October 11, 2005--Harriet Miers' G.N.O.

I have been wondering how long it would take before someone whispered about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meirs’ “private life.” You can imagine my surprise that the Gray Lady NY Times beat the bloggers at their own game.

When she was first nominated, in addition to the scant background available about her time as head of the Texas State Lottery (thankfully, no Arabian horses in her background) there was an item that indicated that at 60 she had never been married. Though the Times frequently mentions her being squired about by “longtime friend,” Texas Judge Nathan Hecht (read “beard”??), they also have referred to her in a few pieces as a “bachelorette.” (And not the sort we used to see on The Dating Game--I’m not talking here about Bachelorette Number One, Two, or Three.) Bachelorette has slipped out of common use, having been the female equivalent some years ago of “confirmed bachelor.” Both code, before out and out outing, for you know what.

So there it stood. Until yesterday when a strange, ambiguous article appeared in the Times—“A Place at the Table for Miers and High-Level Friends” (see link below for the full story and pictures). It is about Harriet and Condi and former Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman who would find time after a hard 16 hour workday for what the Times calls, “girls’ nights out” (G.N.O.) This threesome soon became a foursome with the addition of Anna Perez, Ms. Rice’s former spokeswoman. The Times, in the spirit of fair and balanced, was quick to note that other high-level “girls” from the Clinton administration also had their nights out.

In my best PC mode, I first thought isn’t it good that the “girls” are doing the same thing in DC as the “boys,” who for decades have had many, many legendary nights out of their own. Some even winding up in the Tidal Basin with hookers (remember Wilber Mills??). Gender equity is breaking out in Washington where cigars are still in fashion (or use, as the case may be). But then there is that picture of Condi above the story in her three inch pumps and mid-thigh skirt and PC went out the window.

I flashed back to those stories about her from February on her first trip to Europe as Secretary of State. And, especially and, those pictures of her in her military style jacket dress, unbuttoned to the thigh, and those stiletto mid-calf boots. In Wiesbaden Germany no less! The Washington Post, on top of that story (sorry about that), remarked how her coat and boots “speak of sex and power.” Some of the websites at the time went a little further, talking about her “dominatrix look” and “vaguely masculine attire.” (I do remember Henry Kissinger saying, when Nixon’s National Security Advisor, that power is a “great aphrodisiac” and that the sex appear accruing to him was the reason he was able to “date” so many “starlets.”)

Back to Harriet. Here’s what I think: She may be Karl Rove’s last Trojan Horse (again, sorry). As he is about to be sent to the slammer he has pulled off (opps) his final act of political jujitsu. He got Bush to nominate someone he, Karl, in his heart knows believes that life begins before conception (and thus will find even sexual intercourse to be unconstitutional), someone with such a blank record that the Evangelical Right will rise (I can’t stop) against her and as a result the Liberals will vote for her, thinking she will turn out to be another Judge Souter as soon as she withdraws (somebody slap me) from her President. Then when she gets to the Court she will reveal what Rove knew all along that she will join Scalia and Thomas to form a Supreme ménage a trios.