Eating Their Own On The Right

10/6/2005 | KMAJ

[been_lurking]

but that fact that it was a ruse designed to look like an indepentent (sic) media article

LOL

How in the world did you decide that this was a "ruse"?

I'm betting most saw it for what is was -- a simple vanity.

[KMAJ2]

[[So you have no problem with gay marriage becoming the law of the land, Christ taken out of Christmas and God removed from the pledge?]]

Damn, I thought some people were capable of comprehension and staying on topic. Did I mention any of those three topics in my editorial ? Are you asserting those are Meirs positions ? I challenge you to document them. Talk about puerile ad hominem innuendo and diversion.

Not that it is relevant to my piece, I am against gay marriage, taking Christ out of Christmas and taking God out of the pledge of allegiance.

[ARCADIA]

"can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ?"

Miers, and he is being called on the floor for it.

"I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect."

So, you think Bush lied when he told us she was the best qualified?

"My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts."

Are you reading tea leaves or consulting a crystal ball?

[JusPasenThru]

I think you are correct. Bush knows this woman and is not about to appoint another Souter to the SCOTUS. That is perhaps his dad's worst legacy, that and not ridding the world of Saddam the first time.

If I can nitpick, for someone with a degree in journalism, you use more mixed metaphors than you can shake a stick at. If you're not careful, Taranto is going to use you in his Metaphor Alert.

[KMAJ2]

[[So he used three brain cells to produce his infantile temper tantrum?]]

My piece was a temper tantrum ? And what was your response ? A doctoral thesis ? It certainly was not an intellectual rebuttal.

[ahayes]

The vituperative rhetoric flows like unctuous bile from the fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, morons, kool-aid drinkers, as the poster champions his elite point of view by defaming those who disagree.

Tip: Put down the thesaurus and pick up Strunk and White. That punctuation is atrocious. Unless you meant to say that fingertips, bootlickers, bushbots, etc. were flowing "unctuous bile." And I think that would be even worse. . .

[bvw]

It is the President's choice to make. The whining, although widespread, has been 99.95% just that: whining.

In the end ALL THINGS in this creation come down to one man (or woman's) take on it. Just one. Not some committee. Not some consensus. Not some advisory panel. Not some (*yuch-pitoowy*) poll.

[Blue Turtle]

White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism."

[Restorer]

My post was in response to AmericaUnited, who said:

It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells and giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination.

It was an attempt at gentle ribbing of his/her sentence, which probably meant to say something like, "It's nice to see someone using more than two brain cells rather than giving in to infantile temper tantrum instincts when dealing with this nomination."

FWIW, I agree with what you say. Harriet's nomination is OK with me, if only because I like to see all the pundits trip on themselves over their predictions on whom Bush would nominate. Pundit-tripping is always fun.

I might change my mind, though, based on her performance in the hearings. I think that is supposed to be the purpose of holding hearings.

I am very sorry that my posts don't have sufficient intellectual content for you.

[TxBec]

I think his words were "suited", not "qualified"

[KMAJ2]

[[Journalism????? And you're proud of that???? You are a sicko!]]

Maybe you grasp what ad hominem is. Did you bother to try to garner my opinion on the state of journalism in this country ? No, that would take reasoned thought. Journalism has destroyed much of its credibility as a profession, it has become sensationalistic garbage that is more akin to a Goebbels' propaganda machine. Much of the decline in journalistic ethics can be laid squarely at the door of left wing academia sending out young zealous reporters to be advocates rather than presenters of unbiased news.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Miers not Meirs

[Ragnorak]

Eating Their Own On The Right

Not knowing whether or not she qualifies as "our own" is the entire problem.

This time he did it so well, it went over the heads of many conservatives.

As far as altitude is concerned, we wanted a nominee who was right between the eyes. Over our heads? Whose being "emblematic of ideological elitism" now?

[KMAJ2]

Restorer, please accept my apology.

[7thson]

If the democrats manage to defeat her or block her, Bush can then say, "I listened to you, and you still blocked her, I see no further need to waste time consulting with you", and a documented ideological conservative is nominated, the constitutional option is invoked and the democrats get the blame. You've got to be kidding me! After four plus years of being called every name in the book, after walk outs in Texas and in the House, after their blockage of certain judicial picks and what they have said about them, Bush needs this to be the last straw!

[KMAJ2]

I appreciate the parsing, but I am too small a fish for Taranto to take notice.

Take care.

[cynicom]

You are seeing exactly what Bush wanted you to see. Perhaps you need to change vantage points, it might offer a totally different perspective.

Bush and his people pulled the old sleight of hand trick on us and got caught, now he is petulant (it shows on TV) and has not the grace to admit it.

[KMAJ2]

"can anyone name one judicial nomination of Bush's that has been bad ?"

[[Miers, and he is being called on the floor for it.]]

Now there you go prognosticating and using your own tea leaves and crystal ball. I, at least, claimed mine was a gut feeling, ergo, opinion.

---

"I do not think anyone believes Meirs is the best qualified, strictly going by having a paper trail. I doubt Bush really believes she is the best qualified in that aspect."

[[So, you think Bush lied when he told us she was the best qualified?]]

Now there you go engaging in a semantic debate, clearly, I included a qualifier 'in that aspect'.

---

"My gut feeling on Meirs is she could possibly end up being to the right of Scalia and Thomas, paper trail or no paper trail, at worst, she will march lockstep with Roberts."

[[Are you reading tea leaves or consulting a crystal ball?]]

Comprehension ? Didn't I say feeling, not fact ? You are free to have a different opinion, but yours is no more factual about the future than mine.

I do find out of context and selective rebuttals to be disingenuous.

[Grut]

I believe it's the Left that's required to think in lockstep; are you sure you know who you are? How does the current Miers flap differ from the sprightly debates we have here on, say, drug legalization or school prayer or intelligent design?

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[oblomov]

Ideological elitism

LOL, let's trust the President instead of standing up for our principles. Do you think that Miers would find Medicare part D or No Child Left Behind or McCain-Feingold unconstitutional? (i.e., the agenda of our "conservative" President... I'm sure that his support of these socialist boondoggles was just stratgery) I didn't see similar concerns on the right about Roberts, despite indications that he may not be ideologically "pure". The concern with Miers is well-founded.