What's a Little Lying Between Friends?

The WSJ's John Fund is feeling the heat for his Harriet reporting:

"In desperation, I took to going on radio talk shows in Texas and tongue-in-cheek offered to practice 'checkbook journalism' for the first time in my career. I said I would write a small check to the favorite charity of anyone who contacted me and could plausibly say that he has had a serious discussion about politics or judicial philosophy with Ms. Miers. So far it hasn't cost me a dime.

"For my trouble, I have been incorrectly attacked by allies of Ms. Miers, including some in the White House, for supposedly waving a checkbook seeking negative information about her. For the record, I made my offer in a jocular fashion, but to make a serious point. With the exception of President Bush, no one appears to know the nominee's judicial philosophy."

By the way, says Fund, "I believe it is almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated."

In National Review, Danielle Crittenden offers a woman's perspective I haven't seen before:

"It doesn't involve cigars or a stained dress. But the nomination of Harriet Miers has created a woman problem on the Right every bit as big as that which faced feminists during Bill Clinton's presidency.

"For years, conservative women's groups such as the Independent Women's Forum have opposed feminist visions of female equality. We opposed affirmative action in the workplace, believing women had to be held to the same standards as men. We rallied against quotas, with the reasoning that if there were fewer female firefighters than male, this was because women didn't wish to take these jobs, and not because of discriminatory hiring practices by the fire department . . .

"We were disgusted with feminist groups when they stood by Bill Clinton through all his women troubles--when the National Organization for Women, for example, jettisoned all its previously stated principles on sexual harassment in order to retain political power.

"Now conservative women face a similar dilemma with Harriet: President Bush has asked us to stand by a woman who is unqualified for the Court because he knows what's in her 'heart'-- not in her head.

"We are asked to stand by her because, simply, she is a woman-- a 'pioneer,' a 'glass-ceiling breaker' -- even while other more qualified women were rejected for the position (and interestingly, rejected by Harriet herself, who headed the 'search' committee).

"That her pioneering had nothing to do with gathering expertise in constitutional law -- well, no biggie. We must swallow the idea that quotas and affirmative action are justifiable policies for the highest Court in the land.

"We are asked, further, to stand hypocritically by this decision as Patricia Ireland did when she stood by Bill Clinton--going so far as to sign letters with other 'accomplished' women saying we believe Harriet Miers is qualified for the Court. Whatever our principles, we must jettison them in order to retain political power."