Via Danielle Crtittenden over at The Huffington Post –  a leaked transcript of Ed Gillespie prepping Harriet Miers:

EG: I think the preparations have gone very well so far. You’ve really done your homework! So let’s start with your opening statement. From hereon, I’ll be Sen. Arlen Specter.

Please state your name for the record.

HM: I’m John Roberts.

EG: Heh heh, very funny, Harriet. But remember, you weren’t supposed to repeat John Robert’s answers. You were just supposed to memorize them. We want his opinions to sound like your own.

HM: I thought you wanted my answers to sound like the President’s.

EG: Well, yes, but not exactly. Try to put everything in your own words. We’ll come back to the opening statement. Let’s start off with one of the first tough questions you’ll be asked. [Coughs and assumes the voice of Arlen Specter] Ms. Miers, many people have questioned your qualifications for the Supreme Court. They say you lack experience in constitutional law. Tell us why you think you’re qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

HM: I think I should be on the Supreme Court because the President thinks I should be on it. I trust in his judgment. I think others should trust in his judgment as well.

wait…there’s more…

EG: Okay, let’s pause for a moment here. You’ve just repeated our media talking point, which is fine–it’s good!–but we’re going to have to be a little more expansive during the actual hearings.

HM: They should trust in the Vice President’s judgment too?

EG: No, no, no. I mean, yes, everyone should trust in the Vice President’s judgment too, but that’s not the answer we’re going for. This is your moment to really shine, to boast of your credentials but also highlight the fact that you are an ordinary person who will bring common sense and practical experience to the bench–to make any doubters on the committee feel petty and sexist for wanting to stop your nomination.

HM: But it’s true that I don’t have any background in constitutional law…

EG: Exactly! That’s not why you’re here. You’re here because you’re one hell of a corporate lawyer AND a woman. This is the moment to bring up the Bar Association, your leadership at the law firm, your terrific work as White House counsel. That you’ve thought very, very hard about a lot of issues you’ll be dealing with on the court. For example, there was that recent case involving a city’s right to take land from one private owner and give it to another…

HM: “Kelo vs. City of New London.”

EG: Right! Tell me your opinion of that one.

HM: John Roberts said…

EG: No, your opinion.

EG: Take your time.

EG: Pauses are good. They make you seem thoughtful.

EG: No hurry.

EG: Whenever you’re ready.

HM: I guess I’d refer to what I answered in a similar case.

EG: Excellent. And what was that?

HM: I like M&Ms and I like sharing.

EG: Excuse me?

You’ll have to finish reading the transcript yourself to find out why she’s talking about M&Ms.

For the humour-impaired, yes, this is a parody. Frankly though, it’s not far off the mark based on how little we actually know about the woman.

I do have some real news to report: she sure doesn’t like trial lawyers. That should make her job as a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE interesting.

AUSTIN, Oct. 10 — As a corporate lawyer, Harriet Miers once urged then-Gov. George W. Bush to veto legislation that would have prohibited the Texas Supreme Court from regulating or capping attorneys’ fees, charging that the legislation did “violence to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch.”

Miers, President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, said in her 1995 letter to Bush that the legislation was a blatant attempt to protect a “handful of greedy, but immensely rich and powerful” trial lawyers.

Bush vetoed that bill.

Pitbull in size 6 shoes indeed.

Tired of reading about Harriet Miers? Visit this site as a diversion. Don’t forget to check out the archives.