On Sunday, the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, wrote: "The Times must now face up to three major concerns raised by the leak investigation: First, the tendency by top editors to move cautiously to correct problems about prewar coverage. Second, the journalistic shortcuts taken by Ms. Miller. And third, the deferential treatment of Ms. Miller by editors who failed to dig into problems before they became a mess." LINK
Harriet Miers for Associate Justice:
Senators from both parties are demanding the Bush Administration release documents related to Miers' role as White House counsel, reports the Los Angeles Times. LINK
USA Today's Kathy Kiely reviews the comments of Senators and finds the centrists are starting to run from Miers -- which could spell big trouble for the embattled nominee, she predicts. LINK
George F. Will threw down the gauntlet on Sunday: "As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material." LINK
Newsweek's Wolffe and Klaidman on the possibly less than stellar Miers murder boards: "Behind the scenes, however, the comfort level is very low. Some White House officials are already worried that Miers's rehearsals for her hearings are not proceeding smoothly, according to current and former administration sources who declined to be named because the sessions are secret. Whether the White House now prevails with its nominee says as much about its qualities under fire as those of Harriet Ellan Miers." LINK
And just in case you missed your weekend installment of the Wall Street Journal, here is what Chairman Specter told Melanie Kirkpatrick: "I don't think she's going to be withdrawn."
The White House denies Ralph Z. Hallow and Charles Hurt's Washington Times story on Saturday about Sara Taylor making some phone calls to take the GOP temperature on a hypothetical withdrawal of the Miers nomination. LINK
A Specter source tells Time Magazine's Mike Allen that the Judiciary Committee Chairman had been feeling sorry for Harriet Miers but he is now "very, very, very unhappy." LINK
"James T. Dyke Jr., a White House official who is working with Miers, told Time, 'Is it easy? No. Are we making progress? Absolutely.'"
The New York Times' Kirkpatrick places the Miers nomination in historical context to present its unique-ness. LINK
In Sunday's Washington Post, David Broder wrote that the nomination of Harriet Miers has been "as badly bungled as anything" since Dan Quayle. LINK
In an Opinion Journal op-ed, the Wall Street Journal's John Fund writes that he believes it is "almost inevitable that Ms. Miers will withdraw or be defeated." LINK
"The damage to his relations with his conservative base would blow over quickly if Mr. Bush were to quickly name a well-qualified nominee who was not a sphinx when it came to judicial philosophy. Perhaps this time he might even expand the talent pool to include -- gasp -- men."