Free Republic

What IS IT with conservatives who race each other to be the first to accuse GWB of selling out his core principles on fill-in-the-blank: judicial appointments, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, intelligence gathering, etc.? I for one am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt about having dragged the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Chinese, and the Russians, kicking and screaming all the way, a small but important step in the right direction here with this tentative agreement, rather than to assume that he has suddenly decided to punt it to his successor.

I EXPECT this from liberals. What’s OUR excuse?

So what exactly is the surprise here? IMHO it has been evident for some time that, politics and issues aside, James Webb is the most personally despicable human being to enter American politics, as a SERIOUS candidate for office, since a young Bill Clinton figured out that he could get more BJ's that way, and Jimmy lacks Slick Willy's dignity and class. I mean, seriously, when was the last time a non-joke American major party candidate, outside of the Black community, tried to use anti-Semitism to get elected? Twice? Democrats and Virginians are getting what they deserve here, and before Mr. Webb eventually goes the way of Aaron Burr, he will provide more personality-disorder-driven unforced political errors than Bill Clinton did, with less public tolerance, because unlike Slick Willy, NOBODY likes Brawling Jimmy Webb.

Actually, Christianity teaches something similar, though less one-sidedly. In 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 Paul says that neither wives nor husbands have the right to deny sexual intimacy to their spouses except for short periods by mutual agreement, the obvious reason being the resulting temptation of the deprived spouse to commit adultery.

Interestingly, the WIFE'S right is listed first.

Logical me wrote "Then you explain why Rice and Bolton was pushing for this resolution with the total corrupt UN."

The were trying to give the Israelis diplomatic cover so they'd have time to win the war, in the process getting Israel around a MONTH. So what did the Israelis DO with a month free and clear? Nothing much that I can see. If we go through this again under Bush with say a Prime Minister Netanyahu, watch how well HE uses the time Bush and Rice and Bolton will get for him.

Amen to that, Mr. Smorch, but I think the chances of that have gone down substantially since Al Qaeda's latest campaign stunt for their preferred American political party was exposed and prevented.

It is downright silly to blame Bush for this; no American president has EVER been more supportive of Israel in time of need. The problem was on the Israeli side in Olmert's indecisiveness. If Olmer wasn't prepared to WIN this war, there wasn't much point in continuing a half-hearted slaughter of the Lebanese. Better to call a halt now so that after the NEXT provocation, and there will BE one of course, the NEW Israeli prime minister can start off with a new justification and presumably equal US support if he'll just KILL THEM!

Another problem I have with Ann's arguing that Roberts MIGHT be a Souter is that since I rather doubt she was really stupid enough to BELIEVE it, it amounts to a distracting and dishonest justification for her REAL complaint, which is that she wanted an in-your-face cage-match with the liberals. At some level I'd have liked that, too, but (like the President I'm guessing) I thought it was more important to WIN than to merely have the satisfaction. I would have thought better of Ann if she simply ADMITTED that without finding it necessary to cast doubt where none was justified.

No, it is an HONEST condensation.

There is a world of difference between saying that we should be wary about giving a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country to an unknown figure, and saying that because the figure is PERSONALLY unknown to the complainer he or she MIGHT be a liberal like David Souter turned out be on the theory that the Bush Administration had learned NOTHING from the Souter debacle when in fact they had given EVERY indication to date that for the first time in Republican Party history they might have this problem solved (and nothing has happened since to suggest Coulter was right to be suspicious about him). It was thus both an insult to the integrity of Roberts and to the intelligence of Bush based on NOTHING other than the sort of elitism and sense of superiority that Coulter rightly rips the Left a new one over every single day.

But I'm sure you will be careful to not misrepresent her sentiments from that column henceforth.

I wrote "I DID have a problem with her calling Roberts a 'closet Souter'"

Sam Hill wrote:

"Could you produce that quote?

I see it mentioned quite commonly by Coulter critics. But I've never seen that quote.

And I'm sure you don't want to misrepresent her words."

It comes from her July 25, 2005, column entitled "Souter In Roberts' Clothing" though like the famous not-quite-a-quote Al Gore-ism about inventing the Internet "closet Souter" is simply an honest condensation of what she actually wrote using a lot more words.

I wouldn't have had a problem with her legitimately criticizing the SCOTUS nominees; I DID have a problem with her calling Roberts a "closet Souter" and with her treating Harriet Myers basically like the Left treats Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Juanita Broderick, Katherine Harris, and Ann Coulter. Even if you disagreed with the choice to nominate them, they didn't deserve to be treated like pond scum because they aren't. Actual pond scum, like for example the Jersey Girls or Murtha, is a different matter.

I respectively disagree. Ann Coulter does NOT hurt her cause or our cause when she restricts herself to going after people as well-deserving of meciless condemnation as the Jersey Girls or Murtha. Even if you quibble with her particular choice of words, you'd have to be INSANE to feel any sympathy for the Jersey Girls or Murtha because Ann might have been SLIGHTLY too mean to them, and the insane are going to vote the straght Democrat ticket anyway. It is IMHO useful to be reminded occasionally just exactly how scummy the Jersey Girls were and are even if you wish to stipulate that Ann exaggerated it a bit. After all she is NOT an elected official, like her hero Senator McCarthy, who can justly be held to a higher standard.

Only when she goes after the clearly UNDESERVING with such savagery, like for example SCOTUS nominees Myers and Roberts, does she hurt her cause and our cause.

"Even more ominously, the Today show interview announces a new strategy of trying to win the Miers nomination by waging war on the president's core supporters."

Two points:

One, shouldn't that be "Even more ominously, the Today show interview announces a new strategy of trying to win the Miers nomination by waging war on the president's FORMER core supporters."?

Second, who STARTED this war? Hint: it damn sure wasn't the White House.

With only a minor quibble or two,

AMEN!

"This is why the response to Bush’s move is so venomous, so hysterical, and so contemptuous. This is not good news for conservatism."

IMHO this is the money quote. It is certainly what has disturbed me the most about the arguments of the Miers Critics. It is one thing to disagree with this particular pick; it is quite another to heap insults upon her (and by extension President Bush) in the absence of any facts.

This unjustified (and premature) viciousness by too many people I once had a lot more respect for has had the unintended effect of undermining the possible sensible and logical criticisms of the Miers pick by associating them with what can AT BEST be called "elitism" and might be something a lot worse. It's like having Michael Moore agree with you.

(By the way those Miers Critics who believe such criticisms of their motives to be unfair need to understand that since so much of their anti-Miers attacks cannot be explained logically people are naturally going to speculate about the REAL reasons for it. This shouldn't be THAT hard for them to understand since that is precisely what they have been doing to Bush.)

"Well... try to rationalize it. I'm still waiting."

OK, how about: Democrats who would oppose anyone the President nominated are anonymously lying about it, and panicked conservatives are taking the word of said anonymous Democrats for ANYTHING.

"The fact of the matter is that you are not going to change the minds of someone who's spent the better part of his or her life constructing an elaborate perspective-with regard to interpretation of Constitutional, common and case law-to reflect your opinion more closely, no matter what polemical skills you possess."

Uh huh, like the ever-leftward-drifting David Souter or the wobbly Anthony Kennedy? They weren't closet liberals; they started out as conservatives. Kennedy in particular as a "swing" justice is potentially vulnerable to a little friendly persuasion; once upon a time they both persuaded themselves that they were conservatives. Stevens and Ginsburg might be immune, but they are also the two most likely future vacancies. Thus it is a little silly to dismiss the possibility that trying a technique OTHER THAN insulting them with big words they cannot understand might be more effective.

"Antonin Scalia has been described with many different adjectives-not all of them necessarily flattering-but "meek" has never been one of them."

Antonin Scalia has regularly and rather easily intellectually demolished the arguments of the liberal and "swing" justices, but how many times has he changed their minds, won them over to his way of thinking on a given case?

A little meekness might go a long way on a court that AT BEST will now have only four conservatives on it.

I wasn't saying I believed it, Red Zone, not for a minute. I just wanted to point out that it wouldn't be any sort of a dis-qualifier for someone who apparently came over to the pro-life position in her later years. It's like those dimwit Dem's who keep pointing out that W once had a drinking problem, without recognizing the significance of his having later beaten it.

"The article seems to suggest that ALL of the speakers for the first 3 years were barking moon-bat feminists. If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures."

"SEEMS", BushMeister? "One would have to ASSUME", BushMeister?

This isn't quite the weakest argument against confirming her, but it's pretty darn close.

Red Zone, I'm actually kind of sorry that this dimwitted post you responded to and the preceding one, which on the basis of no evidence other than the fact she was a young woman during the 60's, accused Miers of having an abortion (congratulations: you just made Michael Moore look sane by comparison), got deleted because I was going to point out that the hardest of the hardcore pro-lifers are invariably women who have had an abortion...

and have come to regret it every single day of their remaining lives.