October 24, 2005

ANTI-ANTI-MIERS:

I just flew in from Italy, and boy is my keyboard tired (Hugh Hewitt, October 24, 2005)

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 24, 2005 9:06 PM
Comments

One of the few adults.

One hopes that someday George Will, Chuck Krauthammer, and the rest of the lynch mob will reread their dreck on Miers, compare it to Hewitt, and be very very very embarrassed.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 24, 2005 10:51 PM

Should the GOP lose Senate and/or House seats next year, I know who I'll remember to blame: Will, National Review, and The Weekly Standard will have earned their place at the top of the list. I expected better from the whole lot.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 24, 2005 11:04 PM

I keep hearing anecdotally that people unhappy with these publications anti-Miers stance (and other stuff) are pulling their subscriptions. Probably not true but it would be interesting their subscription totals over the next few months.

Posted by: AWW at October 24, 2005 11:41 PM

Raoul:

Why?

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 12:10 AM

You mean expected better?

Because I would have thought that people who are professionals would not behave this way even when they are disappointed the way these people obviously are. This sort of nastiness doesn't just erupt suddenly, and it bothers me I didn't see it coming. Makes one wonder who one's allies really are. (Then again, I didn't have much respect for a lot of these people like Will or Coulter or Bork before this...)

I just do not understand what they think their victory will achieve. I have yet to see any of these people to consider what happens next, and considering how much "what iffing" they do on a regular basis, that omission tells me that they, deep down, know what it means, and don't care. That sort of nilhilistic attitude is not what I expect from anyone who calls themselves conservative. It's the kind of behavior one expects from The Nation or DemocraticUnderground and such.

(I wonder: Has Bush & co. not spent enough time cultivating these people and massaging their fragile egos? It's almost as if they, as a group, have figured out that the Admin. ignores them, and this is their revenge. Again, that doesn't say good things about them.)

And I know I've got a renewal notice for National Review sitting in the pile right now, and as a subscriber since 1982, I'm coming close to chucking it into the trash. (The Weekly Standard got dropped years ago when I realized that reading the table of contents for an issue was a sufficient summary.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 25, 2005 1:57 AM

Raoul:

They're intellectual though, who imagine a perfect world in their own heads and then, as their own saying goes, get mugged by reality.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 7:29 AM

The pro-Miers people aren't intellectuals?

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 7:49 AM

Hewitt zeroes in on the dirty little secret: many supposedly pro-life conservatives don't want Roe (and Casey - wish the case had a different name) overturned. That's why they're slamming Miers. Will was just honest enough to admit it.

I don't want Roe overturned, either. That's why I don't want Miers on the court. She strikes me as exactly the kind of justice who could build a 5-4 majority for reversal.

If only more pro-choicers would have Will's honesty...

Posted by: Casey Abell at October 25, 2005 8:15 AM

Paul:

No.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 8:21 AM

Come on, OJ. Few things are as contemptible as the intellectual who pretends not to be one. Are we to believe that Hugh Hewitt, Harvard alum, PBS-man, former Justice Dept. lawyer, is but a backwoods commoner?

You yourself are an intellectual in the best sense of the word.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 8:34 AM

Now, there are intellectuals, and there are "intellectuals". To be well-educated, well-informed, and aware of the past is one thing, but to be unable to live without strokes to one's vanity, and to be unable to tolerate a completely different strata of society (i.e., Crawford, TX) is quite another.

Hugh Hewitt is the first type - Bill Kristol strikes me as the second (sort of like Michael Kinsley). I would have thought better of George Will, but he has never really liked Bush's plodding style, now has he? And the GOP majority in Congress is not going to be made up of conservative Pat Monyihans, quoting Greek and dazzling the literary set with their brilliance. It is people like Bill Thomas, Tom DeLay, and Denny Hastert who get the job done.

Surely they are preferable to Pelosi and Schumer (who will probably be the next Minority Leader, if Reid is ever dumped). Durbin is damaged goods.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 25, 2005 8:43 AM

Paul:

Mr. Hewitt is, by virtue of being a law professor. He's also just about her only defender outside the political professional and Evangelical activist realms.

I'm an anti-intellectual, like most Americans:

The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas which I call anti-intellectual is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/530/

The life of the miond has nothing worthwhile to teach us. Everything that matters was Revealed to us.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 8:55 AM

jim:

All secular people are intellectuals.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 8:55 AM

The problem isn't that the named suspects above and other "conservative" deep thinkers don't support the Miers appointment. The problem is they couldn't wait until the appropriate time to voice their objections and then voice them in a coherent manner.

What they thought their unseemly hissy fit would accomplish is hard to fathom.

Like their soul mates on the left whose relentless criticism of the WoT gives fuel to terrorism, the relentless criticism from the right gives fuel to the visions of sugar plum impeachment of George Bush to the moonbats.

Posted by: tefta at October 25, 2005 9:00 AM

Orrin Judd, the anti-intellectual's intellectual.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 9:00 AM

Paul:

You can't be anti-Rational and an intellectual.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 9:09 AM

Sure you can -- or are you laying it down that, say, St. Augustine was not an intellectual?

There were intellectuals before the Enlightenment, I assure you.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 9:25 AM

Paul:

Augustine often did slip into mere Rationalism, but for the most part tried to make Reason conform to the dictates of Faith.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 9:32 AM

As to the next step for the irate intellectual crowd, it seems their lack of discussion about what happens next, other than to say "Bush then nominates so-and-so from our approved list, and then they're confirmed," seems to still be either thoughtlessly ignoring or willfully taking for granted the fundamentalist right, which this group will need in the future if they're to get some of their other pet projects past.

If they cannot get enough conservative Republican senators to agree with them that Miers should be rejected on the grounds that she's a cypher/dim bulb who will be an unreliable vote on the court, then their hopes will rest on her rejection based on fears that she will overturn Roe. That might be enough to win over Democrats and some of the pro-choice Republicans, but the intellectuals fool themselves if they think those seeking Roe's reversal are going to differentiate between their position and Pat Lahey's position, if the NRO/WS group gets a judge they approve of, but no dent is then put in the 1973 ruling.

Posted by: John at October 25, 2005 9:42 AM

realistically, if the nomination were to fail there's no one he could appoint but McConnell who would satisfy both the intellectuals and the Evangelicals, which would leave only the Catholics, women, Hispanics, and blacks pissed off.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 9:47 AM

If the term intellectual bothers you, we can drop it, and I understand the point you are trying to make about American disdain for intellectual life; but every civilized nation has its own life of the mind, even practical America.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 9:48 AM

yes, it's the deeply ingrained distrust of the life of the mind (of Rationalism) that is unique to America (at least in the West).

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 9:57 AM

Right, our intellectualism is anti-intellectual.

Posted by: Paul Cella at October 25, 2005 10:19 AM

Yes, because we're a people of Faith, not Reason.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 10:26 AM

If McConnell can be confirmed, and I'm skeptical, it would only be because the Dems had been painted into a corner complaining about Miers' lack of intellectualism. Otherwise, McConnell's Establishment Clause writings would earn him a filibuster.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 25, 2005 10:59 AM

David:

True enough about McConnell, but don't you think that he is the one 'popular' candidate who could break the filibuster? As opposed to Brown, Jones, Estrada?

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 25, 2005 11:40 AM

The filibuster is a dead letter.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 11:43 AM

Bush can always wait and recess appoint Miers

Oh boy, would I love that. Might actualy be worth watching something other than sports and TCM on ye olde telly to watch the pointy heads explode.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 25, 2005 11:45 AM

Wouldn't want to be the janitor at National Review on that day.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 11:49 AM

I was thinking of recess-appointment, or something similar, too. What's to stop Miers from already having agreed to resigning in the summer of '008, just in time for Bush to put forth a name designed to stir things up in favor of the GOP?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 25, 2005 12:40 PM

Recess appoint Mark Levin. That would cover all the base(s), including that of obnoxious (in a good way) New Yorkers.

Plus, it would just ruin Chuck Schumer's decade.

Posted by: jim hamlen at October 25, 2005 1:22 PM

If Bush did that, hopefully Levin would keep his radio show on WABC. The phone-in calls on Monday evenings after the rulings come down would be worth the price of admission.

Posted by: John at October 25, 2005 3:27 PM

The filibuster was about to be a dead letter, until Senator McCain rescued it.

Jim: As I said, if he's a replacement for Miers, the Senate might be painted into a corner. Otherwise, it would be a PFTAW free-for-all.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 25, 2005 6:24 PM

OJ: Hewitt's an evangelical and a party man. Either one of those is enough to turn even a Harvard man into a Miers supporter.

Posted by: Timothy at October 25, 2005 6:30 PM

Broke it.

Posted by: oj at October 25, 2005 6:38 PM
« ALL WORLD VIEWS ARE RELIGIONS: | Main | HE HAS TO GO BUT WE SHOULDN'T DO IT?: »