10/11/2005

5 Responses to “Wow”

1. Shocked, I’m shocked that there is name calling in a political argument. And I’m not counting, but it appears that both sides are about equally guilty of this practice with respect to timing, quantity, lack of quality, and lack of civility. Shame on you all. You should learn from the great ones how to make serious arguments more persuasive by making them less inflammatory.

   martin (fb2430) — 10/12/2005 @ 4:57 am

   
   

2. Can we just dismiss the sexism charges already? Stop denying them, but keep mentioning Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen and Edith Jones along with Luttig, McConnell, Alito, etc. as the list of people who should have been nominated, and it will be self-evident that the sexism charges say more about those making them than those on the receiving end. Save the righteous indignation for something that’s worth it.

   TNugent (58efde) — 10/12/2005 @ 6:07 am

   
   

3. Bravo!

   JG gets a Skull and Crossbones.

   Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/12/2005 @ 7:42 am

   
   

4. Nails what? His thumb, maybe? Jeff should take another look at these events, try to get the sequence right, take a look at some of the truly poisonous commentary at NRO (and other places), and redo this post. And anyone who agrees with him needs to do the same.

   Hint to those who don’t get it: When Gillespie made his unfortunate remarks he was (1) starting a fight or (2) hitting back after a flood of nasty attacks?

   Goldstein’s posts are usually more competent thatn this one — which shows something itself, I suppose.

   Jim Miller (04b017) — 10/12/2005 @ 11:22 am

   
   

5. Sorry Jim, although the criticism hasn’t always been polite, it wasn’t that nasty, and the sexism remark by Gillespie pretty much the same thing that the lefties do when they want to avoid defending the merit (or lack thereof) of a position — cry racism, sexism or whatever other -ism may be inflammatory enough to distract attention from legitimate issues and put critics on the defensive on matters wholly unrelated to the subject of the criticism.

   The WH should have seen this coming, and it should have been prepared to respond with substance, rather than just “hitting back.”

   We’re still getting a lot of “trust me” and other misdirection, leading everywhere but toward Miers’ judicial philosophy. We’re also getting the “just wait until the hearings” non-assurance, when of course we all know that Miers will do her utmost to avoid giving away anything really useful — does anyone really expect candor on the subjects of how she’ll interpret the constitution or the use of judicial review? Roberts was able to give that information, but the Dems on the Committee were too stuck to the script they were given by Ralph Neas and NARAL to realize what was happening. They’ll be better prepared this time, and Miers just might not be as good as Roberts. So it might actually be useful to enlist conservative support before the hearings, rather than trying to win it at the same time Diane Feinstein is asking Miers to respond not as a judge, but as a single, female senior citizen, or Ted Kennedy is asking her to explain how the racism demonstrated by the government’s causing hurricanes to make landfall in poor, mostly black areas situated below sea level affects her views on abortion rights policy.

   TNugent (58efde) — 10/12/2005 @ 12:38 pm