Let’s Make It Mierony #TheLast
Hugh Hewitt has a post titled Mierony #1:
Mierony: A category of irony, including all commentary on judicial nominations that is ironic given the source’s position on the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Example: Jonah Goldberg’s upset with Polipundit’s unfairness to the prospect of a McConnell nomination.
Please. PoliPundit’s suggestion, that McConnell is not partisan enough, is simply silly. It is reminiscent of an equally silly statement he made in support of Harriet Miers (before he changed his mind and decided to oppose her): “Ideology trumps all. If a mangy yellow dog were the SCOTUS nominee, Id support it, if it would consistently vote with Scalia-Thomas.”
I generally like Polipundit. But I criticized his “mangy yellow dog” statement at the time, and I am criticizing his statement about McConnell today. And there is not a damn thing I said about Miers that is inconsistent with this criticism. I am not estopped from making it, and neither is Jonah Goldberg.
One more thing, Hugh: please stop with “Mierony #1.” Enough, already. I’m serious. There are positive things to talk about today. The rumor is that Alito may get the nod. These rumors often prove to be wrong — but if true, that would be fantastic news. Let’s try to be positive, and nip the “Mierony” series in the bud.
UPDATE: This is more like it: an endorsement of Mike Luttig.
Hugh Hewitt is starting to truly piss me off. I cut him some slack during the Miers debate (even though he was unfairly attacking Miers’s critics) on the grounds that he thought he was working to keep the Republican party together. Now that the fight is over and he has nothing to gain for the party by his snotty attacks, he is still huffy, still snotty, and still giving amunition to the Democrats. I’m beginning to think that his little snit is more important to him than the party. And if the party is no more important to him than that, it calls into question whether he really deserved any slack before.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 10/28/2005 @ 2:59 pmHugh’s position is pure Mierlarky. He really does need to stop whining and move on.
The Editors, American Federalist Journal (17fd00) — 10/28/2005 @ 3:34 pmRe: Keeping the GOP United
Yes, by all means let’s keep the party united. But, let’s face facts, voluntary association is dependent on acknowledgment and respect for the unique aspects of the GOP’s several confluent branches.
Conservatives do not represent big business, we are not moderates, or evangelicals. We don’t mind rubbing shoulders with others, but we are uniquely different from most constituencies under the GOP’s big tent.
However, Conservatives are not stepchildren, grudgingly allowed to pick up the scraps after the real players have left the table. Conservatives are the Party’s loyal and energetic foot solders. We have done our part and now expect President Bush to do his and make good on his promise to send up nominees in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.
Conservatives have real priorities, and we fully expect to have our own place at the table, or we will have no option but to examine our alternatives. Why does that so frighten HH?
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/28/2005 @ 3:52 pmHugh’s behaving like a spoiled 12 year old. Let it go already. I hate, hate, hate “I Told You So” editorials. Good on you, Patterico, for looking ahead instead of wallowing in recrimination.
jinnmabe (9b03eb) — 10/28/2005 @ 4:21 pmIf we must resort to corny puns on people’s names, I suggest “Hugh Blewitt.”
Xrlq (ffb240) — 10/28/2005 @ 4:44 pmHugh is stuck in a quagMier.
The Editors, American Federalist Journal (17fd00) — 10/28/2005 @ 4:59 pmI prefer doing victory laps around him, saying “HAHAHAHAHA! Eat shit, sukka!”
TCO (5e2e67) — 10/28/2005 @ 4:59 pmGet comfortable, Patterico. Like I said on Ace’s thread: every setback that the GOP encounters over the next three years will be blamed by Hewitt on the Miers withdrawal. It’s the only way he can still “win” the debate.
We’ll be hearing about it for a long, long time.
Allah (cc4e8d) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:56 pmHugh, always the high-energy positive-outlook guy, jumped in with both feet in support of Miers. When many conservatives failed to adopt his pollyannish view of the nomination, he beg
Levans (78d9c8) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:59 pmPatterico:
I disagree with you to this extent: Hewitt-style “Mierony” is perfectly correct and useful, but only when used against the Left.
That is, to the extent that we can use Mierony to bash Democrats who (a) attacked her for being an extreme “right winger,” then (b) savaged the “right wing” for taking her down because she was too moderate, we should never lose such an opportunity. But Mierony, and indeed any other form of recrimination (including triumphalism), should never be launched from one Republican faction against another. Hugh Hewitt is wrong to do so — as is your commenter TCO above.
Republicans have too long a history of cannibalism. It has to end, and end quickly. I wrote that I believe damage has been done — I pointedly do not argue who is responsible for the damage — but the damage can still be repaired in time for 2006. It can only be fixed, however, if we immediately just put the whole argument into the box with the Ambiguity and forget it ever existed.
I supported her nomination because, given the fact that she was the nominee, it was best for the party that she be nominated. Your side won… but given that fact, it is now best for the party that your side achieve total victory. The worst thing is a limping, partial victory/defeat that allows the skirmish to drag on. Conquer completely, then let’s move quickly forward.
Thus I hope it’s Luttig or Alito or McConnell or anyone of that ilk; we can all unite behind him or her and ready ourselves for the fight of Bush’s entire political life against our real political enemy: the Left. The Left will attempt to annihilate anyone Bush sends up (I choose that word with care, because they are nihilists); they must fail.
I will not eschew any honorable tactic to be used against the Left, including Mierony; but from the moment Miers withdrew, all such tactics against fellow Republicans should have been off the table… and I wish Hugh would stop it. (He’s usually more cold-blooded about this sort of thing; maybe being a reptile makes it easier for me to slither on a dime….)
But I hope that we go farther and unite behind the rest of the president’s agenda. We asked the Sunni in Iraq to vote for the Constitution, even though there were parts they didn’t like, just so that there would be a constitution there to modify later; enough did that it passed, and now that country is much better off than it was a month ago.
Similarly, let’s make sure there is a Republican agenda moving through Congress… and then we can try to tweak it here and there to make it more palatable in various areas. First, though, you must get it moving again.
Are you all with me? Luttig for the Court, a working compromise on immigration, rein in the spending spree, finish the war on Iraq so we can bring our troops home in victory, and settle in for the long haul against the terrorists around the world (who, along with the Left, are the actual enemies of America — not our brothers and sisters on the other side of the same caucus as we).
Whaddya say?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:15 pmBlack Jack Conservatives do not represent big business, we are not moderates, or evangelicals. We don’t mind rubbing shoulders with others, but we are uniquely different from most constituencies under the GOP’s big tent. Though some of us conservatives are also evangelicals – I certainly don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. And I don’t mind rubbing shoulders in the least with those who may choose to differ with me theologically.
Dafydd, while I agree with the general tenant of your comments, the problem I’m having with the republican agenda is trying to find where it went. For example, they’ve largely abandoned fiscal conservatism. I viewed this nomination as at the very least a strong potential for further abandonment of the conservative agenda.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that if the republicans don’t get back to a “Contract with America”-like agenda, I’m likely to be very picky about whether I vote and for whom. In short, if there’s no real difference between the republicans and the pre-1994 democrats then I’ll just stay home and mow the lawn one more time in November. Though I will vote for VA state republicans – at least those who oppose tax increases and who are serious about “undocumented” guests.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:31 pmI got no problem with ending the fight. As long as y’all wussy sycochimpofant chestnut-out-of-fire-pullers realize that we’re not going to sit still for Bush idiocy any more. He can’t play the chicken game in the road with us any more. I’m willing to crash, baby.
(Think of it as a game theory type thing…I’m using my irrationality to advance my end…)
P.s. I have special pet troll status from Patty to allow my antics. (It’s not a general lowering of the bulletin board’s ethic…just lil double standard
TCO (5e2e67) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:38 pmPatterico,
A proposal:
1. All acrimony in limbo for 6 months.
2. At that pt, you do a post where we all peruse the archives and review our HM comments to answer the q: regardless whether I was right or wrong, was I being a prick in how I made my pt?
Might be interesting to see if time lends a little perspective. Till then, there are more important things to do.
What think?
ras (f9de13) — 10/28/2005 @ 7:43 pmAre you all with me? Luttig for the Court, a working compromise on immigration, rein in the spending spree, finish the war on Iraq so we can bring our troops home in victory, and settle in for the long haul against the terrorists around the world (who, along with the Left, are the actual enemies of America — not our brothers and sisters on the other side of the same caucus as we).
That all sounds great to me.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/28/2005 @ 9:02 pm1. All acrimony in limbo for 6 months.
2. At that pt, you do a post where we all peruse the archives and review our HM comments to answer the q: regardless whether I was right or wrong, was I being a prick in how I made my pt?
Might be interesting to see if time lends a little perspective. Till then, there are more important things to do.
What think?
I’m working on ending the acrimony now — talk to Hewitt.
As for coming back in 6 months, sure. Remind me. I hope by then we have the first opinions from Justice Luttig or Alito.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/28/2005 @ 9:03 pmNo way. I’m still pissed at Bush. Reminds me of his old man with the read my lips promise that he broke like a rubber band.
TCO (4dd7d6) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:07 pmMe too. If either of those two ends up on the bench, all the infighting over Miers, however unpleasant, will have been well worth it.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:09 pmYou betcha. Think Hugh will agree?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:19 pmThe Luttig endorsement is encouraging and free of bitterness. Good sign.
See Dubya (6004eb) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:38 pmConservatives should have no interest in “making up” with Hewitt. There were reasonable ways to support Miers. Beldar did it, for example. But Hewitt was a whiny, petulant child complaining that conservatives were engaging in unfair personal attacks, when in reality most commentary was measured, reasoned criticism of her qualifications and ideology.
Hugh Hewitt doesn’t know from personal. Hugh Hewitt is 40 pounds of crap in an 20 pound sack. That’s personal.
Tom Dunson (149cde) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:13 amTom Dunson is probably still fuming about the Douglas Ginsburg nomination….
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/29/2005 @ 4:26 amPatterico:
Oh, give him a couple of days to calm down. He’s an old man… it takes longer for the nerve impulses of 75 year olds to travel from the tail to the head, you know.
(I however have some elf blood, hence I’m ageless. In fact, I’m half elf, half dwarf, and half snake.)
Since you inexplicably forgot to link to my post where I expanded on my comment above — rather, you linked it but only in the context of my mention that RCP now has an actual blog, not for my suggestions for the Bush agenda of 2006 — I suppose I’ll just have to do it myself. Alack, the labors of Hercules always seem to fall upon my shoulders.
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/29/2005 @ 4:33 amHughrony – n.
1. The curious condition whereby someone who professes party loyalty and cohesion above all publishes an invective against his own political party and ideological team in the flagship publication of the opposing party/ideology.
2. What happens when a GOP jersey-waver can’t bring himself to acknowledge his team captain is not infallible.
If gentlemanly conduct is truly a goal for Hugh, he really ought to stop stabbing his fellow Republican conservatives in the behind now.
Conservatives periodically require Republican leaders to act like conservatives. We’re funny that way sometimes.
Appoint an Alito, a Luttig, an Ownes, or a Brown and we’ll shut up and let the Bushies suck up to the RINOs and Dems some more, although I’ll never understand for the life of me why Dubya recognizes the folly of appeasement in the realm of foreign policy but clings to it like a life jacket when it comes to domestic policy.
If you all want to wave the flag for unresticted immigration, steel tariffs, and massive increases in welfare spending in the slim hope that we’ll somehow get another couple of RINOs into Washington, fine. At least give us a qualified openly-conservative Supreme Court pick.
Teflon (5987e4) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:54 amDafydd , saying that “The Left will attempt to annihilate anyone Bush sends up” is ridiculous. Have you already forgotten that Roberts had little problem getting approved? Sure there was some descent from the left, but overall most democrats were impressed with him even though they may have disagreed with his political leanings. The democratic votes against him were primarily a response to their base calling them spineless and they knew that the votes would just be symbolic rather than effectual.
Your “My party, write or wrong, by God” position exposes your lack of integrity. More of us should hold the truth above our party loyalty and stop beings sycophants to causes which we have no control over. Do you just mindlessly sway with the right whenever they change course?
Being a political hack serves no one. Think for yourself.
This reminds me of a military dictum I heard: “Thinking is when the mind wanders.” Well, that might be a fine maxim for the lowest ranking grunts in the army, since it keeps them from questioning orders. But we shouldn’t attempt to run our country that way.
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 9:43 amYes, but I doubt that he’ll admit it directly. More likely, once one of those two (or anyone else of that ilk) is confirmed, we’ll get a general acknowledgement that all’s well that ends well, and never hear about the Miers confirmation again. Prior to confirmation, the closest thing we’ll get to an admission that the acrimony may have been worth it is if he assigns the new nominee a letter grade – which would almost certainly be higher than a B+.
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 10:01 amI’m onboard, and it’s time to close ranks.
The Left has taken the field and is spoiling for a fight. You can almost hear the clashing of spear on shield. The catcalls, the taunts. There’re ready, and we’re still getting over the Miers blunder. GWB needs to give us a nominee to rally us to his side, prepare us for the battles ahead. With strong decisive leadership we will win.
The Left is overconfident. They have Scooter Libby in the crosshairs and are thirsty for bigger game. Their blood is up. Joe Wilson is their champion for the initial phase of the great campaign. The Plame-Game fight will be big, loud, and ugly, but it’s only a diversionary assault. Remember:
It’s the Supreme Court. That’s the Left’s first major objective. They will concentrate all their forces on that weak point and fight like hell. Even force a scorched-earth strategy if the outcome seems in doubt. Don’t underestimate their resolve. They want this fight, and they think they hold the high ground. If their combined forces get the upper hand, their strength will grow as our support fades. But, it doesn’t have to be that way.
President Bush, give us a SCOTUS nominee worth fighting for and we will give you victory. Your opponents will be turned aside and scattered before you as leaves in the autumn wind.
We are yours to command. Lead, and you will have loyal followers aplenty.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 10:58 amNo. Have you already forgotten that as many Democrats voted against his confirmation as voted for it?
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:58 amIf we had listened to Hugh Hewitt, we would be stuck with Harriet Miers. Her confirmation would have been a thorn in the Republican base’s paw that could never be pulled out. Now, instead of joining the victory celebration with Rush Limbaugh, National Review, Laura Ingraham, etc., Hewitt stands on the sideline saying, “Pfui!” I had thought he was better than this.
Myrhaf (4327c7) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:27 pmXrlq, considering that many believe that Roberts is more than just moderately conservative, getting half of the democratic vote is not bad at all. The senators who voted against him were aware that he would be confirmed no matter how they voted anyway.
Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:48 pmWhy could’nt Hugh have used the Krauthammer defense? “gee guys, I really got ya going, could’nt you tell I was just playing devil’s advocate? Now on with the show!!”
alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:19 pmI guess not, if you’re asking me to concede that Democrats are generally sleazy hacks who think that it’s OK to bork a highly-qualified candidate solely because he might be a conservative. Or perhaps you think Senators are supposed to behave like that, in which case you must wonder why all those Republican Senators were sucker enough to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who everyone knew to be more than just moderately liberal.
Making it a symbolic borking by 22 Senators rather than a successful borking by 51. Na und?
Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:57 pmHugh Hewitt:Harriet Miers::Andrew Sullivan:Gay Marriage
I do like the reference to Luttig as the “Damn the Torpedos” pick, though. Personally, I suspect Luttig is a bridge too far and we’d be better served going into battle with McConnell, or perhaps Alito.
Crank (c0f677) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:34 pmHello! Good Site! Thanks you! vnasyucxrhx
tkxxqvcapm (d5fe16) — 6/20/2007 @ 6:22 pm