George Will: the Old Maid in the Popcorn Bag

Big Lizards ^ | October 23, 2005 | Dafydd

[MikeHu]

Seen this yet? Sounds about right. "Ignore the man behind the curtain."

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3462

Word on the Hill is that the latest internal polls show that that inside the Beltway conservative pundits seem to speak only for and to themselves. After a barrage of opposition against Miers from them, the polls show only 7 percent of the members of the GOP who identify themselves as conservative oppose her nomination. Among all GOP members only 9 percent oppose her.

Most of those polled are willing to give the President’s choice the benefit of the doubt until they see how she handles questions at her hearing and express annoyance that the judges have made constitutional law an arcane art. They believe that the Consitution is not an incomprehensible document but rather a simple one, noting that those who felt otherwise were reading into it things they couldn’t—like a prohibition against prayer in the school and a requirement that the state sanction same sex marriage. Clarice Feldman 10 23 05

[Flux Capacitor]

So basically, you're saying that you'd rather call the plurality on FR that opposes the Miers nomination "shut-ins" than come up with a positive, substantive reason why such a total blank slate deserves to sit on the highest court in the land?

Well, okay. Your position (whatever that might be) is noted. :)

-Dan

[Victoria]

Thank you for weighing in with that insightful (fair and balanced!) comment, Saddam.

[Victoria]

Maybe you should switch cable providers.

[Lazamataz]

Should the Senate reject Miers, President Bush will send up another nominee. What is it, exactly, that you are going to rub my nose in?

Your answers to the anti-Meirs people.

[Flux Capacitor]

Ooh! So now questioning the President (whom most of us here worked our asses off to re-elect) makes us the equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Let's see, we're liars, we're traitors, we're Bush Haters, we're Democrats.... yep, we certainly do seem to be running the gamut over here on the anti-Miers front.

Hey Victoria, are we Nazis yet? :)

-Dan

[LibertarianInExile]

"When I started the thread, the only keywords I entered were: BOWTIEDPOPINJAY; GEORGEFWILL; HARRIETTMIERS. Did I violate a rule?"

Evidently so, Checky, based upon the keywords now left.

Mr. Robinson, I appreciate your prompt response, which was helpful. And I certainly understand 'spamming,' and what constitutes vulgarity, generally, but I'm curious: what constitutes 'spamming' as far as keyword abuse is concerned? Of course, it's your baby, so I'm just askin', but is this keywording restriction basically just intended to limit keywords to encyclopedic style subject and pinglist lookups? 'Cause that'd be a clear enough rule to work with in my book...even though I'd still personally prefer a keyword free-for-all as long as the keywords are not actually vulgar or otherwise on the short list of ways to get a post deleted.

But like I said, FR=JimRob's baby, not mine. I try to play by the rules. I just want to make sure I don't cross `em if they're out there.

[Checkers]

"Your answers to the anti-Meirs people."

Can you be a little less cryptic?

You've seen what's been going on.

What, exactly, are you getting at?

[Checkers]

"Thank you for weighing in with that insightful (fair and balanced!) comment, Saddam"

Now that's funny.

[Checkers]

"Ah. Logic."

I thought you'd get a chuckle because I thought you were one of the ones with a sense of humor.

Have I misjudged?

[MikeHu]

My basic feeling is that there's something wrong with government when one has to be a lawyer to understand it.

[LibertarianInExile]

Don't forget ignorant extortionist Buchanite Libertarian freakazoids...

[BACKHAND POW!]

SHUT UP, -----, AND MAKE ME A TURKEY POT PIE!

(/breakfast club flashback)

[Flux Capacitor]

"BUT DAAAAAAAD! WHAT.... ABOUT.... YOU???"

-Dan

[jonrick46]

Don't even bother giving the qualifications to them. No qualifications would be good enough, and even if they were, they would be totally ignored by this anti-Miers herd.

Ask them to produce one sample of Miss Miers' writing, giving the date it was written, and their objections to it; and suddenly, you get empty space.

I have seen good reasons for Miss Miers' confirmation throughout the Free Republic. However, all of the good thinking is totally ignored. The mindless bashing continues without stop. This adolescent herd mentality goes on in lock step.

One last thought: If you want to be a conservative, you need to be able to think outside of the box. So far, a large crowd of them has failed that test.

[TAdams8591]

Ronald Reagan was not in contention for a life long appointment as is Miers and after changing parties he had a clear Conservative as well as Republican track record. Miers does not.

All the other known nominess had either judicial or consitutuional experience or both. Miers does not.

Of all the known nominess, she was the LEAST qualified.

[Checkers]

They'll real sensitive about namecalling after trashing the woman for the last three weeks.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Don't even bother giving the qualifications to them.----

That's right, don't. No need to talk about qualifications; no need to refute any concerns. Miers is obviously a superb choice, right? I mean, we just need to trust Bush. And anyone who dares to wonder aloud how a empty dotted outline in the realm of constitutional theory can be an immediately acceptable SCOTUS pick must be an extremist fringe wacko like George F. Will, right?

"You don't need to see his identification!"

-Dan

[LibertarianInExile]

"BUT DAAAAAAAD! WHAT.... ABOUT.... YOU???"

Even though obviously from the movie, too, it's an oddly apropos rejoinder in this strained climate...

[Criminal Number 18F]

Dafydd sure can write, can't he? Very entertaining. But his concrete defence of Ms Miers seems to be - "mediocre people deserve representation too," and "President Bush says 'Trust me,' and that's good enough for me."

I enjoyed Will's work more some twenty, maybe thirty years ago. He's not a must-read anymore. I don't know which of us is getting stale (grin).

All things said, I believe the Miers selection was a grave error, coming as it did in the wake of a number of other pathetic, cronyistic or nepotistic appointments (Kerik, Brown, Myers-with-a-Y).

I will wish her well and hope that she can change a lot of minds at the hearings. I think she has a better than 50-50 chance of being confirmed. One thing that has been done that should redound to her benefit, is that expectations have been set mighty low. I hope she uses the hearings to be herself -- and let us see what that, 'herself," is.

After all, we've got nothing much to go on right now.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F