Shock: NYT Publishes Op-Ed From Conservative, Attacking Conservatives

I understand that Hugh Hewitt was pro-Miers. I understand the (underserved) cache of the Times and the quite human desire to reach a broad audience in that erstwhile paper of record.

But I still have to say-- how the hell can Hugh Hewitt, or any Republican, allow himself to be used this way?

The right's embrace in the Miers nomination of tactics previously exclusive to the left - exaggeration, invective, anonymous sources, an unbroken stream of new charges, television advertisements paid for by secret sources - will make it immeasurably harder to denounce and deflect such assaults when the Democrats make them the next time around.

Partly because of this quote, I'm sorry to say. The left loves quotes like this; prepare to hear "Even Hugh Hewitt says..."

It's so sad. We all know the Times publishes conservatives only to hurt other conservatives, but they never seem to run out of volunteers for this task.

On Second Thought... Hey, we all knew Hewitt's opinion; he hasn't been shy about expressing it. And he's made this argument earlier (quoted earlier today).

I guess I just hate the New York Fucking Times. It's just so transparent. They almost never publish a conservative attacking liberals. Only conservatives (or at least RINOs) attacking conservatives.

Sorry, Hugh, But We Dodged A Bullet: The hearings would have been embarassing, not reassuring:

For Harriet Miers, the "murder boards" were aptly named. Day after day in a room in the Justice Department, colleagues from the Bush administration grilled her on constitutional law, her legal background and her past speeches in practice sessions meant to mimic Senate hearings.

Her uncertain, underwhelming responses left her confirmation managers so disturbed they decided not to open up the sessions to the friendly outside lawyers they usually invite to participate in prepping key nominees.

It was clear that Miers was going to need to "hit a grand slam homer" before the Senate Judiciary Committee to win confirmation to the Supreme Court, as one adviser to the White House put it. "Her performance at the murder boards meant that people weren't confident she'd get the grand slam."

And as for her alleged conservatism: If anything, she's a convenience conservative, not a conviction conservative. And you sorta need to be pretty convicted regarding conservative jurisprudence if you're to avoid "evolving in office" with the country's elites and swells slamming you for conservative opinions and praising you for liberal ones.

In Praise of Harriet: Pat Buchanan opines:

By withdrawing her nomination, Harriet Miers spared herself an agonizing inquisition and probable rejection by the Senate and did George W. Bush the greatest service of her career. She may just have helped him save his presidency.

Like a school marm indulging a teacher’s pet, Miss Miers just gave George Bush permission to retake the final exam he booted badly. She has given him a second chance to succeed where Nixon, Ford, Reagan and his father all failed: To become the president who rang down the curtain on 50 years of judicial tyranny and reshaped the Supreme Court into the great constitutionalist body the Founding Fathers intended.

George Bush is a lucky man to have a friend like Harriet Miers.

Had her nomination been pursued through the judiciary committee to the full Senate, it would have meant civil war inside the party.

Dodged a bullet.

I hope President Bush appreciates this little come to Jesus session we've had. He fucks up a fair amount, but we stick by him because he gets the big things right-- or at least we expect him to get the big things right.

I hope, in a fit of pique, he nominates Janice Rogers Brown, hoping to show us all what buffoons we are-- Watch how they tear her apart, maybe he'll be thinking. And then, miracle of miracles, she gets through.

posted by Ace at 12:34 AM

| Access Comments