The gift that keeps on giving

In Tuesday's Harriet Miers news, it is learned that she supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion while running for Dallas city council in 1989. Ticked a whole bunch of anti-abortion boxes on a questionnaire, as it happens. And they say she doesn't have a paper trail.

The Gleaner freely admits to not covering the abortion issue as much as, um, everybody else. But if you support a constitutional amendment to ban abortions, does that mean you think that the way the Constitution is written now, abortion is constitutional? If not, why do you need a constitutional amendment? Maybe a senator will ask during the hearings.

Meantime, the White House, which has been busy, trotted out an apparatchik to explain that "A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process." For those keeping score at home, first, the administration told us she's all churchy and everything. Then they strike that, stressing instead that she's a constitutional scholar. Now they're telling us she's just a political hack who adopts insincere positions during a campaign to pander to interest groups.

Bumbling, stumbling, and most scrumpdilyicious of all, internecine warfare on the right. Harriet Miers is the greatest! The best nominee ever!