The Harriet Miers 'Right Spitting Venom'

Corbis Images

There are things that must be said, after yesterday's fiasco with the First Lady's misinterpreted comments on the NBC's Today show, which we have all blogged about ad nauseam. Another nail in the proverbial coffin for the conservatives, and another gleefully scored point for the cheering dems. Well done for reaching the sheer level of stupidity to which this whole issue has brought us to; dizzying heights of viciousness, and most of all divide from which it may be difficult if at all possible to recover.

The President must feel shocked and disappointed, let down, and as my friend Kenny Pierce quite rightly said: "....along with most observers, stunned by the intensity and nakedness of the rage with which his appointment has been met by sizable chunks of the Right."

I for my part, feel disillusioned, and downright furious at the spitting venom from this large chunk of the Right, which will no doubt become responsible for the most 'expensive venomous spit' in the history of this Administration.

Hugh  Hewitt: "It doesn't have to be an epic departure of an entire cosntituency to cripple crucial races. Playing with fire over nominees --and especially attacking those who at least deserve the benefit of the doubt and at best deserve a strong and determined defense-- is terrible politics."

I am quoting my great friend Kenny Pierce, a part time blogger, a full time genius, and just to shock you all - a Libertarian, who posts this from his travels. And publishing his derogatory comments on the President on my site, is a kind of a punishment to all of you 'Trench Dwelling Dogfaces' out there who have ceased to care. How do you actually feel when you hear insults being hurled at the President, have your senses become so numb that you no longer feel slighted? 'The Rebel Alliance' are almost forgiven as they simply don't know better, and have given up caring a long time ago. Just to also explain, that Kenny here is vicariously expressing liberals' frustration, and not expressing his own; :

"May I please take this opportunity to say, with great firmness: you cannot determine a person’s character based on his political affiliation. To the people on the Left who are firmly convinced that conservatives are callous, heartless, greedy bastards whose voting habits are proof that they are morally inferior to you, allow me to say with cheerful indulgence: get over yourselves, dudes, and get a clue. To the people on the Right who are firmly convinced that liberals are promiscuous, immoral, godless, rude persons whose voting habits are proof that they are morally inferior to you, allow me to say with cheerful indulgence: get over yourselves, dudes, and get a clue. People are people. You give them what they want, most of them will play nice. If there’s something they want really badly, and you tell them they can’t have it, most of them will reveal their own personal Dark Sides. If liberals have seemed, over the past quarter of a century, to be more bitter and unpleasant than conservatives, that is not because conservatives are nicer people – it’s because it’s been a heckuva long time since genuine leftists have gotten what they wanted. They got rid of Tricky Dick and then Jimmy Carter turned to have the IQ of, well, a peanut. But at least he was genuinely liberal. And what has happened since then...let’s see.

They got obliterated by Reagan and had to put up with twelve years of Republican Presidents, and when they finally got a Democrat for President, he came along with a Republican House and turned out to be, on domestic policy, slightly to the right of Bush the First. For a brief moment it looked like he would establish nationalized health care, but the moment the polls showed that Americans were opposed to it, he abandoned the cause and put his genuinely liberal wife in the Not-Allowed-To-Speak-In-Public penalty box for, oh, about fifty years. Then the Republicans won in 2000 in the midst of the whole Florida thing, and in 2004 the hated and despised Chimpy McHitler, whose legitimacy the Left had denied for four years in large part on the grounds of his having lost the popular vote, got more popular votes than any Presidential candidate in history and settled in for another four years, this time with his party in nominal control of the House, the Senate, and the majority of governorships. Granted that the control, thanks to the general spinelessness of Republican Congressman, is all but purely nominal; but still, that’s twenty-eight years without a genuinely liberal President, twenty-eight years in which the influence of the Massachusetts-liberal-style Left has been in decline. And now Chimpy is putting his people on the Supreme Court, which is the last bastion of liberal power and which has long been the Left’s last-resort way to impose upon the nation such leftist policies as a majority of the nation’s citizens refuse to support.

Let’s let conservatives have the kind of thirty-year run that liberals have had, and see how bitter they get. Until then, perhaps conservatives should not congratulate themselves on their moral superiority to liberals on the grounds that “the Left is so bitter and uncharitable.” "

Corbis Images ''Poison Arrow Dart' frog

To those of us in the Hugh Hewitt 'Loyalist Army': wake up before the 'Poison Arrow Dart Frogs' on the left, manage to wedge in enough doubt, that you will need to endure eight years of Hillary Clinton before you get another crack at the Presidency.

As I keep saying: Is anyone out there listening?

The latest post from Hugh: The Difference Between Wrong And Rotten: Now is The Time to Subscribe to National Review. Simply scroll down his home page for some important posts on the Miers issue,: Beldar v. Miller, and Howard strikes out I am a Uniter not a Divider  Miers The Morning Update 'What do the Critics of the Miers Nomination Want?

Not to be missed: Hugh's Radio Blogger interview yesterday, with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht:

NH: "I've known her thirty years, Hugh. And she is a remarkable woman. She has had a storied career, many accomplishments. She came to a law firm back when it was hard for women to get jobs at major law firms. And a few years later, when it was ten times its size, she was the managing partner. And that's just the way she's been. She's been president...the first woman president of the state Bar of Texas, not because she's a woman, but because she's good. And of course, she's been President Bush and Governor Bush's, candidate Bush's lawyer, for many years, and he knows her. He knows what it's like to throw hardball questions at her, and get back sound advice. So I just think it's a wonderful nomination."

And so do I... some of my recent posts on Miers: Consigliere Harriet Miers 'The Originalist' Part I Consigliere Harriet Miers 'The Originalist' Part II The Harriet Miers 'Loyalist Army' and The First Lady and Professor Althouse.

Another must by The Anchoress today: 'Obnoxious' : "The reaction of many to this nomination has gone way beyond intellectual reason and moved into sweaty emotionalism and even spite, where it has never belonged.
It begs the question why."

This lady is slowly but surely becoming one of the best bloggers today, and I always absolutely love reading her articles. Down to earth and eloquent, she manages to capture the heart and soul of the subject every time. She simply is a must read!!!

Comments

[North by Northwest]

Kenny:

And now Chimpy [Bush] is putting his people on the Supreme Court, which is the last bastion of liberal power and which has long been the Left’s last-resort way to impose upon the nation such leftist policies as a majority of the nation’s citizens refuse to support.

It's all right in here, in your sentence. The conspiratorial foundation to the widespread 'Angst' amongst the Left. Yet the terms "last bastion of liberal power", "Left's last resort", "Impose" and "Majority [...] refuse to support" clearly seem to highlight the need for equally Machiavellian politics. The Masses don't, no better yet, can't know what's best for them...

Again, as I wrote earlier, that's the trouble with democracy, especially in view of the current, almost even split. Majorities and Minorities are nowadays determined by such narrow margins that the losers inevitably cry foul as they feel they must have been robbed.

Consequently, and ironically, politicians, who want to get things done, are more than ever pushed to adhere to the teachings of the 15th century Italian statesman and political philosopher, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, who advised rulers that the acquisition and effective use of power may necessitate unethical methods.

[North by Northwest]

But that is the trouble with modern day politics. The parties' ideological boundaries are totally blurred. At the time, I was appalled by Dubya and the idea of him becoming President. Didn't much care for Gore either, but just couldn't stand the idea of Bush. Then 9/11 happened.... and I changed 180 degrees; the goal post changed: a strong leader was required. No governing by polling. Decisiveness was what's wanted.

Just remember Churchill! He was a shrewd and buccaneering politician. His gambles and enormous sacrifices paid off and he was enshrined as a hero. But it took enormous guts, dogged determination and more often than not tunnel-vision. And it could have gone wrong; many times over!

Iraq: I was always pro-military intervention - it wasn't really a question for me. Do I think differently today? No. Absolutely not! Hussein still in power, what a thought...

WMD: A political trap. Lots of spin and positioning, but neither required as justification nor reason for action. Those were much less spectacular and unglamorous: Years of intollerable cruelty and rampant human rights abuse.

Which brings me to my point: Would I ever have thought that Tony Blair, a Labor MP mind you, turned out to be such a hawk? Never! The same goes for Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton, should they run. I put it to you, nobody can say who'll do better or worse. In fact, chance is, that Hillary'd do a bloody good job given her profound understanding of how the cooky crumbles. And that's key. She learned her lesson with her foray into health care and won't make the same mistake twice. Condi, who knows.

So, forget the division on 'issues' when it's actually time to rule. Ideologically, there isn't enough of a difference when it comes to "REAL POLITIK" and the day-to-day business of government.

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

That dedication was very sweet of you. [sigh] Even though you know it annoys me. ;-)

I tell you what, I feel for you guys -- sincere Republicans, I mean. I'm not being snarky and sarcastic; I genuinely feel bad for you. It's such a frustrating thing to have worked for something literally for decades, and to finally have it right there in front of you -- and then suddenly your "allies" renege on you and try to keep you from getting it. Which is exactly how both the Rebel Alliance and you Loyalists feel...and it really sucks.

I think, though, that you and Hugh and the Anchoress are better off than the Rebels, because I do think she's going to get confirmed. Personally I feel about Harriet the way a lot of moderates feel about the War in Iraq: it was probably a mistake, but it would be a worse mistake for conservatives to back out now. (I realize that you disagree with me and think she was a great choice, and I hope she turns out to be the originalist you think she is. You would know better than I because you've worked much harder at the research.)

Anyway, here's to better and more peaceful days ahead. Maybe Dubya will get another chance before the next election and this time (unless he gets vindictive or something) he'll nominate Janice Brown, and then all will be forgiven...well, maybe not all, but it'll at least help you Republicans make peace with each other going into the next Presidential election.

I have no real hope that the Democrats will provide me with any more reasonable alternative to the Republican nominee than they did last time, when my vote was certainly eminently obtainable. Apparently the front-runners at the moment are Hilary, and Anybody-but-Hilary (man, you think conservatives are divided over Bush, try being a fly on the wall when liberals talk about Hilary). And the leading Anybody-but-Hilary...can Ariana Huffington really be right when she says Al Gore (!!!!!) is a serious candidate? -- and that one of his primary qualifications is his fixation on global warming?!? Sweet heavens above, the Republicans will be talking about the threat of Islamofascism and Al Bore will be droning on about the threat of global warming, right up until he drops another brick about how evangelical Christians and Islamofascist terrorists are at bottom pretty much the same because they're both "fundamentalist"...why would we even bother to have an election?...

[another sigh] I miss the two-party system.