Hubris
I just saw the headline at National Review Online, where at The Corner, they said:
"THIS MOMENT CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP FROM REPUBLICAN SENATORS, WHO SHOULD GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND TELL IT THAT THIS NOMINATION WILL NOT WORK AND SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN." [Kathryn Jean Lopez]Our new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate.
Now, I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with Harriet Miers, per se. But I do have a problem with HOW they are saying it. Who's at charge in this debate, NRO? You, Bush, or Congress? The way that they ultimately word it, the power brokers are......NRO. I really don't think that their editorial will matter ONE IOTA to the Senate. Simply because not everyone in the Senate jumps at the mere mention of NRO. It's influential, for sure, but it's not what the New York Times is for the Democrats. So, stating that their "new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate" is more or less NOT about Harriet Miers; but about NRO themselves. They want to exert their influence (as well as they should want to), and Miers is just the means and the ways to do it. The problem is that they're not being honest about it; they want their Shangri-la and they'll have a hissy fit if they don't get it. They want to set the table in the debate, and be the end-all to the debate. That's not really debating- that's dictating. Yeah, try to talk to the Senate, but don't try to make your arguement the only one that's out there.
Another thing that alot of pundits have been doing in regards to Miers, is that they've been assuming things about her that we just don't know about. Some have been saying that she's "going to have to cram for constitutional law in three weeks"- well, how do they know that she will have to? Or not have to? How about the upcoming hearings she'll go through- just because some of the Republican Senators will grill her doesn't mean anything. She could handle the questions with grace and ease, or she could flub them. But the pundits are automatically assuming that she'll flub them. Why? I don't know. They're not looking at her impartially, is what it means. They wanted someone else- which NRO has stated that they wanted- and will fight for that. And as a result, the views about Miers isn't so much about HER, as it is about THEM being right. Btw, much of the folks at NRO and the Conservative establishment were also against John Roberts, to start things off (and eventually warmed up to him). How quickly people forget. The whole thing nauseates me, the high school bullshit we're dealing with, here.
The problem is, is that they might NOT get someone else, and might NOT get their candidates. They don't even know what they really want, and parts of their arguement that they're making against Miers is hypocritical. I mean, they wanted Congress to have an up or down vote on the nominees for SCOTUS, but here they are now, advocating a dismissal of Miers BEFORE she's even gotten a chance to defend herself. And they also wanted a nominee who was outside of the elite law school positions, to bring a different and more practical viewpoint of law and studying law to SCOTUS. And here they are now, arguing precisely against such a candidate.
And they might also alienate significant parts of Congress and the President. Yeah, I don't think that NRO is getting any interviews from the entire Bush team, right now. That's the price you pay for being uppity jackasses, folks.
For counterveiling viewpoints, look here http://hughhewitt.com/ here http://powerlineblog.com/ here http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/marvinolasky/2005/10/20/172028.html and here http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2005/10/undecided-no-more-on-harriet-miers.html
"THIS MOMENT CALLS FOR LEADERSHIP FROM REPUBLICAN SENATORS, WHO SHOULD GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND TELL IT THAT THIS NOMINATION WILL NOT WORK AND SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN." [Kathryn Jean Lopez]Our new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate.
Now, I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with Harriet Miers, per se. But I do have a problem with HOW they are saying it. Who's at charge in this debate, NRO? You, Bush, or Congress? The way that they ultimately word it, the power brokers are......NRO. I really don't think that their editorial will matter ONE IOTA to the Senate. Simply because not everyone in the Senate jumps at the mere mention of NRO. It's influential, for sure, but it's not what the New York Times is for the Democrats. So, stating that their "new editorial on Harriet Miers turns the heat on the Senate" is more or less NOT about Harriet Miers; but about NRO themselves. They want to exert their influence (as well as they should want to), and Miers is just the means and the ways to do it. The problem is that they're not being honest about it; they want their Shangri-la and they'll have a hissy fit if they don't get it. They want to set the table in the debate, and be the end-all to the debate. That's not really debating- that's dictating. Yeah, try to talk to the Senate, but don't try to make your arguement the only one that's out there.
Another thing that alot of pundits have been doing in regards to Miers, is that they've been assuming things about her that we just don't know about. Some have been saying that she's "going to have to cram for constitutional law in three weeks"- well, how do they know that she will have to? Or not have to? How about the upcoming hearings she'll go through- just because some of the Republican Senators will grill her doesn't mean anything. She could handle the questions with grace and ease, or she could flub them. But the pundits are automatically assuming that she'll flub them. Why? I don't know. They're not looking at her impartially, is what it means. They wanted someone else- which NRO has stated that they wanted- and will fight for that. And as a result, the views about Miers isn't so much about HER, as it is about THEM being right. Btw, much of the folks at NRO and the Conservative establishment were also against John Roberts, to start things off (and eventually warmed up to him). How quickly people forget. The whole thing nauseates me, the high school bullshit we're dealing with, here.
The problem is, is that they might NOT get someone else, and might NOT get their candidates. They don't even know what they really want, and parts of their arguement that they're making against Miers is hypocritical. I mean, they wanted Congress to have an up or down vote on the nominees for SCOTUS, but here they are now, advocating a dismissal of Miers BEFORE she's even gotten a chance to defend herself. And they also wanted a nominee who was outside of the elite law school positions, to bring a different and more practical viewpoint of law and studying law to SCOTUS. And here they are now, arguing precisely against such a candidate.
And they might also alienate significant parts of Congress and the President. Yeah, I don't think that NRO is getting any interviews from the entire Bush team, right now. That's the price you pay for being uppity jackasses, folks.
For counterveiling viewpoints, look here http://hughhewitt.com/ here http://powerlineblog.com/ here http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/marvinolasky/2005/10/20/172028.html and here http://skyepuppy.blogspot.com/2005/10/undecided-no-more-on-harriet-miers.html
posted by Fafhrd1 | 11:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home