Please Pass The Danish

It’s possible the loyal secretary pose by Miers will serve George Bush as well as the squeaky-clean stonewalling of Roberts served him. There’s room for only one man among the women in the current administration, and Rice has that job. Given Miers’s lack of experience for the job Bush wants her to have (perhaps so she’s well positioned to protect him when he’s impeached down the road), she has to be all about appearances. First talking point: Doesn’t the “liberal media” look mean for beating up on such a nice girl? Everywhere you turn in this administration, there’s a whiff of Rove floating in the air.

I don’t know what is what? Were these photos vetted by the White House? Did photos provided by non-White House sources run them past the Admin. prior to release? Please answer this question. Thanks.
“You never get a second chance to make a first impression” Head and Shoulders Shampoo TM C.

Jury Duty
i got the letter in the mail and, you know ~ they put it in one of those tan envelopes with the little window and it looks all “official” and you take a breath and open it and it says, “You Have Been Summoned For JURY DUTY. Report to Room 114-A at 7:30 AM, 07-OCT-2005.”
Whew! was I relieved! It could have been so much worse, I mean you never know what you’ll find when you open up one of those “official” envelopes. The last time I got one of them it was, oh ~ way back, I can’t remember exactly… well, it was a long time ago and it wasn’t for me it was for Poppa and it was a Tax Audit (!) and let me tell you, Poppa was mighty upset and said, well ~ I can’t tell you what Poppa said {laughs} But he was none to happy about that. No siree Bob.
Anyway, I’m a “morning person” so I had no problem getting up early and I felt like “blue” but, you know ~ not dark blue but sky blue so I put on my Jill St. John and a matching scarf that I found at Neimans.
I knew I’d be walking and standing around a lot, you know, and I didn’t think anyone would be paying any attention to my shoes, anyway ~ so I just grabbed the comfortable black ones and off I went.
You know, in all these years I’ve never been on Jury Duty. I don’t know why. They say they use the Voter Registraion rolls and I always vote so I guess, you know ~ I had just been lucky all these years because this was the first time they ever called me in. Well, yeah ~ I know I could have asked someone at the office to “handle it” and arrange for a deferment, I mean ~ I am the Staff Secretary and when I’m not there Jenny usually handles it but she’s got her own job to do, and she’s busy now, you know ~ all the shredding and all that over at Karl’s office… she works for Karl, usually ~ and, well, I was curious! I’d always wondered what it was like to do Jury Duty.
So you get there and, you know they give you a number and you sit down in room 114-A and wait. They have a television but, you know ~ the sound is turned off, and most everybody is reading a newspaper or they have their laptop out or something. I had the Times crossword puzzle but it was Wednesday, you know ~ they got harder toward the end of the week; so, you know ~ I finished that in about an hour.
They don’t actually start until 9:00 AM. I guess they say “7:30″ so everybody will have time to get there, find a parking place…
…they called my number and about, oh ~ I guess about 24 of us went upstairs to room 303 and sat down. The Clerk was taking roll-call and it was then that I thought I recognized one of the attorneys, but I wasn’t sure. Then the man sitting next to him turned around…
…it was Karl !
I mean, Mr. Rove!! Well, Heavens! I didn’t know what to do. What? Of course he recognized me. He gave me a little wave and a “thumbs up” and I smiled back.
I thought, well, this will be interesting.

Her choice of clothes makes me think she was on Mr. G’s left-hand side.

Rewards for loyal cronies. And having been so lavishly appreciated all those years for menial service, like butlers or maids or cooks, with servents trips to Crawford and Camp David, they get the impression that they are actually competent, and can do any job Bush required of them.
Regression to the lowest common denominator.

Harriet’s “Dressing Down.”
Maybe this is how one dresses for church, in Dallas. In your “best” clothes. Left the hat and gloves at home, you know, because well, this is a little different, the SUPREME COURT!! But definately do not forget the flag pin.
Maybe Condi can take Harriet shopping? Because the Supreme Court, well, it has this “sensible” sort of dressing, so “No” on the Designer Clothes (the runway names), but well, NAME BRANDS could help. Not the stuff they sell just inside the door from the parking lot, but the clothing you go to the interior of the department store to find.
That MATCHING stuff, well it makes you look like a FOLLOWER, not a leader. And frankly, that is what we are seeing here.

In this photo, we see two women whose faces are partially lopped off. Look at the woman sitting at her desk in the left hand side of the photo. She’s “just” a secretary or an intern. Her face is cut off by the door we only see the back of her head. With Meirs, it’s reversed. We see her face, but part of it is also concealed by door and her body is cropped above the knees. We only see parts of each woman. They’re both truncated, immobile and marginalized at the edges of the photograph. And look at the space of the office itself. It’s a chaotic space with no privacy that opens out into a public corridor. Another door, unseen here, opens into the inner sanctum, Coryn’s office, where the real power is. Meirs is trapped in this powerless, secretarial space (as are so many women). But let’s not write off this deceptively bland office too soon. On the wall between the two women is a map of Texas. Demographics are changing there, and Texas is on its way to becoming a predominantly Hispanic state. Cronyn might find himself out of a job soon. Meirs peeks out at us from a place that holds the potential for profound political change.

I have to agree it’s about the clothes and hair. Obviously she has a bad haircut with no style. If she’s not smart enough to find a good person to cut her hair, and stick with him/her, we can assume a lot about what she values (and it’s not people with talent. I’ve taken a plane flight to get my hair cut by my guy!) The clothes are certainly “low-level bureaucrat”. Sorry to seem so superficial this time, but that’s all we have to go by, isn’t it? Anyway, the door is about to close on her, if this picture is any clue.

Good heavens, I’m currently on the job market (for a MUCH lower-level position!) and I’m dressing a lot better than that! The pants and jacket might have been redeemable with a better blouse, but a stripey sweater shell? No way. (Though you can tell she’s a Texas gal – love the way the fuschia in the scarf matches the stripes in the top). She also looks less confident than Mary Tyler Moore ever did…..

Actually, we have a bit more to go on than how Miers dresses. For example, from the Austin-American Statesman online edition of October 4: “A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush’s desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ possible role in that effort.” Miers was chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission at the time Lawrence Littwin, the man who wants to testify, was fired. One can read more about Miers and Littwin’s claims at these two links:
http://loadedmouth.com/node/2155
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_3424a21495f7521000f4.html

My god. Gaaah! That’s the worst outfit I’ve ever seen. The wingnuts are right–she’s an utter incompetent.

Liking to serve cookies in not, in and of itself, a bad thing. In my experience in an office environment that a superior serving a cookie is an effort at sharing good feelings. I’m not a righty – blog boards have a way of using the lable to deflect meaningful dialog that doesn’t follow the main message – but I feel the use of that image is just a pot shot not a meaningful observation as it is positioned.
I’m worried about qualifications and character (both which I see as lacking) not cookies.

I wish I would proof read before I post…
Liking to serve cookies is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. In my experience in an office environment a superior serving a cookie is an effort at sharing good feelings. I’m not a “righty” – blog boards have a way of using the label to deflect meaningful dialog that doesn’t follow the main message – but I feel the use of that image is just a pot shot not a meaningful observation as it is positioned.
I’m worried about qualifications and character (both which I see as lacking) not cookies.

My first comment about a ‘bagshot’, but it really seems to me that this photo is so odd because of the angle of the taker. I also think Miers is simply waving hello to someone she sees outside the door, possibly in the hallway. I don’t particularly like her sense of style and I do think her eye makeup makes her look like she has kohl liner completely encircling her eyes — perhaps she actually does — but all in all, I think it wouldn’t matter if she had ever been, you know, a judge. Or worked somewhere besides right next to her Beautiful Brilliant Boss who is now nominating her for a supreme court justice position.

Now hold on for just one second! Some of us den moms like to serve cookies. Mostly because some of these boys can use an extra secret dose of Ritalin. Ok, I confess. I was den mom for one year but bagged it after a year. I couldn’t take the stress. Seriously, *way* harder than serving beer and munchies to the Prez.
Now if all you smarty pants had a decent liberal education, you’d know to go straight to your primary source: Harriet Miers’ Blog.
The Secret of My Style Success explains her justice-ification for the turquoise jacket.
Hey, what’s Friday for if you can’t have fun with The Gal?

lillafiddle,
If you’re asking about the photos at Huffington Post, the top three (showing Harriet with, or trailing Bush) are news photos that were taken by pool photographers in a setting completely controlled by the White House. The fourth shot — the most secretary-ish one –of HM sitting with Bush at his desk, was taken in 2001 by a White House photographer and was provided to the media by the White House. I’m not completely certain, but I believe that photo was released in the past week.

CK, I understand what you’re saying, but you are certainly sophisticated to know that the White House, like most large organizations, put a lot of thought and effort into crafting their public image.
For whatever reason, these images are the ones that are out there, and they give a distinct impression of Ms. Miers that she is subservient. She may NOT be so, but clearly, the message is being transmitted that she is.
And frankly, I think it’s probably accurate. Her body language says a lot, and there are no other images around to contradict it.
Just curious — Was your former superior who served cookies a man or a women?

maybe they know they know thier ass is grass.
maybe they want to piss off their base.
make his exit look like it was the republican party, the ever vigilant protectors of freedom, that realized what a shitheel bush is and decided he had to go.
what would we do without the republicans?

Agree that all these Harriet-as-Helpmeet pictures are puzzling from a WH that’s trying to pass off an obvious incompetent as Supreme Court material. But you have to ask who the intended audience is. I think it’s the fundamentalist wing, among whom women are expected to take a subservient role and dedicate themselves to the betterment and glorification of their men. Add to that the message that the WH is energetically delivering orally — that Harriet will vote whichever way Chimpy wants her to — and you’ve got a twofer.

Really, I think they’re just having a tough time figuring out how to market her, like they seem to be having a tough time with politics in general. Maybe Karl is busy?
The first wave of press went on about how tough she is… a ‘pit bull in size-6 shoes’ who ‘ate nails’. Photos more… judicial, and harder, shaper, hawkier. Now, maybe they fear they’ve gone too far. Have to show the soft side, so they bring out the cookie-baking secretary. The sum leaves us back where we were. A total unknown.

This pic makes it looks like she regularly shops for clothes with Karen Hughes. Oy.

Ok, forget the Danish, forget the cookies, forget the beer and munchies. What Harriet serves best is M&M’s. No Joke.
Because, you know, every great secretary keeps candy on her desk.
From the above link:
“Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&Ms in her West Wing office. It wasn’t a huge secret. She’d stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&Ms in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush’s reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&Ms were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: ‘I like M&Ms and I like sharing.’”
Maybe she’ll succeed in sweetening up Scalia?

g-Sorry for the late reply. Both females and males (including myself) served cookies or lunch or whatever. We celebrated events or hitting targets over the benchmark. It was less memorable than a bonus but more memorable than an attaboy. Servent Leadership is a big trend in business. Now depending on commitment it may be real or just an illusion but the idea is that the support structure is turned upsidedown. Superiors are meant to be their for their direct reports and soforth. It may be a situation where the person who commented on her liking to serve cookies meant that while she is so close to the Prez she still is real and likes to interack. Just my take – I think the whole subservient thing is a smokescreen. Something for opposition to talk about while they ignore Miers lack of credentials.

CK writes, “I think the whole subservient thing is a smokescreen. Something for opposition to talk about while they ignore Miers lack of credentials.” Not just her lack of credentials, but her character, which closer inspection of her career, and how that’s intersected with a number of controversies simmering just below the surface, will reveal. Further, calling those who would question Miers’s qualifications the “opposition” plays into the hands of those who would like the story to remain all about appearances — black and white, left and right.

I have to say I’m bothered by the parts of this discussion criticizing Harriet Miers’s clothes. The woman is 60, a pre-boomer, Southern, and religious. How do you expect her to dress? Is it payback for the wardrobe criticism Hillary endured? I do think HM’s “look” and the photos released are as orchestrated as anything else the administration does. Besides, she HAS HAD a makeover if you really examine her pre- and post-nomination looks. Bush needs to rally the Phyllis Schaflys (who is ALSO not a boomer, by the way, also a JD, and author of The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It) to pressure their senators to confirm Miers. There is something more to HM’s appearance and demeanor than meets the eye, and I think it’s a deliberate distraction (She’s meek and weak, see?) from the ominous contradiction of the “pit bull in size-6 shoes” (thanks, Chris, for including that quote). Yes, we should PAY ATTENTION to what doesn’t add up about her and urge our own senators to nail her to the wall, and if they can’t do that, to not confirm her.

It’s what I keep thinking about Republican women – who the hell dresses these people? They always look like they stepped out of Marshalls or Ross or something….

In general the “anti-woman” tone is disconcerting in MSM, though it is pretty clear that she is not qualified. I read that she was making $650K plus or minus before she went to Washington. YIKES!!! I am just in the wrong business, I know. The Supremes job pays just $199K. Miers is reported to have really shrunk in income since going to DC and has big bills to keep her mom in a full-care alzheimer’s facility. It just does not add up. I guess there is just no service like the humility of serving the Lord, or cookies. It depends.
Bush does surround himself with women, interestingly. Perhaps this was the “trial” balloon, send up an unqualified woman, shoot her down, then hit us with Torture Boy?

As the person who started the discussion about this picture, I must say I am a bit uncomfortable about all this talk about appearances. As an old-time feminist, I am sure that an equally unqualified man (e.g., Michael Brown) would probably not get as much attention about the way he dressed.
It is true the the lack of info we have about her leads us to grasp at whatever clues we can find, including her appearance. And her dress in this picture is almost comic for a nominee to the Supreme Court on her first official visit to Congress. I guess we would be talking about Michael Brown’s appearance if he showed up to the congressional hearings with a plaid sport jacket or a mickey moust tie.
The important issue is that a Supreme Court justice — indeed any judge — must be a good decision maker. An seemingly unbiased article about Miers, published well before her nomination in Legal Times, is very revealing about her decision-making abilities.
She has also earned a reputation as exacting, detail-oriented, and meticulous — to a fault, her critics say.
“She can’t separate the forest from the trees,” says one former White House staffer….
Her critics say the problem goes beyond what Miers does or doesn’t know about policy — and right back to a near-obsession with detail and process.
“There’s a stalemate there,” says one person familiar with the chief of staff’s office. “The process can’t move forward because you have to get every conceivable piece of background before you can move onto the next level. People are talking about a focus on process that is so intense it gets in the way of substance.”
One former White House official familiar with both the counsel’s office and Miers is more blunt.
“She failed in Card’s office for two reasons,” the official says. “First, because she can’t make a decision, and second, because she can’t delegate, she can’t let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102944936042

What strikes me about the picture is that, because of the waving, she is not fully in focus–no more than the American media or public has a clear focus on who she is or what she stands for.

It actually looks like she started to walk by, saw someone she knew & back stepped a pace or so.
The few times I’ve seen her, I’ve found her sense of fashion dreadful – not that I’m such a clothes horse myself. It’s the off-kilterness of colors, patterns, & style. To me it’s akin to men who wear dark blue shirts with white collars & yellow ties. It does NOT work.