In the midst of the recent controversy surrounding Harriet Miers' political leanings, the media seems to have come to its own comfortable determination that Miers is a suitable candidate for the Supreme Court.
In this story by Donald Lambro for the Washington Times, several Republican chairmen are quoted as saying they believe their constituents support Miers. What I want to know is the last time a party chair said, "Yeah, my constituents agree, our president doesn't know what he's doing." This is news? And what about the conservative megasite, Townhall.com's recent poll, that said 86% of the site's viewers don't like Miers? I'm not great at math, but something isn't adding up.
Newt Gingrich also recently wrote an article for the Baltimore Sun promoting Miers' nomination. A number of major media outlets picked it up, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It could literally be the first time in its history that the Star Tribune ran an article speaking of someone's conservative credentials like they were a selling point; natives to Minnesota know the paper better by its 'other' name, the Star and Sickle.
As a reward, the AP ran, and media outlets like CBS Atlanta picked up, a story promoting Newt Gingrich for president in 2008. Is it simply a coincidence that a story promoting a Gingrich candidacy in 2008 went down the AP wires less than a week after Gingrich's article promoting Miers appeared in the Baltimore Sun? Inquiring minds wouldn't mind knowing.
The media has made its nominee for the Supreme Court clear, and with a number of winks and nudges, the media's also made it clear that any Republicans willing to join them in their crusade will get a few good promo pieces for whatever office they're running for. At this rate, maybe it'd be more efficient just to let members of the press select their own judicial nominees.
