"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth—anonymously and posthumously."Thomas Sowell

Friday, October 14, 2005

From Blog King to Waterboy

Oh, Hugh, now you're just getting a little too sensitive:

On Miers' side to date: Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Marvin Olasky, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell and of course Fred Barnes. Against her: The Corner, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and Charles Krauthhammer. I like those odds.

Oh, yes. President Bush thinks she'll make a fine Associate Justice. A strong case allows the weak case as much time as it wants. A weak case shouts down its opposite, and refuses to engage.

Hauling water for Bush on Miers has made Hugh Hewitt weary. First, he puts R. Emmett Tyrrell in the Miers camp when Tyrrell scarcely declared a side. Instead, he noted the ugliness and uselessness of fighting over something that is going to happen. He also said conservatives have every right to be disappointed with the choice. Hey, if that's what counts as support, then the thinness of the fabric is starting to show.

Second, Hewitt declares the anti-Miers crowd has a weak case and is shouting down the "stronger" case for Miers. We've heard the case for Miers, haven't we? Trust the president. Trust the president. And oh, by the way, trust the president. On the other hand, the critics of the nomination have examined her record, her writings, and her resume' and have concluded there are many better options. That doesn't exactly qualify as shouting down a stronger case.Give it up, Hugh. You've gone from "clutch" to just plain "clutching."


James Elliott said...

A strong case allows the weak case as much time as it wants. A weak case shouts down its opposite, and refuses to engage.

Wouldn't the president's deriding the opposition as elitist and sexist qualify for the above statement? Seems to me that Hugh should have thought his criteria through a little more before shooting off his rather prodigious trap.

Jay D. Homnick said...

I thought what the Prez said was, "Must you harry at my err'rs?"

James Elliott said...

For that you defend your wordplay? How obnoxious.

Now, this is not the same as saying you're unskilled at wordplay, because you're damn good. Your sense of appropriate timing needs to be reinserted into your skull. Possibly with a crowbar, though I'm willing to consider less invasive methods.

Tom Van Dyke said...

James, my friend, after that link you posted yesterday, I think your appropriateness meter is broken.

I'll tell myself your comment was intended as an affectionate insult, but using "obnoxious" is a bad way to go about it, OK?

James Elliott said...

The truth tends to irritate, much like a rash.

Tom Van Dyke said...

That is an acceptable philosophy for fungi. Your call.

Kathy Hutchins said...

I realize that Hugh Hewitt is a revered father-figure for a great many right-of-center political bloggers. But frankly, I gave up giving a rat's rear end what he thought about anything to do with the Supreme Court over a year ago. Arguably, the biggest reason the White House thinks it's forced to make idiotic political calculations and put up "stealth" nominees is the fact that Snarlin' Arlen Specter is still the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the best efforts of conservatives first to defeat him in the Pennsylvania Republican primary by backing Pat Toomey, and then to strip him of the chair after the 2004 elections. And who was the biggest general leading the charge against both these uprisings, claiming that their foot-soldiers were rending the GOP apart? Hugh bleeping Hewitt!! As far as I'm concerned, Hewitt can eat my shorts.

Francis J. Beckwith said...

Remember, Hewitt thought that Bush won the first debate with Kerry.