for others in the giving of gifts, and we observe the hallowed traditions that make the season special.

    This year in the midst of extraordinary times, our Nation has shown the world that though there is great evil, there is a greater good. Americans have given of themselves, sacrificing to help others and showing the sprit of love and sharing that is so much a part of the Christmas season.

    According to the Gospel of Luke, two thousand years ago, the savior of mankind came into the world. Christians believe that Jesus’ birth was the incarnation of God on earth, opening the door to new hope and eternal life.

    At Christmastime, Christians celebrate God’s love revealed to the world through Christ. And the message of Jesus is one that all Americans can embrace this holiday season — to love one another.

    This Christmas we remember those who are without their loved ones. They continue to be in our hearts and prayers. May they experience peace, and may they find hope. And as we again celebrate Christ’s birth, may the glorious light of God’s goodness and love shine forth from our land.

    Laura joins me in wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May God’s blessings of peace be upon us and upon the world.

    GEORGE W. BUSH

    If this was the less Christian one, I imagine Mr. Ryun’s must have blamed Jesus’ death on the Jews or something.

  • Why can’t the president or his wife write the text of the Christmas card that his family will send out?

  • You know, you have to wonder what Laura thinks of the women her husband has surrounded himself with. First there’s Condi & her referring to him as ‘my husband’ and now there’s Harriet and her ‘You’re the greatest’.

    Interesting…

  • Uh, if she toned down the “Christianity”, I’d hate to see what it looked like before. It says that Mrs. Bush picked the psalm. Is that W’s nickname for Harriet?
    Comment by Gridlock — 10/13/2005 @ 1:33 pm

    you’ll notice that it IS a psalm, though — which is OLD Testament. That’s about as far from Christian as these people will get — cuz it allows them to stay Biblical, yet be “inclusive” — of the whopping 2.5 % of us that are Jewish.

    That’s why you’ll see that they always talk about the JUDEO-Christian heritage — so they won’t look all anti-semitic.

    as if.

  • Why can’t the president or his wife write the text of the Christmas card that his family will send out?
    Comment by Name (required) — 10/13/2005 @ 3:28 pm

    Some qustions just answer themselves, don’t they?

    You have to be able to WRITE — and we’re talkign a guy whose favorite “book” is one written for 2nd-graders.

  • If we believe the squeaky wheel gets the grease, would a Miers replacement be further left or right? I think it’s time to support Miers…,

    It’s the competency stupid!

    Democrats must oppose Miers because there is no indication that she is cut out for the job. During his confirmation process Roberts talked about how suprised he was, upon becoming an appeals court judge, that arriving at the a correct decision was hard work. This is a man aclaimed for his intellect and knowledge of the constitution. How do think an ametuer would do?

  • Thank you Rege! I was just about to post the same thing. Also, if we make this drag out a while and she ends up going through the process and embarrassing herself, then they have to act all flustered and take some time to nominate a replacement, and the whole situation goes on.

    By that time (spring 2006?), there will be major changes in the WH.

    Miers’ XMas card = Happy New Years for Dems!

  • Hey Rege, do you actually think she’ll try to keep up with the more brilliant minds on the court? Probably not, she’ll just agree with them. She’s probably a follower, not a leader. It hurts the country less to have her there than another Scalia.

    The best reason to be against her nomination is that she’s too attached to Bush (and probably his crime family).

    Her (in)competency is a good reason to seat her stupid!

  • You can’t conclude that this episode says anything about Ms. Mier’s religious beliefs or her feelings on church-state separation. A Christmas card is no window into a woman’s soul.
    It does show that she doesn’t like criticism and will stand on her hind legs to make sure she doesn’t get any.

  • The problem here is not that she is Christian or not or whether she should have demanded a rewriting of the card. The problem is that this is a person who has been nominated to the Supreme Court and who until very recently was serving as a secretary, obviously not of the cabinet variety. She was shuffling papers. Secretaries keep offices organized and are wonderful people but they are not material for our highest court.

  • Let see Dan, Scalia already has two votes on the Court, his and Clarence “What he said…” Thomas’. You seem to think that giving him a third vote is a good thing. Why?

    PS The stupid comment was not intended personally. It is a paraphrase of “it’s the economy stupid,” the Clinton line from the1992 campaign.

  • Hey Rege,
    Do you really believe that if Bush is forced to nominate someone else, that they will be more liberal? My guess is that whomever Bush nominates, they will vote the usual party line much more often than not. So, do you want someone smart and creative and voting with Scalia, someone who could help his voice, or someone who will just vote and not have much new to add to the process?

    I don’t think she would be incompetent. I don’t think she’ll be a Brownie. She just won’t shine like others do.

    Personally, I think the best argument against her is that she’s too close to the Bush crime family.

  • YES !!! Merry Christmas to all, and to all (Republicans) a “Good Night” !!!

    Rage, we are in total agreement, the last thing we need is another incompetent Bush Family Retainer in a position of power with an indefinite term.

    DEMs should firmly and persistently oppose her on the issues sticking to the high ground leaving the blood-letting to the GOP operatives that are, frankly, more competent and well-positioned to do the job. Underling Bush’s hypocritical manipulation of the issues (and GOP factions) would be a start. Getting organized and sticking to plan to grill her at the confirmation hearings is a must. There should be no division between DEMs on this, it’s a no-brainer.

    To any DEMs seriously intending to support her for the reasons stated, please consider that you would be supporting the White House objective to blunt the edge of criticism to gain her acceptance. Supporting her reveals passive, fuzzy thinking reflecting the fact that many DEMs have not accepted the fact we are now the minority, opposition party. To climb back up, we must take activist, opposition positions and this is an opportunity not to be missed If you disagree, please explain what was gained when;

    (a) DEMs Senators rolled-over by failing to support black Representatives protesting the stolen election. Where ore Gore and Delay today?
    (b) DEMs fell into line behind Bush supporting the HSA and war in Iraq.
    (c) The politically correct (by DEM standards) but disorganized and flip-flopping (sorry, but true) Kerry was posted as a candidate.

    Were you pleased with the results? Now you suggest passively sitting on the sidelines while Bush puts Betty Crocker in the Supreme Court in the hope that it really wont be so bad and waiting for the GOP to magically self-destruct? Would that demonstrate strength and leadership to the electorate?

    Regardless of what happens the next Supreme Court Justice will be a conservative, but a qualified, thinking one may be better than a polite, rubber-stamping one.

    This is not about the Supreme Court, ITS ABOUT POLITICS, STUPID.. Bush is in decline. People have had enough. They are ready for a change and we have their (limited) attention. Strike while the friggin iron is hot,.

    “When in doubt, attack” – Gen. George S. Patton

    Sorry to quote a war-mongering Republican, but he did know a thing or two about winning battles so listen up.

  • BTW, now that Bush has lost the “mandate of heaven” we need to keep it that way and a defeat in this case would nail the coffin shut. Thats the nature of politics.

  • Comments are closed.