Support Harriet or else the terrorists have already won.

Which terrorists, the ones abroad or the ones in Congress?

So what, Bush has locked us in one of those John Woo/Quentin Tarantino Mexican standoffs? And we're supposed to be peachy about that? Fuck this. I'm furious at Bush. I put up with so much shit from him over the last four years, and all because of 9/11 and the Courts, and now I'm supposed to sit back and take it in the 'nads? Hey Ace: he's in office for another three years regardless of the outcome next year.

Geez, it's over one year to the mid-term elections... LOTS of things could happen between now and then.

From the RedState article:

Perhaps Ms. Miers will turn out to be an outstanding jurist, even if we feel she was insufficiently vetted or a poor choice.

"Maybe"

"Perhaps"

"Wait"

If Miers is the exceptional nominee Bush wants us to believe she is, then we wouldn't be hearing this sort of bull. Instead, we get 'trust me.'

Based on what, exactly? Her stellar record? Her conservative beliefs?

The Mehlman call sounds like a regurgitation of what state-level party grunts were being fed a couple days ago. I doubt it's become more persuasive.

The RedState piece on the other hand is very persuasive and not just because it's exactly what I've been arguing in that monster thread a few posts down. No, wait, that's a big reason I find it so persuasive.

Bush had a choice, he messed up. That doesn't mean we're now absolved from having to make a rational if unappealing choice.

"He notes that Bush's disapproval rating is now in the range that has caused previous Presidents to lose House and Senate seats.

And that Republicans abandoning Bush could lead to defeats in 2006 and even 2008."

Gee, maybe someone from the white house should have thought of that before they asked conservatives to bend over for the umpteenth time. I guess the question becomes, what's more important, conservative principals, or republicans keeping their offices. I, for one, believe I have run out of compromise - that well is only so deep. As Mal says, I aim to misbehave.

Brooks goes off on the numbing vacuity of some of Miers writing today. It's behind their subscriber wall, but Free Republic is kind enough to share it with everyone. Kinda painful to read.

Sorry bout that link. I see they pulled it. Anyway, it's a disheartening read.

Actually GB - and the reason this is all so stupid - if we stood up for the Constitution like we've always preached we would, I'm positive the Democrats would all fit inside the Super Dome by the time 2008 rolled around. It's not either/or, it's all or nothing. And we're now betting on nothing.

Dr. Reo,

Thanks for the head's up; I've heard it's very negative. But the Freeper thread has been pulled.

If anyone has access and can post some fair-use quotes, that would be cool.

Great Banana, let's cede that the admin messed up, but then let's also cede that Bush is a stubborn SOB if he feels its a matter of loyalty. So we'd have open internal warfare.

If that's the case, would you sit on your hands in 2006 and then in 2008? In doing so, you'll punish Bush (he'll look bad) but you'll also punish yourself. The dems will be less aligned with you politically even if no one is particularly happy with the repubs lately. If you want a 100% you'll get 0%. Ya just gotta accept 65% and work internally in the party to try and move that compromise number upwards.

It sucks, it's Bush's fault -- there is no denying it -- but YOU won't be helped by helping to elect dems. Even if it's the only way you can think of to punish Bush.

Okay, that's it, no more comments for me. I'm all Miers-ed out.

Bush’s approval ratings are lousy because conservative Republicans are abandoning him. Picking a more plausible SCOTUS candidate and bracing for the inevitable senatorial feces-fling would have energized the base and shored up his ratings.

Not to make an invidious comparison, but Bush is starting to make me feel like those people in NARAL who defended Clinton no matter what because, for them, abortion trumped everything. The War on Terror is important—very important—but that gives Bush latitude on other matters, not a blank check.

P.S. I've got that Brooks piece on my desk somewhere--I'll see if I can pull a few representative quotes.

I don't see the harm of opposing the Miers nomination with respect to either the 2006 or the 2008 elections. With regard to the 2006 elections, it seems that the Republicans most in danger are the ones that will require a heavy turnout of the base to remain in office. If Miers is rejected and Bush subsequently nominates a true, tested conservative (i.e., everyone else on the short-list except Gonzales) to the bench, the subsequent confirmation war will do wonders for the base's turnout. The base is never more important than in midterm elections.

Bush falling flat doesn't mean jack for 2008, depending on who the GOP nominee is. With regard to the 2008 election, the candidate with the best chance of winning for the Republicans is McCain, and he's successfully distanced himself from Bush's more unpopular policies in the eyes of the public.

Like I said before, Bush is making a play to his social conservative base.

1234-

I've heard that argument for years, and for years I've been doing just that. At what point do I stop being fooled by the argument? What 65% has Bush given me? I disagree with about 80% of his domestic policy. And, although I agree with the WOT, I'm not going to give him a pass on absolutely everything else.

Just once, I'd love to see the other side of our alleged alliance compromise toward the conservative position. It has never happened, and I don't believe it will.

Moreover, absolutely all of the actual evidence that is coming out demonstrates that it is much more likely that Miers is going to be a liberal justice, even more liberal than O'Conner.

This betrayal was too much. If it means that the republicans have to lose the house and senate and presidency before they move to the right, so be it. I don't agree with the dems, but people who try to tell me that the U.S. will come to an end, or the world will end, if the dems ever win again are being absolutely ridiculous, and won't win me over.

Furthermore, calling me names and telling me I'm foolish or petty for thinking some principals are more important than republican victories is not persuasive in the least, and in fact, solidifies my resentment of republicans even more. (I'm not saying you have done this, just that this is the entire pro-miers argument).

Sorry, Bush made his bed through crazy spending, NCLB, CFR, Prescriptiong Drug Benefits, and other issues. I stuck with him through those messes. This last betrayal was beyond what can be endured.

Like I said before, Bush is making a play to his social conservative base.

Uh, I'm socially conservative and I've been dogging him like there's NO tomorrow about this.

Okay, from David Brooks' column "In Her Own Words," here are three very typical quotes from Miers’ column “President’s Opinion” for the Texas Bar Journal:

When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.

Or this:

There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law.

Or, finally:

We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective.

It’s not so much her sentiments in thtese quotes, which are too cliched to really disagree with. It’s the murky, vapid quality of her writing, which seems to avoid saying much of anything. As one reader pointed out, this is typical bar journal fluff, and one might hope her actual opinions would be more incisive. But this is all we have to go by. I am really f’ing tired of hearing that being a Supreme Court justice is the one job where your track record should be either non-existent, or ignored

Hugh Hewitt just talked to Karl Rove about the nomination.

I'm shocked to hear that Rove thinks the nomination is sterling.

I mean, what are the odds?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that link ain't taking me to the hard hitting, WTF Karl? grillin I was lookin for.

Ahh, the siren call of Miers debate, I can't avoid it.

Anon guy who commented to me:

Dude, I sympathize. You're describing my feelings exactly.

Our divergence lies only in what we're thinking about doing with it. And, granted, I am very tempted to see if having the repubs lose power for a cycle or two might not act as a sort of conservative tonic for what ails them. My real fear there is that politics has a certain momentum and a cycle or two could turn into 40 yrs again.

But, no need to talk that to death again (I just did so all day in a different thread).

So, yeah, it sucks, it's Bush's fault. People who call you names for pointing that out should be ignored.

I'm confused. Why would opposing the Miers pick cause people to snub the party in 2006? Does the party believe the rank and file will think it's a great choice if everybody clams up and pretends it is? If so, aren't they giving too much credit to the punditocracy and not enough to the rank and file? If the rank and file figure out it's a bad pick but nobody says anything, isn't it more likely to make them distrust the party? I'm not getting why criticism of the pick is a problem. The pick is the problem.

At this point, with the President's approval rating below 40% and an apparent pattern of incompetence and cronyism, Repubs up for re-election might do well to take the Meirs opportunity to show their independence. It might work better for the Repub party if these Reps and Sens scuttle the Meirs nomination on the grounds that she is underqualified and they will not put up with WH cronyism than if they march to the WH's lockstep tune.

Remember, the Dems rallied behind a badly flawed President at the expense of their principles on the basis of partisan solidarity and that really has not worked out well for them.

Losing the house would be a good thing IMO.

Then you've got LEGISLATIVE GRIDLOCK - which I've waxed poetic about in the past. When they're infighting and can't agree on anything, they AREN'T picking our pockets.

The house is easy enough to regain later on. The dems WILL NOT be able to restrain themselves and will be writing spending bills and massive tax increases that make today's porkfest look like a cub scout picnic.

Seriously - the republicans need a harsh wakeup call. This could be it.

Let's change the name of this post to the 'Harriet Bashing Echo Chamber' and we can get somebody to do a track back from DU.

:(

Once again equating people who criticize Bush for not being conservative enough with people on the far left. Well done, Brew.

Drudge puts Meirs' chances to bed.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4hmn.htm

A. ... I have tried to avoid memberships in organization s that were politically charged with one viewpoint or the other. For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society...

Q. Do you think the NAACP and Black Chamber of Commerce are in the category of organizations you were talking about?

A. No, I don’t...

Done.

Go home, Miss Miers.

I've waxed poetic

And let me the first to say that it looks great.

Allah,

Its moved beyond mere criticism into borderline BDS. Why does it have to be hammered like this every day, in public, by people who have identified themselves as conservative. Can't we just write a letter or call somebody? That's what I'm objecting to now, not the criticism per se.

Plus, it has that "new poetic" smell. How'd you do that?

One thing's for sure:

When I vote in the 2006 elections, I'm going to leave the ballot for "President" blank.

That'll show 'em.

Sea, if I wasn't saying it before -- and I was -- I'd DEFINITELY be saying it now.

Pack your bags, you dumb broad, NOW.

Actually, I'm "Sean", not "Sea". I was too enraged to type correctly.

Here's one Miers quote that suggests she might be a little soft on the ICC:

"In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature."

Damn, I done it again.

BrewFan,

It becomes tedious when your only argument seems to be "don't criticize Bush, it hurts the party."

We're allowed to criticize Bush. Bush caused this by this ill-considered nomination.

If nothing else, even if Miers does go through, the Bush Administration will be on notice that should he be lucky enough to fill another seat, it had goddamned better be filled by a bona-fide certified constitutionalist.

Brew:

The only hope - THE ONLY HOPE - we have of scuttling this nomination (which I'm convinced must be done) is by putting up as loud a stink about this as possible, and making it clear to the Republican Senate caucus that, even if Bush is invincible to criticism due to morongenes, THEY are going to pay for letting Harriet Miers go through. We aren't political operatives, we have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by continuing the squealing.

It's the only chance we've got. If Miers is confirmed, I'll probably vote in 2006 for Ehrlich and Steele, but my enthusiasm is going to be pretty much dead after that.

Actually, I'm "Sean", not "Sea". I was too enraged to type correctly.

Sea, Sean, whatever...okay, I can buy that reason. I concur. Get...rid...of....Miers....NOW.

And Brew, that's not fair. BDS deals with just making up $hit to blame Bush for. Nothing said in any of these threads even has a wisp of that...except maybe for that whole "tools of Satan" thing, and that wasn't coming from THIS side.

Ace,

Equally tedious is your argument which essentially boils down to "Bush didn't appoint the person I wanted him to so it must be BAD!". Everything else you propose as an argument (her qualifications, for example) are based on innuendo and speculation. Pot, Kettle, Black.

This whole experience has convinced me that conservative Republicans need to help elect Joseph Lieberman ni 2008, regardless of the Republican candidate (even if it's Condi... sniff).

A strong Democrat who won't go all wobbly in the GWOT, but whose domestic agenda will be thwarted by a Republican Congress.

Progress against al Qaeda, and gridlock-induced fiscal restraint.

Miers conservative on social questions and liberal on economic ones.

See, this is the kind of thing that leads me to believe she's an airhead.

If one has the intellectual wherewithal to understand that the Constitution does not speak to the abortion issue, then one should also understand that the Constitution does NOT grant the federal government blanket jurisdiction over economic matters.

If we are going to write paeans to the original text and confirm the profound importance of enforcing the Constitution as it is actually written, not as one would like it to be (which I completely agree with), then we should have enough honesty and integrity to adhere to that principle in all resepects.

The Constitution gives the federal government power over interstate commerce. Not over everything affecting, touching on or relating to commerce.

This is the heart of the Miers debate. Some people are just glad to see that she's an evangelical, that she is (probably) anti-abortion.

But to be a true conservative, a true Constitutionalist, you have to adhere to the actual text in all respects.

Abortion is just one issue. One of about 10 where the Court has screwed the pooch and given the federal government more power than it actually has.

The fact that Bush has appointed someone who does not have any record of ever considering these issues, or demonstrates the kind of intellectual and moral strength and perseverence necessary to adhere to this political philosophy in the face of intense opposition, leads some of us to believe that, yet again, the prevailing liberal theory of unlimited government will be allowed to go on, like the cancer that it is.

bbeck,

This doesn't sound like DU to you?:

even if Bush is invincible to criticism due to morongenes

I'm not just picking on jeff b because you can look back on the previous 10 Meir's threads here and see the same thing from a lot of people, yourself included.

Equally tedious is your argument which essentially boils down to "Bush didn't appoint the person I wanted him to so it must be BAD!". Everything else you propose as an argument (her qualifications, for example) are based on innuendo and speculation. Pot, Kettle, Black.

Childish. I had no specific person in mind. Bush could have appointed any one of twenty or thirty qualified, certified-conservative judges (or lawyers with good experience in high-level government, arguing before the SC, etc.) and I would be one happy camper.

I've never endorsed any particular judge. I just wanted a constitutionalist, which Ms. Miers is not.

Criminy, she doesn't even seem to think much about SC jurisprudence. She thinks "Warren" is a great justice. Whether Burger or Earl, it makes little difference.

Well, it makes SOME difference. But you'd be hard pressed to find a constitutional scholar who thinks Warren Burger is one of the greats.

No, Brew, that doesn't sound like DU to me. DU would be more like, "even if Bushitler is invincible to criticism due to Nazi morongenes that Rove planted so he could rule the world through a puppet regime." And they'd be deadly serious.

You're doing yourself a disservice when you draw comparisons between DUmmies and any conservative, and you're only going to get stomped on more than you have been.

Correction: the "universal inter-dependence of nations" quote is not from Miers, but from the Communist Manifesto.

Like I said before, Bush is making a play to his social conservative base.

Like I said before, Bush is making a play to destroy his social conservative base.

I've never endorsed any particular judge. I just wanted a constitutionalist, which Ms. Miers is not.

Thank you for clarifying, Ace. I didn't remember you EVER endorsing a particular candidate, either.

Gee, DUmmies tend to make up stuff out o' the blue like that...

I am furious with Bush for putting us all in this position, but I think 1234 has it pretty much nailed, as far as I'm concerned. I am pissed off no end at this ridiculous quandry, but in my mind, the WOT is the be-all and end-all of politics for this moment.

My inclination is to drop out again and return to my former political philosophy of "Fuck it". However, after reading Zawihiri's letter, it is just too clear that we need all the strength we can muster to counter balance the Democrats and the MSM, who clearly would LOVE us to lose this war - and are doing everything they can to make that happen.

So once again, I will lean over and bite my tongue (I am beginning to feel like Web Hubbell), and see what develops. My one hope is that Meirs will surprise us, but it is not one I would bet the ranch on.

Although Bush has turned out to be just another Bush as far as I can see, I KNOW that he is committed to the WOT, and there is not one Dem on the horizon who takes it seriously enough for me to feel that I have the luxury of dropping out completely. If we lose Iraq, we are in very deep trouble, and that is the ONLY thing that really matters to me at the moment.
I am unbelivably pissed about this nomination, but compared to the WOT, it is small potatoes as far as loyalty is concerned. I do feel that Bush will get another shot, and hopefully, he will have learned something by then.

So I will suck it up,and with steam coming out of my ears, I will still back Bush. But I am NOT a happy camper...

I just wanted a constitutionalist, which Ms. Miers is not.

Speculation

she doesn't even seem to think much about SC jurisprudence

Wild speculation

She thinks "Warren" is a great justice

Innuendo and particularly childish at that.
Thanks for illustrating my point.

the "universal inter-dependence of nations" quote is not from Miers, but from the Communist Manifesto

Yeah, not many people talk about "distant lands and climes" nowadays.

Certainly not the kind of person whose favorite justice was "Warren somebody."

Gee, Brew, it's funny that while giving a speech at the Federalist Society, a group dedicated to restoring constitutionalism to the interpretation of the Constitution, she couldn't or wouldn't endorse constitutionalism.

But you must be right. There's nothing in her record to support the claim that she's a constitutionalist, but we have to "trust Bush."

Like we trusted his father.

That worked out pretty well. I say-- let's do it again!

No offense, Ace, but you're missing the juicier stories out there. Like the original Drudge story about her FedSoc bashing/liberal group supporting testimony, Hewitt's prediction that she'll be Potter f'in Stewart, Fund's horrifying rundown of how this CF happened, and, perhaps most importantly, the rumor of open revolt led in part by Lindsey Graham (spit).

and you're only going to get stomped on more than you have been.

You'd be hard pressed to stomp anybody with the arguments you've made so far.

The point, Brew, is that Bush didn't need to settle for an unknown quantity. There would have been no "speculation" with Luttig or Rogers Brown.

Let's speculate for a moment and assume that Ace's hunches are right. If he is, we'll still be paying for Bush's mistake fifteen or twenty years from now.

Oh yeah, and here's the funny thing. You can't force people to be happy. Only hacks like Hewitt will smile and proclaim "B+" when they know it's crap. Even if we back off and let Bush ram this through, we and many others out there will still know it's a disaster. Good luck talking a million or two people from anger into enthusiastic support.

The only way out is withdrawal.

Ace, if you couldn't trust the man why did you vote for him?

There is no evidence that Miers can make an argument. Thus she is not qualified for SCOTUS.

Cronyism and incompetence. Conservative values?

Don't get stuck on stupid. And don't get stuck on H. Stupid Miers. The WH says she ain't backing down, but... this WH is the king of flip-flopping. Keep up the pressure and they'll "find" something in her past that has caused the president to rethink his choice.

Do it for America.

Let's speculate for a moment and assume that Ace's hunches are right. If he is, we'll still be paying for Bush's mistake fifteen or twenty years from now.

In the spirit of speculation, I agree. I will be mortified and nobody will be angrier then me. But there's one fact you guys overlook and thats that *anybody* he nominates could turn out to be Souter. I'm banking on the fact he realizes this and knows the best chance he has to get the kind of person he wants on that court is to nominate the person he knows best.

Let's speculate for a moment and assume that Ace's hunches are right. If he is, we'll still be paying for Bush's mistake fifteen or twenty years from now.

And the conservative coalition will be destroyed, because Evangelicals and conservatives won't get fooled again. They've been fooled too many times before.

It will be especially disastrous because Bush was adequately warned and continued to press stubbornly for an unknown quantity.

If she turns out to be a conservative, fine, I'll write my apology and Bush will have done well.

If she doesn't-- you can kiss the Presidency away for twenty years.

You in a gamblin' kind of mood, BrewFan?

You'd be hard pressed to stomp anybody with the arguments you've made so far.

It actually wasn't that hard at all. I think you were too busy getting pounded by Allah, Ace, someone, Phinn, etc. to notice, though, which is probably why you keep getting your facts wrong about what I've said.

My argument from the very beginning was that this was a stupid, gutless appointment from a stupid, gutless president. You don't think it was stupid? Uh, I think the fact that it fractured the party proves it was stupid. You don't think it was gutless? Uh, I think the fact that some die-hard Democrats are "encouraged" by her nomination proves it was gutless. Bush was stupid for nominating someone with such an obvious Crony label, and he was gutless for not making a bold choice on a proven rock-hard constructionist.

But I'm happy to leave your pounding to those who are already doing it.

Hey bbeck, tubby agrees with you! Politics makes strange bedfellows!

In the spirit of speculation, I agree. I will be mortified and nobody will be angrier then me.

Indeed, you will be one of the several millions that deserts the party for a decade or more.

But there's one fact you guys overlook and thats that *anybody* he nominates could turn out to be Souter.

Uhhhh, no. A judge who has been writing conservative, constitutionalist opinions for years is unlikely one day to wake up and say, "Hey, you know what? I think it's time to look more into this "living constitution" theory I keep hearing about."

In the past, we HAD to gamble on people like Souter, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CONTROL THE SENATE. Now we have the Presidency and the Senate (maybe for the last year in a long time) and we go the Souter Route?

In fact, Daly's argument is exactly backwards. Bush is in danger of losing Senate seats -- so we're in fact at the threshold level where he can't ignore the discontent. If HE wants to get anything done, and not be the biggest lame duck ever, he'd better get his butt in gear and undo this mess.

Funny, since the previous "bend over" line has been that opposition to Miers was negligible in the larger political scheme of things.

But there's one fact you guys overlook and thats that *anybody* he nominates could turn out to be Souter.

But why take a chance on someone who's much MORE LIKELY to be Souter than someone else is? You're dismissing all the evidence against her as "speculation," yet when push comes to shove the best you can do is "Bush seems to like her." Mike Luttig has been a fire-breathing conservative on the federal bench for years now; are you seriously suggesting that he's more likely to "grow in office" than Harriet the cipher is?

"I'm banking on the fact he realizes this and knows the best chance he has to get the kind of person he wants on that court is to nominate the person he knows best."

Translation: I'm banking on the fact that there is no evidence of serious legal THOUGHT by this choice, so highly reduced chance of her evolving at all.

Bush himself said she won't change. Apparently her mind is made up.

Folks, all the anti-intellectualism in the world still doesn't mean you don't want a scholar on the bench. Doesn't mean Ivy League, doesn't mean Fed judge, it means a scholar engaged in the legal discourse.

from a stupid, gutless president

Now I understand why you don't think 'morongenes' is bad.

Who let in the troll?

Hey bbeck, tubby agrees with you! Politics makes strange bedfellows!

Durn, jus' 'cause Tubby da Token Blind Squirrel o' AoS has gone n' found hisself an acorn, it doesn't mean those making the same argument are wrong.

On trusting Bush, and Bush "knowing" Miers' heart:

Nobody knows anybody. Not that well.-- Tom from Miller's Crossing

Now I understand why you don't think 'morongenes' is bad.

Now I understand why playing Pick n' Choose with out-of-context quotes has become your preferred method of debate. You need to notice that I backed that statement up.

You're better than this.

Stupid is as stupid does. -- Forrest Gump

Fortune favors the bold. -- no idea. I think Captain Kirk said it once, but that was in the 23rd Century

Indeed, you will be one of the several millions that deserts the party for a decade or more.

No, I won't do that. I didn't do it after Nixon and I won't do it now.

Now we have the Presidency and the Senate

Right. Thats why its been so easy to get the appellate court nominees through.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others -- Groucho Marx

Captain Kirk said, May fortune favor the foolish.

Fortune favors the bold. is Virgil, but Napoleon made it famous.

Oh, for god's sake, you nitpicky big-breasted ultrageek.

I knew that too, but it doesn't fit.

Gaaah.

Anyhow, the saddest part is the one tubino got wrong, namely "this WH is the king of flip-flopping." Less true words were never spoken. Bush is the least likely public figure I've ever known to back down over anything, however unpopular. When he makes the right decision, that's a good thing. When he doesn't, it's not. I think the least likely scenario of all is that he himself would rescind the nomination.

Brew,

We're getting them through now.

As someone else has said, no one would mind if Bush tried with a real conservative, failed, and then offered up Miers as a compromise back-up.

But he didn't even try.

Thus Bush endorses the French doctrine of pre-emptive surrender.

You're better than this.

I am not the one who called the President of the United States stupid and gutless. You can try and mitigate it by saying you 'backed it up' but the horse is out of the barn.

I am not the one who called the President of the United States stupid and gutless.

When he does something stupid and gutless, you're not allowed to say so? Though, for the record, I think he did something stupid rather than gutless.

The move was stupid (look at the results) and gutless (he could have tried for a real nominee first).

I don't know if I'd say bush was stupid and gutless as a general matter, but here, yes, he most definitely was.

He's done what five years of unending Democratic attacks could not-- demoralized and split the conservative base, maybe irrepairably.

Meanwhile, there's a nice shitstorm brewing up between Sullivan and Hewitt over at Andy's blog. Hewitt's got the better of the argument.

This whole debate reminds me of a brief, but important discussion that occurred during the Clinton scandal of 1998.

There were two brothers -- one was highly critical of Clinton, one was loyal to him and defended him vigorously.

They appeared on TV, side-by-side, to explain their positions. The moderator asked each of them, "What is the most important personal virtue?" or something along those lines.

The Clinton-defender said, "loyalty matters the most."

But the other brother said something very simple, but it illuminated the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives: the most important virtue is "fidelity."

Fidelity. It's similar to loyalty, he said, but broader. It includes being faithful to your firends, but also means being faithful to a higher truth. You can (and should) be loyal to your friends, he said, but you should not have to abandon your principles and defend the indefensible to do so. We should be loyal to our friends because we are both faithful to a common, higher principle.

(Incidentally, the two brothers were Bill Bennett and his brother, Robert, Clinton's lawyer.)

I'm loyal to Bush, but I'm more concerned about being faithful to the principles of constitutional government that he said he supported.

Oh, for god's sake, you nitpicky big-breasted ultrageek.

I would like people to note that this is the first thing Ace has said to me in months.

I'm not exactly the teacher's pet around here...unless this can be construed as a compliment, and I can't quite get it to work.

I am not the one who called the President of the United States stupid and gutless. You can try and mitigate it by saying you 'backed it up' but the horse is out of the barn.

No, you're just the one making $hit up about what people are saying and incorrectly equating different statements between different people. Bush WAS stupid and gutless with this appointment, and I'm not making that up.

Of course it's a compliment, you sweater-straining mega-yabbo'd geekbait.

I'd like to welcome my good friend tubino, AKA "The Tube", or, as we call him in Pakistan, "anda a lavarte el Caqueño."

It's a compliment, the way I read it.

I've never known Ace to use "big-breasted" in any other way.

Is there another way?

Of course it's a compliment, you sweater-straining mega-yabbo'd geekbait.

That's better.

I think.

Here’s the practically nothing we’ve got to go on:

--Miers constantly praises “diversity” and supported the Administration’s defense of affirmative action in the Michigan case;

--She spoke before the Federalist Society without once defending the principles of constitutionalism or limited federal government (although she did praise the society’s “diverse” perspective);

--In the 1990s, she described Republican calls for tort reform as “persecution” of tort lawyers;

--She is said to be “pro-life,” but has never expressed an opinion on Roe v. Wade. Laura Bush, who supports her, has said she doesn’t want to see Roe overturned.

None of this is hearsay. On the other side, Bush’s assurances that Miers is a true-blue conservative really are hearsay. Unfortunately, so is his assurance that she won’t change on the bench, because I sure hope she doesn’t render opinions like this.

I’ve ragged on her qualifications, and I still think they suck. But the little I’ve heard about Miers’ positions bothers me even more. I’m not optimistic about keeping her off the bench, but a cold rejection would do less damage to Bush and the Republicans than confirming her and discovering that she's a more liberal O’Connor or a more lightweight Souter. Given the scrutiny Justice Miers would be under, the first quasi-liberal ruling she made would go off like a bomb in the conservative coalition.

We've got quite the fest inbreastation on the threads today.

It's more like a fest inbratuation.

I'd like to welcome my good friend tubino, AKA "The Tube"

I figured he's italian, so he's "Little Tub."

bbeck is a g-g-g-girl?

That changes everything.

Fine, so just look at my arm, then.

(I'm on the right.)

Does anyone else get the feeling that trolls are commenting and trying to fan the fires betrween us?Every so often it seems they feel they are being too subtle and so they say some idiot brazen thing-almost like when little kids try to goad each other on. At least I hope that is what is happening. It just seems like there are way too many "someones" and new posters who are decidedly anti Meirs. Not just unsure or unhappy-which is how it seems that Ace, BBeck or Slu seem to feel-but just really pushing to throw out the entire Republican party with the bath water. Just saying.

bbeck is a g-g-g-girl?

As I've said, it's easier to tell in person.

But -- and I'm quite serious -- WHY do people have THAT much trouble figuring this out?

No, jayne, I don't get that feeling. I've recognized every name but the blank one, who helpfully tacked 1234 on himself so we could follow his argument and is one of the stronger supporters of the party in the mix. Please let's not add paranoia to the mix.

Great bbeck - now I suppose you're going to tell us to get back on topic after completely derailing our thought processes (such as they were).

Yes, I've seen a few new names here, making what seem to be quite cogent arguments, but I do get the feeling their are some liberal trolls checking in to stir the shit, posing as "concerned conservatives."

Still, it's a genuine argument. I really don't think this is a minor little squabble we can brush under the carpet simply because the Democrats are loving it.

It's too important. If Harriet Miers is confirmed and turns out to be a liberal, or liberal leaning, the court shifts dramatically to the left and the Republican Party is destroyed.

Yes, she might turn out to be a good conservative justice. Bush's vaunted "gut" may be right.

But it's been wrong before. Vladimir Putin, anyone?

It's a gamble, and just because Bush is in a gambling mood, I'm not sure the rest of us should be willing to back his bet. There are far safer plays and I don't think I'm being disloyal or churlish to insist he makes one of those safe bets.

But -- and I'm quite serious -- WHY do people have THAT much trouble figuring this out?

Two reasons. One, the default presumption is always male. This is true in life generally, where "he" is the generic, but especially on the 'net -- which was actually disprortionately male for a long time. The other: many women who post choose monikers that indicate their gender. I've always found this ever so slightly...suspect (I mean, unless it's your own name or something).

That's a mighty fine tricep you got there, bbeak.

And, Jayne, I'll never abandon the Party while it still holds my ideology, but I sure will dump any politician in the Party that does not share my ideology.

For instance, if I was a Democrat, I would STILL loath Byrd and Kennedy for a being dispocable people.

Fortune favors the bald.

Great bbeck - now I suppose you're going to tell us to get back on topic after completely derailing our thought processes (such as they were).

S'okay, Geoff, this thread will wind down now that there's a NEW Miers thread up higher.

The other: many women who post choose monikers that indicate their gender.

This is the one that gets me. What kind of GUY would name himself bbeck? That sounds either chickish or gay to me.

What kind of GUY would name himself bbeck? That sounds either chickish or gay to me.

Nah. It made me think of Jeff Beck, who I isn't really either. Is he?

Uh, Jeff Beck would be JBeck, and I really think a guy would capitalize his name.

Are you calling ee cummings a gaywad?!

Now, beckb would've struck me as girly, sure.

Are you calling ee cummings a gaywad?!

Yeah.

Now, beckb would've struck me as girly, sure.

But that's just bad grammar.

I really think a guy would capitalize his name

Yeah, capital letters have "I have a rock hard erection" written all over them.

The Romans invented capital letters. They were nothing if not phallo-centric.

beckb would've struck me as girly

beckb would make me think about bbeck's boobies every time I read her comment.

which come to think of it I pretty much do now anyway.

Yeah, capital letters have "I have a rock hard erection" written all over them.

The Romans invented capital letters. They were nothing if not phallo-centric.

It's good to see someone gets where I'm coming from!

There would have been no "speculation" with Luttig or Rogers Brown.

Who says? No one is a “sure thing.” I certainly don't believe Rogers Brown is a sure thing and she is my first choice.

As to Luttig, everyone ignores the fact that there would be an uproar every time a death penalty case hit the court and it certainly would be used against him in the confirmation hearings. The dp may not be an important to issue to everyone, but it sure is to me. And, yes, I very much admire Luttig, too.

About the best thing a lefty can do is attack the death penalty.

Seriously, we need more of that.

In reference to BBeck using only BBeck as her name:
I used to use only J. when I wrote in. Being a female and a blond I have had many years of having people speak only to my breasts when they spoke to me, and also discounting my opinions because I was a female. It is almost empowering to be "sexless" on the web. I had to stop, though, because there was another "J" and I did not want to be confused with that persons' opinions. I doubt that many men can understand that, but it is true. Women just want to be accepted as people.

Cripes, bbeck. Remind me never to piss you off.

I'd get my ass kicked.

Don't feel bad bbeck, when I first starting commenting everywhere people assumed I was a guy too!!! And with SPARKLE on my name for God's sake! How gay would that be?????

I think it is just the natural man sexist tendency to see serious discussion as something that men do with brandy and cigars. We women are suppose to be talking shopping and cooking.

But THAT'S OK. Men are men and there aint a damn thing we can do to change them. So we might as well force ourselves into the debate and enjoy ourselves.

In fact I am pretty sure this is Ace's problem with Mier. It's really because she is a GIRL.

I KID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One more little thing. Ace doesn't talk to you? He doesn't talk to me either. Do you think he is gay?

I KID AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure he is a manly man's man.

Hey ACE! Ya there???............;-)

Women just want to be accepted as people.

Someday, Jane, someday.

*sniff*

So Ace doesn't talk to girls. Big deal. He doesn't talk to me either.

Wait a minute . . .

Do you think he is gay?

He vanishes for a few days, penguins go missing from the zoo, and he comes back endlessly jabbering about dreary political shit rather than really important stuff like glowing mosquito balls.

Need I say more? The mauve paint for the living room seals the deal.

Mark Levin on the Corner just hit the nail on the head (so I'll copy the whole thing):

WANTED: FED CHAIRMAN [Mark R. Levin] With so much focus on the Supreme Court, we've forgetting that soon the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve Board will be vacant. Today the White House has released the criteria for the job.

1. Experience with banking laws or economic theory is optional.

2. Ivy League applicants are discouraged.

3. Particular attention will be given to the first woman to have managed a branch office of a major bank.

4. No record of commenting on interest rates, money supply or inflation is required.

5. Preference will be given to the president's personal banker.

The good news is that the chairmanship of the Fed is not a lifetime appointment.

Need I say more? The mauve paint for the living room seals the deal.

And what color is the paint in his bedroom, Purple Avenger? Hmmmm? We all know you've been there too.....