Savor, if you will, the staggering irony of the man who wrote "Blog" running to the the biggest of big media to launch one last broadside at the Miers skeptics. This, after he spent the week dismissing bloggers who don't have law degrees as hopelessly unqualified to discuss the nomination.

Oddly, professional expertise didn't seem to matter so much when we were analyzing typefaces on the Selectric Composer or poring over Terri Schiavo's medical records.

Fuck him.

eh, he's still one of the good guys.

It's hard to keep from getting personally invested in a cause you care a lot about. I know I kinda got a little gunshy when the pro-miers people started slamming me.

Egos get bruised. We're all human.

Hewitt's a whore. I really can't stomach the guy. Whatever his reasons are for standing by Miers, they have nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with what's best for Hugh.

Sorry, Hugh's not a conservative. He's a pathetic hack.

Most of the Miers skeptics are good guys too, but that didn't stop him from casually insulting them every day for the past three weeks. Depending on his mood, laymen bloggers were either (a) too ignorant to comment intelligently -- which is certainly news to anyone who's been reading Goldstein, (b) too elitist to comment fairly, or (c) both.

All I want to know is, where does the vaunted blog revolution stand now? Are we all citizen journalists or are we all hacks, or does it depend on whether we agree with Hewitt or not? Put me some fucking knowledge.

Come now. What Republicans, exactly, have NEVER defended Bush on a dubious decision or performance due to some greater strategic goal?

I think he's honest. I think he really did think she was both qualified and conservative. Being wrong is not a sin.

In any event, seriously, this isn't the time for more attacks. Hewitt had an outburst; well, he lost. People who lose tend to do that.

As they say: It's time to MoveOn.

And Patterico makes an excellent point. Who really ended up doing the left's dirty work here?

Most of the Miers skeptics are good guys too, but that didn't stop him from casually insulting them every day for the past three weeks. Depending on his mood, laymen bloggers were either (a) too ignorant to comment intelligently -- which is certainly news to anyone who's been reading Goldstein, (b) too elitist to comment fairly, or (c) both.

Where do I go now, sir, to get my reputation back?

It all got a lot more heated and nasty than I expected or hoped. I really didn't like the whole WH-talking-points "elitist" attack.

But, not to be gay or anything, but it's kinda time to put this behind us and unite so we can get someone good on the court.

As a wise man said: "You guys know that, when the space aliens come, we're all gonna be on the same side, right?"

What Republicans, exactly, have NEVER defended Bush on a dubious decision or performance due to some greater strategic goal?

It's not the fact that he defended the decision. So did Beldar, and no one's calling him a hack. It was Hewitt's imputation of bad faith and ignorance to his opponents that's had people breaking out the shit sandwich jokes for him.

I can't believe I have to be the fucking voice of reconcilation and moderation here.

Allah,

I don't think either you or I, or many of the commenters here, can claim to be above imputing bad faith or ignorance to an opponent.

It's fuckin fun.

"You guys know that, when the space aliens come, we're all gonna be on the same side, right?"

Not according to the X-Files.

Seriously, this just happened TODAY. I imagine the healing will begin when the next nominee is announced...unless, of course, Bush f***s it up.

"You guys know that, when the space aliens come, we're all gonna be on the same side, right?"

Not according to the X-Files.

Seriously, this just happened TODAY. I imagine the healing will begin when the next nominee is announced...unless, of course, Bush f***s it up.

I've got to go with Allah on this one. If Hewitt hadn't pissed people off with the way he'd previously handled the Miers critics, he sure as hell will by running straight to the enemy to bitch about them.

"You guys know that, when the space aliens come, we're all gonna be on the same side, right?"

Right. But first Hewitt's going to run an op-ed in the fucking New York Times calling anyone who doesn't agree with his strategy for handling the aliens an ignoramus.

By the war, re: reconciliation and moving on -- does that go both ways? Because I have this funny feeling that any political setback for Bush from here on out is going to be connected up by Hewitt to the Miers withdrawal, however tenuously. If we're seeing posts over there in April 2007 attributing Hillary's lead in the Democratic polls to Miers being shot down, do we get to complain? Or ....?

You guys should all listen to bbeck. She's got the jugs.

We had a dextrosphere meltdown over Terri Schiavo, too. There were a lot of bad feelings there.

We really don't need the rifts this produced to continue.

And look-- ultimately, this isn't Hewitt's fault. It's Bush's.

George Will's rhetoric was overheated, but he was approximately right when he wrote (paraphrase) that this nomination degraded anyone who attempted to defend it.

Sean,

Yeah, that was my first thought, but he was saying it anyway, wasn't he? It's not like he cooked up that argument just to get on to the op-ed page of the NYT.

"Up or down... For Janice Brown!"

"Up or down... For Janice Brown!"

(Actually, I'd prefer Edith Jones, but the video's damn inspiring.)

I don't think either you or I, or many of the commenters here, can claim to be above imputing bad faith or ignorance to an opponent.

Of course not -- when it's warranted. You read Goldstein's blog; did he deserved to be dismissed as unqualified to comment? Did you or I deserve to be accused of having joined a "Boston-Washington Axis of Elitism"?

I mean, really. How many times in the past few weeks did Hewitt cite Reagan's Eleventh Commandment, then immediately turn around and question some pundit's motives or capability? I don't remember Reagan limiting his rule to Republican con law professors.

the video's damn inspiring

You guys should all listen to bbeck. She's got the jugs.

That's usually what gets them to pretend to listen but it doesn't help in the long run. Fortunately I get tired of the guy before that happens.

But really, Hewitt's always let his "love" for Bush cloud his judgment somewhat. Remember when he insisted Bush ran away with all the debates? (Yeah, I thought he edged Kerry but they were much closer than Hugh made them out to be.) When put into perspective, Hewitt's just doing what he's always done -- back Bush with more enthusiasm than most -- so I don't see the need to keep pounding him for it...

...and this will die when the next big issue comes around anyway.

I'm with the Moon God. Hewitt can go eat his sandwiches all day; I'm done with him.

bbeck,

I thought Bush lost the debates, but I gave Hewitt props for understanding, better than I did, that "performance" was only a part of it, and that Kerry's "global test" and similar leftist cant would give Bush the edge.

So, on that point, I always thought he was right. Or at least, righter than I was. I thought Bush got killed.

Where the fuck is Slublog, anyway? This shit's going to give him an aneurysm.

Hewett, the self-annoited Republican Party defender, breaks the 11th Commandment and speaks ill of his fellow men voluntarily in a enemy publication. The irony. What a magnificent f'n bastard! Who's damaging the party now? This idiot wanted Specter for Judiciary Chairman as well cuz he didn't want to rock the boat. No principles whatsoever, or at least conservative ones. F' him.

It's not like he cooked up that argument just to get on to the op-ed page of the NYT.

No, but he really should know better. You said it yourself--he's being used. He's got a nationally-syndicated radio show and his own blog, and he hasn't been shy about expressing his displeasure in either venue. So why run now to say the same things in the paper that most conservatives justifiably loathe? BAD move.

So everyone agrees with Allah.

Sheesh, even on my own blog I'm second-tier.

But seriously... you guys are saying "f" someone who's been a pretty stalwart Bush defender. You really want to cut him loose just because he was, um, a little too stalwart this time 'round?

I have a feeling that we'll be needing Hewitt in the coming months, just as Princeton could use a man like Joel.

I'm inclined to agree with Ace and cut him some slack, even though I think this op-ed was a mistake, and I think his defense of Miers was a mistake.

Dude, I couldn't have cared less about his defending Miers. That was his perogative. He was doing it due tof his principles I would assume. This, however, is over the line. Publication in the enemy's primary rag calling out those of us who dared to act on our principles and not parrot the WH line. Well, Sir, here in the South, those words are worthy of a duel. If the F* apologizes, I'll kiss and forgive. Otherwise, F* him.

I will say that I tried to start this day with an attitude of optimism and letting bygones be bygones, but I keep seeing an attitude of recrimination from the pro-Miers crowd that reminds me how pissed off I got at their constant insults while this was going on.

Throughout this thing, I strained hard not to insult the people who supported her. But I had people I thought were friends constantly questioning my honesty (!) and my motives. And they won't stop even though it's now a moot point.

What I don't understand is why they get so pissed off. Like they really wanted Harriet fucking Miers as a Supreme Court justice. We should *all* be happy, since *none* of us wanted her.

You really want to cut him loose just because he was, um, a little too stalwart this time 'round?

"Cut him loose" how? He gets 35,000 hits a day and has God knows how many hundreds of thousands of listeners for his radio show. In fact, that's why he can afford to casually insult peon bloggers like you, me, Goldstein, and Patterico. He owns so many bridges, he couldn't possibly burn them all.

Whether or not we "need" him in the coming months, he's going to do his thing and we're going to do ours and most of the time we'll end up on the same side. It's not like anyone's going to switch parties because of what happened here. There'll be some hard feelings and long memories, but there won't be any political transformations.

Query. After the new nominee is confirmed and Patterico returns to blogging about the L.A. Times, is it still okay for us to link him? Because he's not a professional journalist, you know; he holds no advanced degrees in the subject. Which, per the Hewitt standard, should mean that his criticism is irredeemably ignorant and, thus, inherently suspect.

PUT ME SOME KNOWLEDGE.

Ace, you were so insanely pessimistic before the election that a retarded monkey would've seen the situation more clearly than you.

Just sayin'.

I agree with Ace because he linked me today.

I agree with Allah because I fear the Almighty.

I agree with Patterico because he hangs around Skid Row crack addicts (seriously, read his blog).

But here's a brain scratcher--for being such a self-proclaimed party man and 11th commandment kinda guy--of what possible benefit to the GOP is Hugh's op-ed? Esp. given that it comes out AFTER the withdrawal?

I've come to the conclusion Hugh isn't a conservative, he's a Republican.

After the new nominee is confirmed and Patterico returns to blogging about the L.A. Times, is it still okay for us to link him?

Jeez, I hope so. I also hope I return to blogging about them before the new nominee is confirmed.

I agree with Patterico because he hangs around Skid Row crack addicts (seriously, read his blog).

I just take pictures of 'em.

This is a fun place for comments. How come I can't get comment threads going at my place like Ace does?

My favorite all-time one was the one with Bill Ardolino and Jeff Goldstein. Something about John Hawkins. I discovered it months after the fact and linked it because it was one of the best comment threads I ever read.

But I don't mean to throw off the discussion. Please, continue talking about Hewitt.

This is a fun place for comments. How come I can't get comment threads going at my place like Ace does?

It's all about the integrity and shit.

That's the problem Christopher. There are people who will do anything if it somehow advances what they view as the Republican Party. There are others who have conservative principles that come first. It's not as if Cons have constantly and consistently been causing problems. But Jeebus, we've tolerated no border control, profligate spending we would have murdered the Dems for, a Medicare Prescription Plan that no one wanted and will likely bankrupt the Treasury, and a bunch of pussy Senators, among other things. When the President nominates a crony whom no one has any idea of her judicial philosophy, then the gloves are off. No more tongue biting. No more get along, go along. Enough is enough. I'm all for going forward and most seemed relieved this morning. Why HH had to do this is beyond me. He's the only one that can eff off. I'm not mad at anyone else but him. For now.

But here's a brain scratcher--for being such a self-proclaimed party man and 11th commandment kinda guy--of what possible benefit to the GOP is Hugh's op-ed?

Good question. I read the piece as him laying a marker to point back to whenever political trouble arises for the GOP in the future. Here's the key graf:

It will be the lasting glory or the lasting shame of The Corner and others involved in driving Ms. Miers from the field, depending on what happens, and not just with the next nominee and his or her votes on the court, but all the nominees that follow, and all the Senate campaigns that will be affected, as well as the presidential race in 2008.

Got that? Everything bad that happens from now on -- not just with the Supreme Court but with the midterms and even the fucking presidential election three years from now -- can all be laid on this. We had better gain seats in Congress next year and we sure as shit had better retain the White House in '08, or else we'll all be hearing about the Miers connection from Hugh. And when we do, rest assured, this is the piece he'll be linking to.

We should beat him at his own game. Ace should write a post arguing that Hewitt's resorting to the NY Times for a megaphone spells the death knell of conservative blogging, such that any and all defeats over the next few years for (a) conservatism and/or (b) blogging should -- and will -- be traced back to it.

Hey, Patterico, when I visit you're always at work and not posting. Quit your day job and go for the crazy blog money and sex with Siamese twins like Ace.

It's all about the integrity and shit.

Less integrity = more comments?

(Kidding, Ace!)

How come I can't get comment threads going at my place like Ace does?

Or Anka.

Last comment. One more line from Hewitt's piece worth showcasing. Sez Hugh of NRO:

They unleashed every argument they could find

This from the guy who thinks Miers was sunk by an "axis of elitism" stretching from Boston to Washington, and who argued more than once that opposing Miers was tantamount to voting for Hillary, which was in turn tantamount to being soft on terrorism.

With that, I'm off to bed. Angry dreams tonight.

Angry dreams tonight.

We won. Hugh lost. All he's got is residue of his B+ sandwich...

Hey, Patterico, when I visit you're always at work and not posting. Quit your day job and go for the crazy blog money and sex with Siamese twins like Ace.

Damn day job.

Patterico, I just posted at your home and you're not there. See how that works? :)

Off to bed.

I think Hugh Hewitt became significantly committed to supporting GWB's nominees as a result of the Roberts' nomination. It's my understanding that Hugh was a co-worker and friend of John Roberts at the Justice Department, and Hugh was frequently interviewed about Roberts' philosophy and talents during the Roberts' nomination. As a result, I think Hugh became more personally involved than he normally would have been, and thus he became more heavily invested in GWB's judicial selections. In short, I think Hugh Hewitt came to feel he was part of the Bush team and so he's taking this loss hard, as if it were his own.

I think Hugh Hewitt became significantly committed to supporting GWB's nominees as a result of the Roberts' nomination. It's my understanding that Hugh was a co-worker and friend of John Roberts at the Justice Department, and Hugh was frequently interviewed about Roberts' philosophy and talents during the Roberts' nomination. As a result, I think Hugh became more personally involved than he normally would have been, and thus he became more heavily invested in GWB's judicial selections. In short, I think Hugh Hewitt came to feel he was part of the Bush team and so he's taking this loss hard, as if it were his own.

Sorry about the double post. Perhaps I should retire for the night.

Patterico, I just posted at your home and you're not there. See how that works? :)

As Mikey?

Incidentally, I think there will be medium/long-term blogospheric repercussions to this.

Both Hewitt and the Powerline guys (principally Hinderaker) will really take a hit on their attempt to be a (the?) center of the right blogosphere. (Glenn is libertarian.)

Malkin, who's been climbing steadily up the rankings ladder, benefits. Wish she'd post a little more, though.

I've come to the conclusion Hugh isn't a conservative, he's a Republican

aye. We'll see if the come to Jesus meeting conservatives just had with the party brings him around. FWIW I'm hoping Rep 08 hopefuls were paying attention too.

Don't worry, I won't let the door hit me in the ass on my way out.

Over dinner last night, my husband had the funniest idea for a replacement candidate.

This candidate is a staunch conservative, originalist, and everyone (not just Bush) knows exactly where he stands on the important issues of the day. This candidate would never be swayed to lean left by the likes of Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, or Breyer.

He would also have the added benefit of his nomination making fully one third of the Senators' heads explode. It would turn Harry Reid into Howard Dean, and Howard Dean into the Tasmanian Devil.

Are you ready to hear who the candidate is?

...
...
...
...
...

ROY FUCKING MOORE

So everyone agrees with Allah.

Thanks, Ace. Chopped liver, here.

I have a feeling that we'll be needing Hewitt in the coming months, just as Princeton could use a man like Joel.

Risky Business was Tom Cruise's best film, and yeah, as someone said, I don't think Hewitt is going to take much of a hit in the long run. It just sounds as if people are venting.

Thats the only reason that the New York Times published it

Hewitt is much more of a Christian than he is a conservative--he's Christian-conservative not conservative-Christian--and I suspect that he derives his extreme loyalty to Bush (as well as his loyalty to Miers) from a sense in both cases that they're part of the faith--a sense which goes beyond any actual decisions or positions which can be cited from the record of either. As Ace said a while ago (which I thought was very perceptive) people vote on a sense that the guy they're voting for is on their side, that he shares or at least will never threaten their deepest loyalties and beliefs--more than they vote on promises of specific actions that they would, specifically, agree with. For all that a Kerry or a Dean may strike a badass posture on defense or a pious posture on religion, no one's convinced that either man believes in his gut what he's saying--any more than Bush I really fundamentally believed that he shouldn't raise taxes. At the first challenge, if these men think the voters won't or can't hold them to their promises, they'll drop the mask--and people do sense this, no matter how many consultants you pay to make your public image more electable. Bush on religion and Bush on Iraq speaks and acts like a believer--but on the other hand most of the other intellectual principles of his party obviously just don't have that kind of visceral hold on him. Hence his appeal to idealistic lib-hawks like Roger Simon and sincere evangelical Christians like Hewitt will always be greater than his appeal to the old Reagan conservatives at the National Review (who are generally true conservatives for whom the primary appeal of faith is its venerable history, and who conceive of Iraq in terms of the pragmatic questions of US security more than starry-eyed classical liberal idealism) or to libertarians like Vodkapundit or Glenn Reynolds.

Hewitt is much more of a Christian than he is a conservative

Yeah, I think that grabs it, and for most evangelical conservatives, is the reason they argued "trust Bush". You tend to trust someone who shares your deeply held value system. And you don't necessarily elevate other conservative objectives (spending comes to mind).

I'm just disappointed that Hewitt's value system didn't rein in his bitterness. I'd like to think he will regret the Times op-ed but I'm not so sure.

Where the fuck is Slublog, anyway? This shit's going to give him an aneurysm.

I just read it.

Shit.

I think your comments on the top of this thread are about what I'm thinking - the guy who promoted the people's media is slamming that same media when it dares to disagree with him.

Hewitt's last post before Miers withdrew showed that if anyone was going to keep the bad blood flowing, it would be ol' Hugh himself That op-ed was a gratuitous shot, and having it appear in the NY Times was just gravy. Hewitt knows how conservatives feel about the Times.

Now I'm going to take my copy of "Blog" out to the backyard and play a little book frisbee.

"I've come to the conclusion Hugh isn't a conservative, he's a Republican." and "Hewitt is much more of a Christian than he is a conservative "

No, he's what I said he was at the beginning: he's a whore. He's not particularly loyal to the party or evangelicalism. He scopes out the landscape of any issue and see where he can make the most splash and chooses sides accordingly.

Where the fuck is Slublog, anyway? This shit's going to give him an aneurysm.

He was out shopping for a snowblower for Green Acres

He was out shopping for a snowblower for Green Acres

Hey...I wonder if the blades on a snowblower would chop up a book?

Looks like Bush only wants half a fight.

Hewett, the self-annoited Republican Party defender, breaks the 11th Commandment and speaks ill of his fellow men voluntarily in a enemy publication. The irony

Damn straight. On top of that, the man has the nerve to accuse Meirs opponents of using leftist tactics. Oh really, Hugh? Just who the fuck was pushing for outcome based decisions with all the wink and nod evangelical bullshit, and who was sticking with the true conservative position that nominees should be strict originalists?

God, I'm so pissed off at that little shit for pulling this act with the New York Times. He's a class A hypocrite and he makes Christians look bad. Fuck him.

I don't think you guys could sound any more envious of Hewitt. Jealousy is ugly. Really, give it a rest. Especially you, allah. Enough with the sour grapes.

Christopher Cross has it right.

Back on October 14, Hewitt said (paraphrasing, but I'll back the accuracy because it was so breathtaking): "Even if she were going to be a horrible Justice--which she won't--it's not worth the candle, for the damage it would do to the remaining three and a half years of this administration."

In other words, Constitution be damned, boys--rally 'round the Faction!

Hugh Hewitt is the evening outpost of RNC Radio, as Bill Bennett is the morning outpost.

As for me, give me Janice Rogers Brown.

Why would anyone be envious of someone who's ego is so fragile that he runs to the very media source he's spent his career criticizing the first time he loses a fight?

Unfortunately, I fear we're less likely to get Janice the Libertarian Judicial Activist (thanks for the ringing endorsement, Ramesh Ponnuru) than Alberto the Gun Grabber.

Why would anyone be envious of someone who's ego is so fragile that he runs to the very media source he's spent his career criticizing the first time he loses a fight?

I highly doubt it is the first fight he lost. But if you are trying not to come off as bitter and envious, you are failing miserably.

Hugh has always been a shill for the WH, to the point that I had to stop listening to him during the '04 elections - I was voting Bush and I couldn't take the incredibly obvious spin. It was just insulting - like being "baby-talked" to death.

Patt, defending HH does you credit, but he doesn't deserve it. Did you listen to his show - his tactic never varied. He'd insult some icon of the right and then claim "just kidding!" He'd introduce David Frum to the song "kill the beast", stuff like that.

Two points - in his interview with David Frum he swore that Bush/Miers would never withdraw and said that he'd buy David dinner if he did - has Hugh/David set a date.

Also, he hammered David over the withdraw Miers petition (neglecting to mention his own pro-miers petition). David stated that these were all public. Is HH's? I'd be interested if there is, in fact, the groundswell of support for HM that he claimed, or if it was just another lie.

Also, I'm new here - Allah, what up with "fuck" in every sentence? Is it like your fucking mission to be fucking outrageous, or just to put fuck into every fucking post?

Hey, new guy. Make up a fake name already, why don't you? Otherwise, people are going to think you're colon. And you don't want that.

Stupid fuck.

Colon, is that you, Hugh?

Also, I'm new here - Allah, what up with "fuck" in every sentence?

A cleverly concocted strategy to ingratiate yourself with the regulars, that.

Jesus, you can't keep the colons straight anymore. I think we'll need to name them colon1 and colon2 - sorta like some bizarro world Dr Seus book.

Also, I'm new here - Allah, what up with "fuck" in every sentence?

It's a pick up line.

dirty, filthy, major deity

Allah, what up with "fuck" in every sentence? Is it like your fucking mission to be fucking outrageous

Felt angry, deployed the f-bomb. It happens sometimes. If my mission were to be outrageous, I would have skipped the comments entirely and instead linked to Johnny Coldcuts. Johnny seems to have the same basic respect for people who disagree with him as Hewitt does.

As for anonymous guy #1, okay, I'll bite. What does this mean?

I don't think you guys could sound any more envious of Hewitt. Jealousy is ugly. Really, give it a rest. Especially you, allah.

?

By the way, here's yesterday's quote of the day from Hugh, in his radio interview with Mark Steyn:

I think she just probably was not going to take it anymore, because it's pretty hard, I would think, to be her, have a sense of accomplishment about your whole life, and then get slimed every day by people who are allegedly conservatives.

"Allegedly" conservative. Like Robert Bork. And David Frum.

I don't understand why the Left is kvelling about this so-called "schism on the right". It's not like it benefits them at all: the argument is over who is more conservative, and who hews more closely to the principles of conservatism. Any outcome will be some notionally purer form of "conservatism" that would still make a Leftist's head twirl that that chick in The Exorcist.

I like Hugh Hewitt, read his site daily, and will continue to do so. He's a stand-up guy, a good lawyer (by all accounts), and a reliably conservative dude. He may have mis-called Miers, but I think he did so for the best of reasons: a sense that she be judged on her own merits and not on hearsay. He sees this as the kind of thing Dems have been doing to SCOTUS nominees for years, and he's distressed at what he sees as a conservative adoption of the same strategy.

This is part of what gets people in trouble when they get to be pundits; there's a natural tendency to push your rhetorical point as far as it will go, and sometimes it just goes too far. You end up trying to defend a point you weren't really trying to make in the first place, but can't back off of because you have (again, rhetorically) painted yourself into a corner. Backing down would seem like repudiation of the point you wanted to make rather than the point you ended up arguing.

I've done it myself, both here and elsewhere. I have passionate feelings about lots of issues, and sometimes I let my blood get angried up over what in retrospect are pretty small things. So let's give Hugh a break, allow him to give us a break, and proceed to the next SCOTUS battle (which is sure to make this one look like a stroll through a leafy forest glade in comparison).

Man, I'm totally out of the loop.
Haven't paid attention to the news for three days and boom.
I heard she gave up yesterday morning but I guess I didn't understand why until this morning.
Having a life sucks.

Having a life sucks.

Oh, rub it in, you heartless bitch.

...and by "heartless bitch" I mean "most luminous child of the sun and moon". 'Cause here at AoS HQ, it's all about the love.

Man, I totally have to agree with Allah on this one (again), based on Hewitt's continuous implications of bad faith in anyone that doesn't agree with him.

Flashback: when the CBS internal investigation report came out and many of us weren't as outraged and ready to loot and burn like Hewitt was? We were "victims of our own success," now part of the media establishment, and thus unwilling to storm the barricades like the thirsty young turks we were, oh, a few months before. I believe he invoked the NY-DC elitist cabal in that one as well. Ridiculous.

I don't have a dog in this Miers fight, really, but he's employing the same tactics here, and the situational irony of the Blogswarm booster attacking the digital rabble is a killer. He can piss off.

Allah, seemed to me HH did a little dodging and backpedaling in the interview with Steyn. I don't think Mark is a guy he wants to cross swords with.

Pulling your punches is a sign of weakness. I have to totally reevaluate what I think of you, Monty.

I have to totally reevaluate what I think of you, Monty.

You can suck the shit straight out of my ass, you whiny pinhead.

...better?

I should have taken 'heartless bitch' and been happy.

You can suck the shit straight out of my ass, you whiny pinhead.

Heh. That's Coldcuts-caliber material, right there.

Yeah, bravo to that one, Monty. Although you forgot to add the corn, peanuts and bits of leafy greens to the mix.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

ROY FUCKING MOORE

I don't know Sue, I don't think we can have a justice with the middle name FUCKING. It's just not right.

I think she just probably was not going to take it anymore, because it's pretty hard, I would think, to be her, have a sense of accomplishment about your whole life, and then get slimed every day by people who are allegedly conservatives.

Since when is developing a Bush Cult of Personality a conservative value?

It occurs to me that Hewitt's jackassery would have been so much more palatable if he had done it up Anka-style.

E.g.,

Since when is developing a Bush Cult of Personality a conservative value?

Do you value your president, Slu? Well, do you? Do you want me to get Beldar in here to ride your asses?

someone:

If Alito is half a fight, I'll gladly take half a fight.

Also, I like this guy Monty's style.

My fav. part of Hewitt's interview with Frum was when he spent a solif 1/2 segment on Frum's "nameless" donors as evidence of some nefarious underhanded scheme to deny Miers her birthright.

*ackgurpcough*

Damn it, there it is again, that HACKing cough the seems to come up whenever I read a Hewitt piece these days...

Good thing I'm not a conservative, else I might be, like, offended or something.

My fav. part of Hewitt's interview with Frum was when he spent a solif 1/2 segment on Frum's "nameless" donors as evidence of some nefarious underhanded scheme to deny Miers her birthright.

Indeed. This, after accusing Frum in one of his earlier posts of possibly having a "secret vendetta" against Miers stemming from their days together in the White House. Because what other explanation could there be, except vendettas and elitism and ignorance?

See also Bill's comment of 12:38.

You can suck the shit straight out of my ass, you whiny pinhead.

Monty:

I nominate you to explain to Ace how we feel about the lack of poetry contest winners.

Michael:

I nominate you to explain to Ace how we feel about the lack of poetry contest winners.

Well, it would be unseemly for me to do this, since I hope to beat the other contestants like rented mules and then ruthlessly mock all of you for being a bunch of no-talent waterbrained dullards.

So it might be kind of like a conflict of interest or something. But still, if that's the consensus view, I'm willing to lay out some bribe money or something.

I already tried to bribe him Didn't work.

No, the better strategy would be for you to totally humiliate him with a scorching insult that will leave him trembling in a fetal position on the floor of his closet and, sucking his thumb.

I know you can do it.

I know you can do it.

But that would jeopardize my chances of humiliating all of you in the poetry contest. You can see the bind I'm in.

Hewitt's been writing like he's prepared to lead the evangelicals into the wilderness over this. Has he been bit by the Left's victimization bug?

If so, he can count on being nurtured and fawned over by the MSM as he slowly widens the fissure between evangelical conservatives and social/legal/libertarian conservatives. It galls me that he claims he has the best interest of the party at heart.

Ace, I wonder what HH would think of your earlier call for a Catholic or Jewish nominee. What, do you hate evangelicals or something?

But that would jeopardize my chances of humiliating all of you in the poetry contest. You can see the bind I'm in.

Well, we would all hate to deprive you of such a life-altering accomplishment. Perhaps next you can aspire to be Sully's vibrating condom ring.

Perhaps next you can aspire to be Sully's vibrating condom ring.

Now, now, bbeck, there's no way I'd try to drive you out of your job. I may be a lot of things, but I'd never try to wreck someone's career over a simple misunderstanding. So you can rest easy on that score, and continue your alto vibrato lifestyle clenched around Sully's lovemuscle.

Now, now, bbeck, there's no way I'd try to drive you out of your job. I may be a lot of things, but I'd never try to wreck someone's career over a simple misunderstanding. So you can rest easy on that score, and continue your alto vibrato lifestyle clenched around Sully's lovemuscle.

Oh Monty, aka Big Gulp, you KNOW Sully doesn't swing my way; I have all my teeth.

I have all my teeth.

That's not what the bums who lurk behind the Greyhound terminal tell me....

That's not what the bums who lurk behind the Greyhound terminal tell me....

Bums behind the Greyhound terminal? That's not a nice way to describe your clientele.

Do they tell you that before or after you pull up their pants? Either way, I'm guessing they're just trying to get a discount.

bbeck:

I don't give discounts. You ruined the downscale market forever with your fire-sale prices. It was when you started giving away free turkeys with every "service" that the retail market really went downhill.

"But that would jeopardize my chances of humiliating all of you in the poetry contest. You can see the bind I'm in."

Golly, it just didn't occur to me that goading you into pissing Ace off is the only way my Ode to Ogden Nash might have a chance.

Silly me.

Michael:

You already got me into a fight with bbeck, whom I revere as a Demi-Goddess (She Of The Prodigious Bosoms and Mighty Intellect). I may go to hell for that, and now you want me to piss off Ace as well? Yeesh. I only want to cheese off one minor deity at a time, thankyou.

I don't give discounts. You ruined the downscale market forever with your fire-sale prices. It was when you started giving away free turkeys with every "service" that the retail market really went downhill.

You're confusing me with Michael, Monty. Either way, I'd heard the free turkeys were tighter than you.

You already got me into a fight with bbeck, whom I revere as a Demi-Goddess (She Of The Prodigious Bosoms and Mighty Intellect). I may go to hell for that, and now you want me to piss off Ace as well? Yeesh. I only want to cheese off one minor deity at a time, thankyou.

Okay, flattery will get you just about everywhere, but seriously, I was merely priming you for the attacks you'll face when you start your Poetry Gloatfest -- provided, of course, Ace EVER announces the winner/s.

flattery will get you just about everywhere

I guess that explains why sooooo many guys actually have gotten "just about everywhere" with you.

I guess that explains why sooooo many guys actually have gotten "just about everywhere" with you.

Michael, shots like that will force me to turn on you and render you into a smoking cinder with a series of devastating insults. I may trade shots with bbeck, but I will attack with savage glee anyone else who takes shots at bbeck.

She is a bounteous goddess, but a jealous and angry goddess.

I guess that explains why sooooo many guys actually have gotten "just about everywhere" with you.

Except you. I DO have my standards.

Sic 'em, Monty.