It forces us again to give Miers the benefit of the doubt, when the matter at hand is of ultimate importance.

what is stanley kurtz referring to when he says this?

why, the problem with harriet miers, president bush's second nomination for the supreme court! and what is that problem? that she FOUNDED A WOMEN'S STUDIES DEPARTMENT LECTURE SERIES AT A UNIVERSITY! AND SHE LET LIBERALS SPEAK THERE!

kurtz eventually sort-of calms down as he decides that surely some university liberals tricked miers and went behind her back to allow the liberals to speak. overall though, he concludes that this casts serious doubt into miers conservative credentials and whether or not she can ably perform her duties as a supreme court justice.

what the hell? there are reasons why miers shouldn't have been nominated (like how she's not once in her life been a judge in any capacity. or like how the administration has yet to provide an example of her arguing constitutional law), but how fuckin off the wall do you have to be to hold her women's studies department against her? whether you think those bastard liberals commandeered her lecture series or not, it shouldn't matter. this is absolute trivia. and at worst, what? she's a moderate? who cares? get your head out from under the tinfoil, stanley kurtz. you're itallian game show crazy.

REVIEW
the national review
2 Stars (Out of 5)

its reputable and respected, especially as far as right wing craziness sites go. and yet still, some of them (kurtz) are off the wall nuts.