Redstate

Look, I'm not saying I don't agree with the assessment that Hewitt's priorities are out-of-whack here.  Indeed, I think that one can make a fair claim that he prioritizes loyalty to the administration over most other issues.  

But this is an unnecessary piece of mud-slinging.  It advances the debate in no noticeable way, and seems to have no purpose save to attack Hewitt...who, after all, isn't Chuck Schumer.  Anyone has a right to write such a post here on Redstate, but I question whether such an attack deserves to be front-paged.  What is this trying to accomplish?

But harsh, I think. Hugh's a good soldier, not a sycophant; his loyalty to the President is of a different order than that given to Caligula. Points earned for a classical reference, but do you think that should Miers withdraw, Hewitt would go on championing her cause, or would he line up behind a more conservative nominee?

Hugh has apparently ignored all objectivity and closed his eyes to all concerns so that he can be an effective pimp of the Bush administration.

OK, if you support this nominee, you are now a "pimp". If you are against this nominee you are a "snob".

I for one am glad for a change that this will be handled by the senators on the judicial committee. The pundits (more so in the anti-Miers camp) have reached all time lows and frankly disgust me with the Jr High name calling.

Every time Hewitt is asked, he says he's "center-right." Center is center. And he obviously has a different view about how much deference to give a constitutionally-granted presidential prerogative. He's never claimed to be anything different than what he's saying now. If you don't like vanilla ice cream, don't order vanilla ice cream.

Hugh Hewitt has jumped the shark. I do not know that I will ever be able to entertain an argument of his seriously again. Suspicion was raised when Hugh backed Arlen Specter for Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Suspicion is confirmed with Hugh's unyielding defense of Harriet Miers. Hugh has ceased to be a conservative pundit and is now a shill for the administration.

While critics of the Miers nomination are willing to give her credit for much, Hugh has apparently ignored all objectivity and closed his eyes to all concerns so that he can be an effective pimp of the Bush administration.  (Emphasis added)

Redstate editors:  WHERE DID YOU GET THIS GUY???  Wherever it was, SEND HIM BACK!!!

Blanton:  STICK IT IN YOUR EAR!!

I'll admit, I didn't read the rest of your post.  In the following paragraphs, you may have explained how to cure cancer and fix the Palestinian crisis.  I...DON'T...CARE!!!

"shill"?   "pimp"?!!!!  What, did someone tell you that manners and a professional tone in your prose were insignificant here on Redstate?  What are you, some liberal David Brock, who was reared on the "professional" tone of prose at Atrios and Kos and now wants to be reborn on conservative websites.

News flash, I Am That I Am!!  WHO CARES what you think?  Grow up, you child.

Hugh, please don't book this guy on your show.  MiniMe here is looking for some publicity.  Let him toil in the obscurity he so richly deserves.  

I am to the left of Hugh on a lot of issues, but even I can't understand what he's thinking on this issue.

From everything we've seen over the past few weeks, it is painfully obvious that Harriet Miers is no Constitutional scholar.  She's an unprincipled, moderate politician, always willing to take whatever position is politically expedient at the time.

So she may be solidly anti-Roe because she has (explicitly or implicitly) committed to that position.  But I'm not willing to accept a John Kerryesque, weaselly flip-flopper on every other issue that cimes before the Court just to get an anti-Roe vote.

1. Blanton's assertions are correct.
   
2. The language is no more stinging than what one finds elsewhere on this site.
   
3. Blanton's critics are guilty of what they accuse him of.  No one can argue the substance, so they attack his choice of words.

Now one could argue the substance, but it would be uphill.  The language is neither obscene nor juvenile.  Those of you attacking Blanton and not his thoughts should contribute to the debate at hand instead of attacking the messenger of a post that you have a hard time swallowing.

It's about time that someone started stating the obvious about Hewett.

If he wants to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the current Adminstration, fine.  That's his right and privilege.

But it's also the privilege of some of the rest of us to note that we know where he's coming from, and offer the credence to his position that it deserves.

As long as his position on any subject is arrived at from the starting point that "Bush is always right", we can analyze those positions accordingly, can't we?

Let's compare this "Incitatus" to Harriet Miers:

Incitatus: a horse

Harriet Miers: a woman who co-managed one of the largest law firms in the State of Texas

Incitatus: never won elective office

Harriet Miers: was elected to the Dallas City Council, was elected President of the Dallas Bar Association, was elected President of the Texas State Bar Association

Incitatus: unable to form an opinion on whether or not the Constitution should be read literally or figuratively

Harriet Miers: clearly believes that the Constitution should be read literally

This diary is an insult to anyone who's ever graduated from law school and worked her way up to the top of the legal world.

I think that Blanton is trolling for the other side.

This diary is ridiculous and Blanton owes all the real conservatives, including Mr. Hugh Hewitt, a sincere and meaningful apology.

Being clear and honest about hughhewitt IS very relevant to the intellectual battle for conservatives' hearts in finding the courage to support only true Constitutionalists.  I have great respect for Hugh, but supporting Specter for Judiciary Chair and now the unqualified support he lends as one of the nations only reasoned defenders of her outside of an Administration payroll is beyond the pale.  This issue is too important to take the edge off of due criticism in the interests of "being nice".  Jonah Goldberg calls him out similarly this morning at The Corner and shows the absurdity of Hugh's position from a true conservative perspective.

has been pretty damm tough on those who are against or even wary of a Miers appointment, which at this point seems close to hopeless anyway. The term mud slinging is used overmuch and more often than not at all the wrong times.  I'll have to read the partial transcript of the ABC/Dean interview to regain my perspectrive.

This piece is unfit for Red State.

President Bush isn't a conservative.  Hugh Hewitt isn't a conservative in the very same way.  Why is it surprising that they tend to agree a lot?  Why can't the two just have similar views and be wrong, instead of having the expression of their views be compared with the business of prostitution?

At worst, this article is an attempt to sneakily accuse the administration and Hewitt of having an opinion-for-pay agreement like the two others that have been exposed, without having to have any evidence to back up the accusation.

Further, these accusations seem to cut against the fight for free speech.  If merely having a website expressing views in line with the administration makes one a 'pimp' or a 'shill,' then that undercuts our whole fight against the BCRA.

I think it does Red State a disservice to have this stuff on the front page, and hope that this  individual will have his newly-bestowed powers removed if he keeps this up.

They rule websites like this one.  But, funny, they often fall short on Election Day.

You can ask Pete Coors (CO).  Bill Jones (CA).  Doug Forrester (NJ)  George Nethercutt (WA).  All examples of well-supported GOP candidates, running against either neophyte Democratic candidates (Salazar) or obvious loons and has-beens(Boxer, Lautenberg, Murray).  And, all who are sitting somewhere besides the Senate now.

You want purity?  Open a monastary.  You want to make change in a democratic society.  Win elections.

No one can argue the substance, so they attack his choice of words.

Boy, that's a measured choice of words, hoosierteacher. Please tell me you don't teach English composition.  Or critical thinking and reasoning.

"NO ONE can argue the substance."  Well, I guess that says it all.  No more need for discussion on this thread.  But hey, I'm a glutton for punishment.

hoosierteacher, if you want respect, you show respect.  Blanton showed gross disrespect to Hugh Hewitt.  Therefore, he should have no expectation that I'll read a word he says.  If he wanted us to read his words thoughtfully, with respect, then he'd show some himself.  He didn't, so I choose to ignore his words.  

Grownups don't write the way Blanton did this morning.  Immature people do.  Regardless of their actual age.

In Congress.  THIS Congress.  One full of RINOs and Senators willing to backstab the White Housse and Dems spoiling for a fight and MSM reporters more than willing to spin news coverage in a way that favors Chuck Schumer and disfavors George Bush.

But I'm not willing to accept a John Kerryesque, weaselly flip-flopper on every other issue that cimes before the Court just to get an anti-Roe vote.

And, if you're a US Senator, then you should call the White House and make your feelings known.  If you're not, you should recognize that, on this particular issue (getting a SCOTUS nominee confirmed) your demands only carry so much weight.

Jonah Goldberg calls him out similarly this morning

Oh wait.  Jonah Goldberg has never held elective office, from what I can tell.  

It's one thing for Jonah and K-Lo and the rest of the Wizards at National Review Online to preach to us That What Must Be Done.

It's quite another thing for them to get it put into practice in real life, isn't it?

Funny, but National Review has always impressed me as being a place where the empassioned conservatives feel free to vent.  Something like a wildlife preserve.  A protected place, insulated from the drawbacks of the real world.  Drawbacks like--getting people elected in this United States of America, a country that includes apostate Democrats who simply refuse to stop getting elected to Congress and statehouses and thus cannot be ignored.

Except, that is, on the sheltered plains of the wildlife preserve known as the National Review. Where they can be ignored, or at least characterized in a way that minimizes their potency as adversaries. (Redstate, as it allows people to post diaries, is not as sheltered).

Ask yourself:  If a deer, born and raised and reared on the protected plains of a wildlife reserve, then wanders into the forests of Virginia or Pennsylvania on the first day of deer season, what happens to it?

...unless we are in the Senate? Then why are we even here? Seems remarkably similar to the arguments that unless you lost a family member in 9/11 or a son in the war your opinion doesn't count on those issues either.

And, if you're a US Senator, then you should call the White House and make your feelings known.  If you're not, you should recognize that, on this particular issue (getting a SCOTUS nominee confirmed) your demands only carry so much weight.

You want purity?  Open a monastary.  You want to make change in a democratic society.  Win elections.

I am not a fan of change for the sake of change. If I was I could just vote for the other side. Then we could get a one-payer nationalized health care system. That would certainly be a change. Having RINOs in elected office damages the GOP in the long run and accomplishes nothing good in the short term. We can count on them to vote for the pork bills though.

I really like Hugh... but you have to admit the tone the poster struck was very similar to the one Hugh has had for a long time now. He is very deep in his spider hole now and all he can do is insult anyone who doesn't support Miers.

"A shill for the administration"?  Uh, that's lefty-troll talk.

And please feel free to no longer "entertain an argument of his seriously again," but others still consider Hewitt to be a bigtime conservative in influential political circles.  So just because he stands with the Bush administration on this makes him an unpardonable hack?  Et tu, Blanton?

Don't let your agitation over this nomination compel you to aim at the wrong people here.

Mind showing us where he's insulted anyone over the Miers nomination?

I don't want somebody on the Supreme Court who thinks it's just dandy to impose race and sex based hiring quotas,just so long as it is not against the law.  It doesn't matter if the Constitution is silent on whether private entities can do so, I just don't want a Justice who thinks racial discrimination is OK.  There's a difference between a Justice who says that the Constitution doesn't address this, so as a Justice, they are unable to rule (think Roberts and french fries).... this was her 'wanting' to do it.

 The Corner has been on Hewitt for some time about Miers' nomination, singling him out for special treatment, perhaps because of their interest in remaining the final arbiter of the conservative movement. Even so, they've done it in a courteous manner, recognizing that one difference does not warrant a complete break with a man who has been a strong voice on behalf of many conservative issues. People shouldn't throw their friends over so quickly, let alone by using such uncouth language as Blanton did.

Pimps, Shills, Snobs, Elitists, Sexists, Bush-bots.......

Thank you, Mr. President for this nomination.  

All of us who were once behind you almost in unison are left at each other's throats over Harriet Miers.  A small portion of the desperately needed base is thinking of taking their votes, efforts, and cash elsewhere for a little while; and there is a very public disarray in the GOP that cannot be wished away in the hopes of putting forth a faux unified front.

Worse yet, you disarmed all of us who defended your honor against accusations from the left of being a liar with the "Harriet Miers is the most qualified candidate in the whole country" comments.  Now I/we can't turn to the accusers anymore and say, "Oh yeah? name one lie!"

I have swallowed my opposition to Harriet Miers after being vehemently opposed, all in the hopes that perhaps we'll at least get a +1 vote on Roe.  I also find it unlikely that Bush would withdraw a nominee with a personal relationship to Laura Bush, so I pretty much expect that this is what we're going to get, like it or not. It is hard for me to do, however, since it has become obvious that we'll still have clearly unconstitutional rulings on Affirmative Action, for example, to deal with until at least one more retirement occurs.

Bush deserves a lot of heat for making such a divisive pick, all in the name of personal friendship.  He has put people who are usually defenders in an impossible position, and has put at risk enough of the base to do tremendous damage in the next elections.  Rather than being unified against the real enemies, the base now gets to call each other names and insult each other.  Well done, Mr. President.

But we all know it's not really his fault. No, it's "your fault" for agreeing/disagreeing with the pick.  You're the reason we're going to lose seats!  You're why the party will never move right!  Blah blah blah....

No, I disagree.  That one really is Bush's fault.

Mr. President, if you are going to persist with the Harriet Miers nomination, at least take this much advice:

Next time there's an appointment to be made somewhere, get the hell off of the the "Friends and Family" plan for a change.  You shouldn't have to be a Bush insider to be considered for key positions in this country.  

National Review founded modern American conservatism.  Show some respect.

What have you done, 'smagar?'  Will you hold your tongue on this site until you've been elected to a Constitutional office?

How is the Bos-Wash Axis of Elitism not insulting? He only mentions that in every post.

Bush not only dropped the ball on this one but handed it to the other team and pushed them into the endzone.

Whether you agree with the pick or not, it has been a total disaster and they should've had the foresight to see it coming. Or at least pulled out a long time ago when it first became clear what was going on.

I'm not a US Senator.

But if I were a betting man (and I am), I'd wager that my opinion is going to win out over the President's on this issue.

IMO they have it coming.  If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.  More to the point, don't turn up the heat if you can't deal with what you've helped start and intensify.

Are the BosWasNYs (I'm adding New York City, because I think they're part of Task Force Ego, too) upset?  Awwwwww....too bad.

Remember the old saying: If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the dogs yelping the loudest are the ones that got hit.

Sounds as if Hugh's rock hit some BosWasNYs.

your opponent really deserves it. Then it's OK to call them elitists and snobs.

The main difference between Hugh and Redstate is actual facts.  Hugh has had repeated guests pro and against the Miers nomination on his show and through posts on his site. He still has not found one person (Fund, Kristol, Kraut and others)who are against the nomination to actually site a source by name for their publications or comments.

As an example the wide spread belief that Miers played a small role with nomination process. Specter trashed that myth in an article in the WSJ.

Hugh has had many guests who are supportive of the Miers nomination that will go on record.

Similar to anti-Miers crowd, Redstate has had many posts about different stories coming from sources within the White House. Most are very questionable and "unknown".

Let me see some real sources and a real story, instead of some unhappy interns at the White House.

Many people hear have discussed their desire to be heard and not told to be quiet by the WH or other pro-Miers groups. Well why does Redstate find it so easy to call Hugh a shill. Are we all to have the same opinion. Much of the same can be said for the comments from the Redstate editors            

I have plenty of respect for Buckley and those who helped rescue conservatism from obscurity and the clutches of the John Birchers many years ago.

But, I'm sorry Neil, but Buckley is not a Deity, the staff of National Review are not disciples, and National Review is not the New Testament.

Many moderates and independents and Blue Dog Democrats support GOP candidates.  Are you saying that Buckley only wanted the support of True Conservatives?  How many elections did Buckley win?

Show some respect.

Gimme a break.

What have you done, 'smagar?'

Oh...little old things.  Spent a whole day walking precincts for Bush in 2004.  Wrote two op-eds for my local paper in support of Bush, to counter the paper's overall liberal tone.  Spent three evenings calling people urging them to the polls.  

Will you hold your tongue on this site until you've been elected to a Constitutional office?

No.  And, I'm not asking others to, either.  But, if someone chooses to be rude, I feel free to point it out.  Adults shouldn't be rude.  Adults should be adults.  Based on his writings, Blanton doesn't strike me as an adult.

And if someone chooses to castigate the President and others who must live/work/strive to succeed in the real world, because he's not following policies that make perfect sense in the sheltered savannah of True Red Conservative Opinion, but don't hold up in the real world, I feel free to point that out, too.

Volley back to you.

There is potency in your words, fellow ruffian!

:)

If you're not asking others to keep quiet if they're not elected officials, then why is it relevant to point out that Jonah Goldberg isn't a politican when criticizing the magazine he works for?

And while WFB never ran for office, turning down a run for Governor of New York to fulfill a commitment he made to run the magazine, he did help his brother James win one of New York's seats in the US Senate on the Conservative Party line.

And where exactly was Goldberg rude on this issue?

Is anyone surprised that sources inside the WH aren't willing to go on record with anti-Miers info?  

On his side he gets great scoops like the fact that Rove is supporting Miers. Well, that is shocking.

 Ran for mayor of New York City in 1965 on the conservative ticket.

I did not know that.  Guess I haven't gotten far enough in Miles Gone By.  Thanks.

This may come as a surprise to many, given my Vast Experience™ here on RedState and the Internet in general, but could someone please fill me in on the precise origins and meaning of the imprecation:  "Jumped The Shark?"

Is it even an imprecation?  What's the frequency of this term, Kenneth?  

BTW I'm still in the moderately-anti-Miers on principled grounds but waiting for the hearings to make up my mind completely crowd.  I wouldn't have called Hewitt a "pimp."  He has a few different criteria for judging this nomination than I do, but that doesn't mean he's riding around in a tricked-out Cadillac with a horse in the trunk.

Wikipedia has the answer.

Going to be insolent enough to call Mr. Hewitt a Pimp after all he's done for us, please at least use the best name that the Internet Pimp Name Generator could come up with:

"Mr. White Chocolate Hewitt Sweetness"

It's a showbiz term (and apparently one that's also popular among inside-the-beltway political consultants) and that explains why I've never bothered to find out what it meant.

From everything I have heard/read concerning Hugh's position on Miers it seems that the two most important things to Hugh are support for the President and Miers religious beliefs. Hugh seems absolutely convinced that Miers, as a conservative Christian, will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and how she will decide other cases does not seem to be a very big priority to him.

steveprost said that Goldberg "called out" Hugh on this issue.  My point was that Goldberg's gravitas on SCOTUS nomination fights is IMO a bit suspect, as he's writing from the safety of the National Review savannah.  By career choice, he's chosen to avoid navigating the forests in deer season--i.e., the rough and tumble of SCOTUS nomination politics.

So, if Goldberg called out Hugh, so what?

I don't know if Goldberg's been rude; I doubt he has been.  That's not the point.  Goldberg's got every right to his opinion--as I have the right to point out that Goldberg is quarterbacking from the sidelines, and isn't carrying the ball on the field.

I meant no disrespect to WFB; please don't imply that I did or take offense at a slight I never levied.  

What is about Hugh Hewitt that makes him more connected with nomination politics than Jonah Goldberg?  I was under the impression that Hewitt hosts a radio show and writes his opinions on his web page, putting him on the same plane as Goldberg.

 No, sadly. If I remember correctly, Pope Paul VI was in New York just before the election and us Catholic school kids had to go see him; they made a big parade for him. My father loved Buckley and thought that the Pope's visit was a clever campaign tactic to help him. More innocent times.  

You've been around a good little while. I know your vision works. So you undoubtedly saw the PROFANITY IS NOT TOLERATED message when you began that comment, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that you saw something about personal attacks in the posting rules.

I never thought I'd have to say this to you, but you just earned your first warning. Back off the freaking ledge. Now.

Why is Blanton allowed to use such ugly language as calling Hugh Hewitt a "pimp"?

That's a sexual reference for a man who makes a living out of prostitution.

This is a terrible first post by Blanton, whoever he is. I for one am discounting anything else he posts here because of his ugly language. If you can't make your argument, you descend to gutter language like "pimp".

Shame on Blanton for this post. Perhaps he should stick to growing cabbages (another Roman reference).

Gross language, ludicrous mischaracterization. Tossing in a classical reference doesn't make this post sound any more intelligent.

Check out the article:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051023/D8DDPVVOB.html

My suggestion for the title of the thread is:

"Nail, coffin."

When something this vile and accusatory based solely on degrees of purity of conservative idealogy is on the front page then something has indeed jumped the shark. However I would question whether it's Hugh or the self appointed inquisitors.

Mine was the first post here, and I was somewhat worried I'd be jumped upon.  Glad to see that polite discourse is still valued as highly as ever here at Redstate, and that many agree with me.  

Again, I think Hewitt's way, way off with his support of Miers.  Additionally Redstate's reporting and commentary on the Miers nomination hijinks has generally been superb.  This post, however, is an affront to the readers as well as Hewitt.  I'd appreciate both an un-frontpaging, as well as some manner of apology - not for the opinions expressed (though intimating Hewitt is a paid shill comes perilously close) but for the MANNER in which they have been expressed, which contravenes the high standards that have always been Redstate's pride.

Is not profanity. Yes, pimp may be more than a tad harsh; but there's a bright line out there for a reason.

Those who cross the Bright Line.  Have you Seen the Light?  I have!

because I'm all in favor of enforcing civility. Particularly the no personal attacks rule. However, I really don't think the no profanity rule is applied in any sort of a bright line fashion. In particular, whether or not (sorry!) damn, hell, whore, bastard, jackass, etc are considered profane seems to depend very much on the context and maybe even who the commenter is. If RS is serious about controlling language without giving the impression of regulating opinions, a simple software filter can easily catch and replace offending words, and automatically warn (even ban) if desired as well. Regardless, a clear and consistent definition of profanity would be helpful.

And has been the subject of not insignificant debate.

I probably would have let this slide but for the personal attacks.

Would really be a good idea for you right now, smagar. Where do you think this kind of backlash came from? It's from the idiocy of some of the most prominent folks who are defending this nomination.

I'll grant you that some anti-Miers people have said some inflammatory things about the other side. In contrast, all Miers defenders that I have seen have resorted to this kind of name-calling - and not only have resorted to it, but continue to resort to it. And BosWasNY is nothing more than rank provincialism which makes assumptions about people and their outlook on life based upon where they are from.

You might think it's okay to direct it at people from that locality - because they're typically liberal - but I don't. If someone on here made reference to the MissArkBama axis of racism, they'd get warned and then banned.

It's especially egregious in this case because most of the people who get slimed with it are not from Boston, Washington, or NY. Say, for instance, me.

So take a step back, a few deep breaths, and move on. We're doing our best here to promote diaries and stories on the other side of this particular fence (as I did yesterday with yours), calling for those on the other side to get sent to The Pile doesn't tend to indicate that you are arguing from a position of strength.

So, you get to issue the "or else" warnings. Whatever you say.

BTW, what do you think of Blanton's story?  Is this the kind of dialogue you want to see more of in Redstate?  Is this the kind of site you want to run?

Considering that you had a diary promoted in the last couple of days, your whining is neither seemly nor merited.

I'm frankly rather stunned at the reaction to this. By any other set of standards than the ones that seem to have developed during and relating to the Miers debate among the conservative blogosphere, this is fairly milquetoast. This tempest in a teapot reminds me of nothing so much as the furor over Erick calling Sheehan a media whore.

This particular issue, of where the bright line should be, has been discussed a lot more, and by a lot more people, than you're probably imagining.

Again, deep breaths.

And BosWasNY is nothing more than rank provincialism which makes assumptions about people and their outlook on life based upon where they are from.

Oh, come ON!  Really!  "Rank provincialism which makes assumptions about people and their outlook on life based on where they are from?"  Leon, don't you think that language is a bit over the top?

The NRO crowd jumped on the Miers nomination from Day 1.  They were literally dripping with disdain.  That's who Hugh was referring to in the "BosWas" axis.  My adding "NY" to it was an attempt at adding some color to this debate.

Remember the comment about Miers not graduating from a top tier law school?  The White House and Hugh Hewitt didn't make that up.  Didn't The Editors on this site raise that as one of their concerns over Miers?

You might think it's okay to direct it at people from that locality - because they're typically liberal - but I don't. If someone on here made reference to the MissArkBama axis of racism, they'd get warned and then banned.

I don't really know where to begin here.  So, I'm insulting everyone who lives between Washington D.C and Boston?  That includes my wife, in-laws and a bunch of uncles/aunts/cousins, by the way. NONE of whom are liberals. As for the allusion to racism--I won't go there.

It's especially egregious in this case because most of the people who get slimed with it are not from Boston, Washington, or NY. Say, for instance, me.

Oh, for heavens' sake, Leon.  No one's sliming you--certainly not me, today.  I'm DISAGREEING with you?  That's still OK on Redstate, isn't it.

calling for those on the other side to get sent to The Pile doesn't tend to indicate that you are arguing from a position of strength

No, it indicates that I don't think a story as rude as that one should get top billing by Redstate.  It indicates that I wonder how the editors would let something as spiteful as that get printed.  Has Hugh Hewitt addressed you in that manner?  If your site addresses people in that manner, then how can you complain if they do the same to you?  You can't.

To the editors of Redstate, a site which I'm very grateful to participate in:  I'm not sure what kind of invective has been thrown your way since the Miers nomination started.  Probably some of it has been way beyond the pale.  I appreciate your willingness to receive the abuse that assuredly comes your way from all sides of the Internet.  But it hasn't come from me.  Disagreements, sure.  But no smears or slander.

All I ask that you be polite. I shouldn't have to grovel to post on this site, and I won't

Just my thoughts.

I started with being polite in response to a rather insulting, personal remark. Don't get sullen because you can't take what you dish out.

Come on--do you really think the language and rudeness in Blanton's tone of writing is something Redstate should be proud of?

I concede readily that many people have gone way over the top in the tone of their language.  But it seems to me that, simply because everyone else is being rude, Redstate shouldn't simply pitch in.

I concede readily that Hugh Hewitt is an optimist and a party man.  He'll concede readily as well. But, I'd hope that we'd all agree that insulting articles are something we should strive to avoid.

Yes, it's only my opinion.  But I'd hope that Blanton's article, in its tone and lack of respect for a fellow conservative commentator, would be the exception at Redstate instead of the rule.

Your diaries could be summed up thusly:

John Podhoretz is a whiny little girl.

Hey stupid -- you're risking Gonzales. Shut up and accept Miers.

Bush is President. You're not. You have no right to whine.

And that's without getting into your comments and borderline diaries.

Blanton returned a fire that Hewitt has been loosing for weeks now. His choice of language would not raise any hackles were it raised at, say, Andy Card. The idea that this diary is so far beyond the pale is, to my mind, proof that the debate on this topic has made everyone's nerves unbelievably raw.

There is nothing untoward about this story. There is something untoward about the Miers debate, from both sides.

The point of calling it the Boston-Washington Axis is that it contains the whole eastern seaboard, so adding NYC is, imo, redundant.

Besides, you should call it "BosNyWa" so it's pronounced like "Bosni-wa", to invoke Clinton's military adventures :D

What I read Hugh to say is "I see many on the web are exercised  . . . blah, blah.

The key words here, in my view anyway, are ". . . MANY are exercised."  He is correct about that. There are many more that are exercised, angry, and downright hostile that he does not see, and that the Bush administration is either unaware of, or they are simply ignoring.  If I read the situation correctly, it appears that the conservatives think the latter, and they feel like a Republican named Bush has stabbed them in the back again.

Bush isn't running again, so the conservatives can't use the withholding of their support as leverage to get him to do what he promised (to appoint judges similar to Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia) during the last campaign.  But they can use that as leverage on the national Republican Party, and on Republicans in the House and Senate.  

I believe most conservatives are angry over this nomination not because of the nominee.  We don't know her.  Ordinarily we would be inclined to give her and President Bush the benefit of the doubt, but not now.  We are at an historic crossroad.  For the first time in 50 years, we have a president and a congress in place that have promised us they would appoint people to the federal courts who would follow the requirements in the Constitution, and not legislate from the bench.  We don't intend to see that opportunity squandered on an unknown nominee.  We are not willing to trust ANYBODY with the historic opportunity that we have worked so long and hard to get, and that will likely not come again in our lifetimes.

We have thrown down the gauntlet. We are not going to go another step; we are not going to do ANYTHING until this issue is settled.  Bush promised to appoint a certain kind of person.  We believed him when he said it.   With this nominee, we don't know what he has appointed, but we KNOW it is not someone like a Thomas or Scalia, and we know we have been betrayed again. We are mad as hell about it, and we are not going to take it any more without making whoever we can get our hands on pay for doing it.  Right now that appears to be all Republicans who must run for election again.  THEY had better be using every bit of leverage they have , which is considerable, on the Bush administration to get them to do what they promised, or they are ALL going to pay for this.

course you know that DC, ostensibly a southern town, given the malaria, etc, has been occupied for years, despite occasionally carved out Texas, Georgia, and Arkansan enclaves.

Come to think of it though, the Urinal-Constipation (see AJC) crowd of libs here in Atlanta would be right at home there as well. Hey Sherman...

DO NOT, repeat DO NOT use the "j" word.

"pimp" is OK.  But, the "j" word is definately Right Out!

At least for today.

And I can't be the only one disturbed that Miers is now being compared to a horse.  Thoughts about her fitness to serve on SCOTUS aside, I daresay Ms. Miers has accomplished a lot more than a great many people have in their lifetime.

At worst, this article is an attempt to sneakily accuse the administration and Hewitt of having an opinion-for-pay agreement like the two others that have been exposed, without having to have any evidence to back up the accusation.

I can't even imagine how you got to this one.

Not I.  I simply responded in kind.  In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have come out and called him a "child."  I should have said that his tone was childish, and beneath what we've all come to expect from Redstate.

Come to think of it...I DID say that.

After the tone of Blanton's post--a tone which many other Redstaters find objectionable, I might point out--I think my response to him shouldn't be viewed as that out of line.

As for me not being able to take what I've "dished out"--well, I think you'll find that I'm more than ready to be your Huckleberry, Thomas.

That is, if I can avoid getting my second warning.

Hmmm...what do you mean by my "borderline diaries?"  Do you mean they fail to meet standards?  Whose?  Just curious...

The idea that this diary is so far beyond the pale is, to my mind, proof that the debate on this topic has made everyone's nerves unbelievably raw.

Can't disagree with you there.

After the comments I've received, apparently I needed to clarify.

Don't blame the Prez that conservatives on both sides of the divide haven't been able to keep a level head or a civil tongue about this issue.  

The argument that we should be angry at the President for this broad internal debate reeks of that leftist meme about Bush (or whatever Republican you wish to name) "dividing" the country becuase he brought up an issue that not everyone agrees about or in this case nominated someone that not all conservatives support.  The assumption seems to be that if Bush could have simply avoided this ugly behavior if he had simply nominated someone that those who disagree with him like rather than the person that he felt was most qualified or best for the job.

The word "shill" is what took me there.

I simply responded in kind.

Oh, so he said something about you? Could you point me to that? Thanks.

Come to think of it...I DID say that.

And, you know, a bit more. Had it simply been that, we wouldn't be in this conversation.

After the tone of Blanton's post--a tone which many other Redstaters find objectionable, I might point out--I think my response to him shouldn't be viewed as that out of line.

I'm glad that you think that. Your thoughts on this are, of course, irrelevant, but I'm glad that you think that.

As for me not being able to take what I've "dished out"--well, I think you'll find that I'm more than ready to be your Huckleberry, Thomas.

Tombstone references notwithstanding, you've acted like a whiny child so far. I'm not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm a little ahead of that.

That is, if I can avoid getting my second warning.

Hey, avoid the profanity and the personal attacks (except, in the latter case, aimed at me, on this thread -- I'm not gonna take what little weaponry you have in the middle of this mudfight, and no one else is, either), and you should be fine.

By the way, is Podhoretz still a "snot"? Just wondering.

I am not one for inappropriately crude language; but here are some examples from well respected publications of the use of "pimp", which is the only thing all the prudish pantywaists here want to punish Blanton for, found with just a quick googled glance:

Article titled "The Pimping of the Presidency" discusses billing practices of lobbyists Grover Norquist and Jack Abramoff at http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13

Serious article discussing world affairs under title "The Pimping of Palestine" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=article&id=3961

James Wolcott, contributing editor for Vanity Fair, stated also in serious foreign affairs discussion "Not content with pimping Ahmed Chalabi and helping embroil the United States in one bloody mess in Iraq, Richard Perle wants to enlarge the theater of operations and bog us down in another one. He spoke the other day at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee--AIPAC--policy conference in Washington, DC...." at http://jameswolcott.com/archives/2005/05/index.php  .

Respected Reason magazine shows the common use of "pimping" where one is pushing some cause or product: "The Aladdin casino in Las Vegas made headlines earlier this week when it booted Linda Ronstadt for pimping Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 during her show. Apparently, though, the Aladdin is in the process of being bought out by Planet Hollywood..." at http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/07/18-week/

More of the type of use of "pimping" for pushing a literary work in a nonhostile manner includes this arts announcement from the Portland Mercury "Kicking off with a rare appearance by John Irving (Keller Auditorium, 7 pm), the first annual Wordstock Festival is a six-day tapestry of readings, workshops, lectures, and a two-day book fair with over 200 authors in attendance. And these authors aren't your next-door neighbor pimping his new poetry chapbook; the incredible lineup includes appearances by, to name an extreme few: Alice Sebold, Norman Mailer, Philip Yancey, Susan Orlean, Russell Banks, and Sarah Vowell..." at http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=33430&category=3402
9

AND similarly after 9-11 an article showed things getting back to nomral: "The 24/7 CNN watching has given way to maybe 1/3 of Headline News. 'America At War" replaced by "America At The Mall." Network morning shows based down at Ground Zero now have Bill O'Reilly pimping his latest book." at http://www.americanpolitics.com/20011128Young.html

CASE CLOSED.

SO EASE UP METAPHOR COPS, and lets deal appropriately harshly with someone who has gone to the intellectual mat to defend so great a betrayal of conservatives on so great a matter of importance just as he did for Specter's judiciary chair.  People didn't like the prophets or Jesus either because they used such "unnice" words and images sometimes.

(from an attorney and ordained evangelical minister)

I think you're making more hay than is really there.  Yes, Hugh Hewitt has largely (perhaps more than any right-of-center blogger) supported President Bush's moves, and yes, he has gone against the grain in supporting the Miers nomination (and Specter, for that matter).

But I think anyone who has followed his blog recognizes--even if they disagree--that he is the consummate conservative pragmatist.  Well, perhaps "pragmatist" is not the word  (if it really is even a word), but what I mean is that Hugh never makes an argument without copious sources and cogent reasons to back it up.  That a vast number of conservatives disagree with him vis-a-vis Miers is irrelevant to the quality of his work and the mind from whence it comes.

You can feel free to respond in kind to his arguments, but I'm not sure he qualifies for having "jumped the shark" just yet.

So where were you here, here, and here?

"Shill" can mean "you're doing this reflexively," it can mean "you're doing this for pay," it can mean, "you're doing this without thought."

A friend of mine, sadly now moved north, is fond of saying that what can be imputed to ignorance or disagreement, rather than malice, should be.

Put differently: You're really reaching here.

That you hinted at spears in those diaries, that you've explicitly thrown in other places.

Probably should have contextualized that better.

how screwed up the President was to nominate Miers in the first place.

Hugh readily concedes that Miers wasn't his first pick, but she does offer a chance to mitigate some of the problems that would have arisen if a Conservative Favorite were nominated.  Namely, a filibuster that perhaps couldn't be clotured, or a Senate so heavily damaged by firing the judicial filibuster-killing nuke that any hopes for legislative accomplishments in the President's second term would be dashed.

Seems that the NRO crowd is saying that Bush blew it because (a) he could have beaten any filibuster or (b) who cares if no real legislation gets passed from now on--Justices are the thing.

That's NRO's opinion, and Goldberg's, from what I take it.  Hugh's pointed out that the White House may not concur with (a) or (b).  The NRO staff is made up of writers--they can afford to be wrong.  There's always something more to write about.  If the Bush administration guesses wrong---well, that's a different matter.

Hugh's pointing out that conservative commentators can afford to disregard problems.  Politicans, on the other hand, can't.  Those problems they cannot surmount, they must work around.  IMO Miers is a workaround.

Less typing, and less chance for misspellings.

of how/where the phrase "pimp"/"pimping" has been used in a non-sexual scenario.  However, I take issue with its connotation as used by the author.  It seems to imply that Hewitt - by basis of his not agreeing with the Anti-Miers folks - is doing something unseemly.  As if no one who supports this nomination - or even still supports the president - could possibly have done so as part of reasoned, well thought out argument.  No, they're just pimping the administration.  Any thinking person (as opposed to one who is slavishly loyal to the Bush Administration like Hewitt is assumed) would oppose Miers.

That isn't the type of discourse needed around here.  Of course, I'm not in charge, and your mileage may vary.

No reasonable reading of Blanton's words could yield this meaning:

It seems to imply that Hewitt - by basis of his not agreeing with the Anti-Miers folks - is doing something unseemly.  As if no one who supports this nomination - or even still supports the president - could possibly have done so as part of reasoned, well thought out argument.  No, they're just pimping the administration.  Any thinking person (as opposed to one who is slavishly loyal to the Bush Administration like Hewitt is assumed) would oppose Miers.

No way. None. The whole thing was about Hewitt. Not about Miers supporters. Hewitt. There's a reason his words, and his words alone, were blockquoted. Point me to the language you feel is aimed more broadly.

I'm actually serious.

I said "At worst" not because I thought it was the only possible interpretation of this diary.  But, usually when one calls someone a shill, it is implied that there is a 'company line' to push, as in the three links you give.

As for where I was at those links, well, they're comments in stories I didn't read.  If I were participating in those discussions I might have replied (I even stood up for Democrats against a comment recently here), but I wasn't in those discussions.

This accusation of "shill" is on the front page of the site, though.  It's harder to miss.

I'm not gonna take what little weaponry you have in the middle of this mudfight

What do you mean by "what little weaponry?"  Forgive me, but I missed the point of your wit here.  Do me--and all of us who are following this thread--the courtesy of spelling out precisely what you mean.

you've acted like a whiny child so far.

Again, in your opinion, which you're entitled to.  Funny---I feel the same way about you.  But, again, my opinion.

Hey, avoid the profanity

You mean, the "j" word.  Okay...fine.  Your house, your rules.

and the personal attacks

Such as, calling someone a "whiny child."

I can't tell you about today, but on that day, IMO, he certainly was a snot.

But John's a big boy.  I'm sure he can take it.

What do you mean by "what little weaponry?"  Forgive me, but I missed the point of your wit here.  Do me--and all of us who are following this thread--the courtesy of spelling out precisely what you mean.

I wasn't aware that I'd been oblique. Indeed, I don't think I was.

Again, in your opinion, which you're entitled to.  Funny---I feel the same way about you.  But, again, my opinion.

An easy way to determine which of us is right is to find out who went whining about this little spat to other commenters. My comment history is here. Good luck.

You mean, the "j" word.  Okay...fine.  Your house, your rules.

Among others.

Such as, calling someone a "whiny child."

Can't help you much here. I would suggest that you re-read, though:

you've acted like a whiny child so far

Hey, avoid the profanity and the personal attacks (except, in the latter case, aimed at me, on this thread -- I'm not gonna take what little weaponry you have in the middle of this mudfight, and no one else is, either)

Now, the first doesn't say what you said it says; the second has a very different meaning than what you seemed to take. I encourage you to read again.

Good luck.

So can Hugh.

That of course raises the all important question: If that's true -- and let's take it as a given -- then why would some random, easily sparked commenter write, oh, say, this?

But I'd hope that Blanton's article, in its tone and lack of respect for a fellow conservative commentator, would be the exception at Redstate instead of the rule.

Enquiring minds want to know.

A quick reread, I'll admit.  I didn't scrutinize the nuance of every word.

And I still stand by them.  The tone of #3 (What Will You Do If GWB Gets Miers Nominated) was pointed, but IMO not overly so.

Do you think the tone of these three diaries disqualifies me from criticizing Blanton today?

If you do, Thomas--well, OK.  Based on the comments I've seen so far today, I don't think I'm alone.

If you, as a Redstate editor, am directing me to tone down my language or else, I'll tone it down.  It's your house, you pay the rent and keep the place clean and pull the weeds; I simply visit when it's convenient.

But, I don't agree that my tone with Blanton is unwarranted, given what he said today.  As for the tone I used in these three diaries, I'm more than prepared for some harsh responses.  Hey, that which doesn't kill us...  If John Pod wants to respond and call me a turbodweeb, I can deal with that.  I'd ask who gave him my high school yearbook, but that's beside the point.

So, are you directing me to tone it down?

Standing by.

I am not surprised that interns and people not in the know in the White House want to remain "unknown". I am just amazed of how much false "unkown source" material is treated as gospel here, when I have still not seen a correct statement yet.

It's too easy to write an article or post that says what you want with the usual "unknown sources".

Has there been anyone close to Harriet Miers or who has known her for years that is against her nomination. If she was really as bad as a nominee some of you suggest I would assume at least one person would be willing to go public.

If you won't humor me and spell it out...well, OK; that's your choice.

As for researching your comment history, forgive me, but I'll pass.

And, hey...thanks for wishing me luck!

     Blanton should have thought this through before he posted. Hugh Hewitt was clearly right in saying one can hold liberal positions personally and still rule correctly as a judge. The key element here is that having a conservative judicial philosophy necessarily entails putting aside personal policy preferences and ruling instead on the original intent of the constitution.

     We criticize libs for ruling based on their own personally policy preferences, yet some conservatives seem to want conservative judges to impose their own personal policy preferences. A truly conservative judicial philosophy demands looking not to ourselves but to the constitution; on issues the constitution doesn't speak to like affirmative action, the proper course would be to let the peoples' elected representatives set policy.

Not my place, but I know the answer ;)

Do you think the tone of these three diaries disqualifies me from criticizing Blanton today?

No. Of course not.

You are a long-time, valued contributor to this site.

This should be a given for all involved.

I couldn't care less if you think Blanton is full of it. Tell him if you so think, without the profanity. Tell it to him harshly.

Stay away from the profanity and personal attacks. This isn't tricky; it's actually rather straightforward, and laid out again and again all over this site.

But, I don't agree that my tone with Blanton is unwarranted, given what he said today.

It's not your tone. It's what you said. Personal attacks are off limits. Period. "This is the dumbest story I've ever read," "What utter garbage," "So now a shill is someone who agrees with someone else? Well, that's insightful": All acceptable.

"Meet Blanton The J****: Redstate's Newest Star?" and so on from there (the God thing was just ridiculous): Completely out of bounds. I mean, seriously:

Redstate editors:  WHERE DID YOU GET THIS GUY???  Wherever it was, SEND HIM BACK!!!

Blanton:  STICK IT IN YOUR EAR!!

News flash, I Am That I Am!!  WHO CARES what you think?

Grow up, you child.

From a brand-new commenter, any one of those pointy sticks would be curtain call. All of them together would run most commenters off the stage. You built some cred; you're still here.

So, are you directing me to tone it down?

Yes. But only in the personal attacks and profanity.

Clear?

wanted to put their site's byline on an article like that.  That they wanted to be associated with something as cheap as that.

Now, it's one thing if some Random, Easily Sparked Commenter writes a diary that's over the top.  It's another thing if Redstate's version of a staff writer does. Readers can then infer that, if the editors approved its publishing, they approved its content and tone.  Or, they weren't paying attention.  Neither inference is flattering to the site's managers.

Just as we can't assume a paper is biased or has crossed the line if a Letter to the Editor goes over the top---but we can if a staff writer's story goes over.

How's that for Enquiring Minds?

While RS as an entity isn't in much of a position to criticize for shilling (especially as Hewitt isn't, so far as we know, getting paid for his advocacy), there's not a thing wrong with Blanton's post -- nor, from what I've seen, Blanton.

Welcome to RS, Blanton, and fire away.

"Hugh's pointing out that conservative commentators can afford to disregard problems.  Politicans, on the other hand, can't.  Those problems they cannot surmount, they must work around.  IMO Miers is a workaround. "

Why do we need a "workaround"?  And one that lame, besides?

If you are saying that the Administration and the Senate leadership is so messed up that they can't put a true originalist onto the court, I might concur.

But that's no excuse for finding another Souter and expecting the rest of us to just be quiet and go along.

And Hewett, or anyone else, including the Adminstration, is finding out that some of us won't settle for that.

And no.  We don't trust him anymore.  Some of us haven't for a long time now.  GWB lost his "trust" with me soon after the last election.  And I've steamed the bumpersticker off, and won't admit to having voted for him unless forced.

Some of you centrist folks need to realize just how bad it's gotten, and maybe consider that you can't win without us.

Just go to The Source.

I don't give anonymous sources any more weight than her personal friends or WH/party insiders who speak on the record, but no less either. In the case of these sources you know what they are going to say before they even open their mouths.

If someone that knew her her entire life came out strongly against her, you would have to wonder about some kind of axe to grind (Anita Hill style). People just don't come out and publicly tear someone apart like that unless there is A LOT there and they are totally on the outside (no connection to the WH, the party or Texas supporters).

The fact is, there is no source you can trust implicitly, so I don't see it as too material at this point what kind of source it comes from.

The public record is really the only thing that can be trusted... and some of this is not particularly good for her IMO.

So, "pimp" is OK, but saying what-will-now-be-known-as-the-J-word and "Stick it in your ear" is a Redstate felony?  Okay.

BTW, is the phrase "BosWasNY" the new "N" word on Redstate?

No, forgive me, but it's not clear at all.  But, it's your house.

What is clear is that, when someone in Redstate crosses the line, you'll be there.  I got it.

Hugh Hewitt was clearly right in saying one can hold liberal positions personally and still rule correctly as a judge.

Even if such a thing were possible (which I strongly doubt, as history has shown us), why would we want one of those?!

Last time I looked, we didn't elect a liberal President or a liberal Senate.

Though I'm starting to wonder about that (and some of the so-called "conservative" blogs/commenters) more and more every day...

So, if Harriet Miers is personally pro-life, that's not neccessarily an indication that she'll rule to overturn Roe.  

BUT, if Harriet Miers <strike>is</strike&gt was at one point in favor of affirmative action by private organizations, that's hard and fast evidence that she's the second coming of O'Connor, Souter, or possibly even Kennedy.  

Hugh's argument is simply a more accurate version of the exact same argument pushed by this site not too long ago, and the slurs tossed out here continue to undermine the reputation of this site.

Coors.  Jones.  Nethercutt.  Forrester.  None of them are Senators.  All were running against green or lame Democratic opponents.  All lost.

If they'd won, we probably wouldn't be having this debate.  But they didn't win.

So, "pimp" is OK, but saying what-will-now-be-known-as-the-J-word and "Stick it in your ear" is a Redstate felony?  Okay.

"To pimp," as a verb, is fine. Have fun with it. This will stun you, I know, but pander is, too.

Profanity is off limits. There is no discussion there.

Personal attacks are off limits. Same.

If this seems confusing to you, err on the side of caution.

BTW, is the phrase "BosWasNY" the new "N" word on Redstate?

Still smarting over your exchange with Leon? Here's a free hint: Do unto others as you'd have them do to you.

No, forgive me, but it's not clear at all.  But, it's your house.

I cannot help you with this.

What is clear is that, when someone in Redstate crosses the line, you'll be there.  I got it.

I would that I were wealthy enough to make that so.

That's almost amusing.

When I first saw your response to my post, I had to blink three times.   What is torking you off so much?

Maybe someone came out and called you an elitist, but that someone wasn't me.  Don't go looking for offense where offense isn't intended.

Feel free to get my personal e-mail address from the archives and e-mail me.  I consider you a mensch and a good shipmate, and this a big misunderstanding.

But, I gotta admit--I simply don't get what's gotten you and Thomas so fired up.

     I think that's a good point. It's assuming a lot to say Miers would actually put aside her personal beliefs to rule faithfully on the constitution.

     My point was in response to Blanton's post, in which he argued one couldn't possibly hold a liberal position on an issue and still rule conservatively as a judge.

Not as much as it could be.

Get yourselves a code of practice -- and stick to it.  Not even my $0.02 -- that's free.

As I'm puzzled by the way that this give-and-take seems to have driven you up the wall.  

Oh, thanks for the Golden Rule cite.  Words we should all live by.

Like, say, Blanton and the lead writers at Redstate?

...was an empty suit?

This is where you rail against the evils of people being paid to blog, without pointing to an instance where it actually happened?

Oh, come ON!  Really!  "Rank provincialism which makes assumptions about people and their outlook on life based on where they are from?"  Leon, don't you think that language is a bit over the top?

If I did, I wouldn't have used it.

The NRO crowd jumped on the Miers nomination from Day 1.  They were literally dripping with disdain.  That's who Hugh was referring to in the "BosWas" axis.  My adding "NY" to it was an attempt at adding some color to this debate.

Remember the comment about Miers not graduating from a top tier law school?  The White House and Hugh Hewitt didn't make that up.  Didn't The Editors on this site raise that as one of their concerns over Miers?

"The Editors," as such, did not. One editor, in particular, did. And, as I recall, in the larger context of pointing out that for a SCOTUS judge, we generally tend to look for excellence somewhere along the path of life, and law school is one possible place where that might be found.

I don't really know where to begin here.  So, I'm insulting everyone who lives between Washington D.C and Boston?  That includes my wife, in-laws and a bunch of uncles/aunts/cousins, by the way. NONE of whom are liberals. As for the allusion to racism--I won't go there.

No, no, please do, because it's a valid parallel. When you bring up a person's locality in an argument, as part of a dismissal of what they think, you should well expect a visceral reaction. People don't like to be automatically adjudged as having a particular characteristic just because they happen to be from a particular place - whether you're talking about Southerners (Hi, that's me) who don't like it when others assume they're racist, or northeasterners, who don't like it when folks assume they're elitist.

When the people under discussion aren't even FROM the locality you are disparaging by implication, it descends from insulting into silly and insulting.

And so again I ask, what would you have me do with someone who came in here and made reference to the "MissArkBama axis of racism," hmm? What then, if he defended himself with the non sequitur, "I have relatives in Mississippi?"

Oh, for heavens' sake, Leon.  No one's sliming you--certainly not me, today.  I'm DISAGREEING with you?  That's still OK on Redstate, isn't it.

If it weren't, I wouldn't have promoted several diaries over the last two weeks that disagreed with me.

To the editors of Redstate, a site which I'm very grateful to participate in:  I'm not sure what kind of invective has been thrown your way since the Miers nomination started.  Probably some of it has been way beyond the pale.  I appreciate your willingness to receive the abuse that assuredly comes your way from all sides of the Internet.  But it hasn't come from me.  Disagreements, sure.  But no smears or slander.

All I ask that you be polite. I shouldn't have to grovel to post on this site, and I won't

You have, as I think Thomas has already pointed out, established sufficient cred here that not only is groveling not necessary, it's not appropriate. What I don't want to see happen is for you to follow the pattern of another long-time poster (who shall remain nameless) that we recently had to ban, because every time someone posted something anti-Miers, he took it upon himself to respond with insults and invective. I value you as a poster and hope that we can keep the conversation civil, is all.

No one insulted you anywhere in Blanton's story. Hugh's certainly dished out his share over the last few weeks, and I think he had it coming. If you disagree, I don't think that justifies the kind of response you exhibited in this thread. YMMV.

I gave it my best shot. Because I, personally, have historically been fond of your comments and contribution here, I went one heck of a lot farther than I do for most. That'll learn me.

Use your best judgment. Seriously, good luck.

There's no persecution syndrome, here. I'm even fine with someone calling me personally an elitist, because the notion is frankly laughable. The BosWash thing irks me, though, it really does. And we're totally cool, by the way.

From New Editors:

Second, we have a new pseudonymous editor blogging by the name of Blanton. Blanton is a political consultant based in Washington, D.C. who will be blogging about political goings on around our nation's capital and the states. Uniquely, Blanton has worked on both Republican and Democrat campaigns around the nation, but we'll refrain from comparing him to Dick Morris.

Kinda funny seeing an anonymous political consultant who's willing to whore himself out to the highest bidder (Democrat or Republican) choosing to make his debut on a pro-Republican 527 website by calling a pro-Republican radio personality who holds an opinion he disagrees with a shill and a pimp.

Kinda disappointing to see the other RS editors jumping in to defend this tripe as worthy front-page material, though.

Oh, I'm not against "people being paid to blog" -- sounds like a sweet gig -- just people being paid to blog (or have their friends blog for them) and not being up-front about it.

I do have an abiding interest in the credibility of RS, after all.

Have I mentioned that you all need a code of practice and the willingness to stick with it?  'Specially to insulate yourselves from a rather embarrassing Hugh Hewitt riposte to this otherwise excellent piece?

Whore? Huh? Say again?

Calm down (you seem to hear that a lot).

"No one can argue the substance". - Clearly a generalization not meant to be taken literaly.

You also say that because Hugh was insulted (in your mind) then nothing of Blanton's should be read.  Thus, why should anyone read you after the insults you are throwing around?  I'm surprised the editors allow you here with your tone, but then again your other posts / diaries have been thoughtful when you don't believe you (or your misguided friend Hugh) have been insulted.

Immature?  Frankly, reacting so strongly to the term "pimp" or "schill" is in the same vein as going "UUMMMMMM!" when a kissing scene happens in a movie.  As an editor spelled out neither term is obscene.

I won't say you're a pimp for Hugh.  But would saying you're a blind apologist for him make you feel any better?  Of course not.  But I'd hope you would spend more time explaning why you're not, then attacking the choice of words.  That would be a mature response and show you're bigger than I.  Of course I haven't insulted you yet (I hope).  I would venture to say that I AM taller.

Regards

You're obviously passionately unhappy with what I said, and are still after lots of discussion.  Best to end it.  Your house.  Your rules.  I disagree with your assesments of what I said, but I do recognize your word goes here, and that I am your guest.

I think you're wrong.  You think I'm wrong.  Such is life.

I have no idea what YMMV means.  

Enjoy the Series.

As one who works the gutters of the mainstreet of Redstate, I'm hardly a sensitive guy. However, the tone and terminology of this story is below what I expect from Redstate editors. I don't read Hewitt or really care what his views are. I also don't read Dkos because there is no substance taht can be reached without shoveling. That is also the case with this story. It lost me at "pimp".

And once again, an apology that you didn't see the announcement that I had taken a client - and then a RS editor wrote a positive piece about that client - even though that editor had written positive pieces about that client for...well, about a year.

Sorry you're still sore about that. Here I thought our private email exchange settled that - so I'm a little unclear why you're trying to use it as some sort of point to score.

But again, thanks for the advice. Cheers.

Hugh didn't seem to care so much about Roe when he fought so hard to defend Specter against Toomey.

Your Mileage May Vary

Too strident.  I regret the biting nature of my language in response to you.  I apologize.

But not my displeasure with the tone that Blanton, Redstate's equivalent of a staff writer, used.

I'm sure many think of me and Hugh as apologists for the President.  I prefer "pragmatist."

Let me ask y'all this:  If getting a Conservative Favorite approved for SCOTUS was as doable as so many of y'all think, then why didn't Bush nominate one?  Simply cronyism?

I must admit that, that seems too convenient an answer to me.  I tend to think the White House isn't as sure about this nomination as so many in Redstate are.  

Not sure what your point was with YMMV, but my towel is thrown, and the Astros are up.  Top of the 1st inning.

I'll moderate my tone in the future, Leon.  

:)

low class inference as pimping. So yes. If you ban calling people pimps or or accusing them of pimping then you can use pander and pandering with impunity. :-) After all, do you really want to make pimp, and it derivatives, available to me? It would be like getting a jumbo pencil sharpener for my stick arsenal. BTW, is "jackbooted thugs" allowed?

And once again, an apology that you didn't see the announcement that I had taken a client - and then a RS editor wrote a positive piece about that client - even though that editor had written positive pieces about that client for...well, about a year.

I'm sorry.  This level of elision is just dishonest.

You know, dictionary.com and all - I just have to once again say, "cheers."

You'll see quite a good display of both sides of the Miers nomination - arguing in good faith, I think.

And maybe I'm just too young, but "pimp" doesn't have the connotation, to me, of what you suggest.

A lot of folks have used the verb, "to pimp" around here. I hesitate to say this, but of course it's open to you, too.

I'll now put on some asbestos. Better mesothelioma than the sunburn I see coming.

I appreciate the kind things you and many others have said about my postings on Redstate these past months.  And I truly do appreciate the efforts you and the other editors expend to keep this site running, on a shoestring, without the funds that Kos and others who accept advertising enjoy.

You think I'm acting a tad stupid, and I think you're being too touchy.  Let's call it even, one curmudgeon to another, and virtually shake hands.  I'll concede that I carried this give-and-take of ours a few comments too far.  And, looking back over my threads today, I concede that I wish I'd said a few things differently.

I've no desire for bad feelings.  If we could have met face to face, instead of a typed back-and-forth, I doubt this commentary would have gotten as heated as it did.  I shall endeavor to do better in the future, and I will respect your house and heed your warnings.

Whaddya say?

and I do completely and wholeheartedly, but calling him a shill and a pimp crosses into 11th Commandment territory.  Aside from this episode, Hewitt has been consistently on the conservative and Republican side of things.  He's fought the good fight, and he's earned his stripes.  It doesn't do any of us any good to demean fellow conservatives and Republicans like this.  Please, let's stick to the issues, not the person.  With all due respect Blanton, this is just wrong.

Specter was not up for a seat on the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment. If Specter had proven to be a problem on the Judiciary committee he could have been removed. It is next to impossible to remove a Supreme Court Justice after they have been confirmed.

While I'm quite aware that the principle effect of this is to annoy the RS Heathers at me, hopefully it will become clear at some point that I am profoundly interested in the site's success -- and credibility -- in the long run.  For its own sake.

Why didn't Bush nominate one / cronyism?

Here is why I believe Bush nominated HM imo.

Bush's greatest fault (and strength) is loyalty.  He knows someone that shares his values and he goes to the mat to defend her.  Some may call this cronyism.  It's in the mind of the beholder.

My major point is this:  HM has no constitutional law experience.  White House Counsel is not a constitutional law position.

My defenses from the supporters of HM are -

The sexists argument - Three of my top five picks would have been women.  Not this one.

The elitist argument - None of my top five picks attended ivy schools.

The "don't know her philosophy" argument - I don't care if she is conservative politicaly, as long as she is qualified (doesn't have to bone up before hearings) and has a demonstrated originalist approach (which generaly equals conservative views but not always).

The never been a judge argument - I don't care if she's never been a judge.  Rhenquist meets my criteria, and Roberts wasn't a judge all that long.

I don't fault Bush for doing what he thinks is right.  I don't fault Hugh for supporting Bush.  But I don't fault myself for disagreeing, nor Blanton for agreeing with me.  I think Blanton was harsh, but not obscene.

Pretty much everyone who knows me would consider it a fair description. Thankfully, it's the modifiers that people use that allow me to determine friend or foe. BTW, Leon called me a donkey's rear the other day. Is that the same as a jackass or is it the same as a jack's ass? Anyway, donkey's rear must be a BOSWASNY elitist term. We don't use it in my circles.

Is a donkey. So insofar as it's anything like you described, it's the latter.

but that doesn't change the thrust of my post.  The use of the word "pimp" was clearly an attempt to discredit Hewitt's arguments and dismiss them out of hand.  Ironically, I agree with the main point Blanton made in pointing out the inconsistency of Hewitt's position, it's just that I felt that the dismissive attitude (which presumably will carry over to any future ideas posited by Hewitt since he's a shill) and the unnecessary cheap shot with the Incitatus analogy.

Can't have pimps without whores!

When the standard for calling someone a pimp has been lowered to the point that the definition becomes "a public figure who vocally agrees with Bush on things that me and my friends disagree with", then renting yourself out as a "political consultant" to spout talking points for anyone willing to cross your palm with gold (whether they're democrat or republican) must certainly qualify you as a whore.

Unfortunately, a low standard of discourse is set by front page stories like this.  If Hewitt's points were important enough to be addressed at all, they should have been responded to and rebutted in a polite and rational manner.  Instead, readers were treated to a name-calling tirade with a nonsensical denouement of "Hewitt would support a horse if Bush nominated one!"

There are plenty of other places on the 'net to read front-page posts full of hysterical bridge-burning invective by psuedonymous political operatives.  It disappoints me to see RedState taking deleterious steps in that direction.

When it is in the form of a personal attack. That's what got all this started.

 One of the reasons that I use my own name when posting is that doing so compels me to act like a gentleman. Not so long ago, a man would have been expected to defend his personal honor if he were called certain names, some of which have been thrown around this thread with complete disregard. To me, part of being a conservative means to maintain a certain respect for tradition, and while that may sound ridiculously old-fashioned, it's still true.

  If I wanted to insult a man, I would do it to his face. The tone of this thread has become acrimonious and distasteful.

"Several Redstate editors have rejected the nomination of Harriett Miers so that they can be more effective pimps for nominees of their choosing." similar to:

"Hugh has apparently ignored all objectivity and closed his eyes to all concerns so that he can be an effective pimp of the Bush administration."

That would be permissable.

Go ahead and throw me, and a few million like me, over the side.

Most of the names you mention, (Coors and Nethercutt in particular) didn't get elected because the "centrists" decided to avoid controversial "conservatives" and be "moderate Republicans".

Maybe next election the "conservatives" will decide not to be "Moderate Republicans" when it comes time to vote.

The GOP could, in fact, lose the Senate in '06.  I'd kind of hate that, but given the current tenor of what's happening inside the beltway, I'm not sure it's a loss that'd mean much.  I don't see my agenda advancing on either side right now.

If the Party doesn't care to have any sensitivity to those of us who have worked our posteriors off to get them into power, I guess I could care if they stay in power or not.

Go ahead.  Make my day.

Sort of like

Some RedState commenters have whored themselves out for the White House and damaged the cause of conservatism for decades thereby.

Stuff like that.

Of course, it's stuff like that that ratcheted the debate up here and everywhere else, so it's probably best not to make it RedState specific.

You forgot one thing -

Harriet Miers: Someone who has no constitutional law experience.

Maybe you want a podiatrist to perform your heart surgery, but I don't want someone who has to bone up before she gets to the hearings.  She should already be qualified.

You owe Blanton and all real conservatives with brains an apology.

Main Entry: jack·ass

Pronunciation: 'jak-"as

Function: noun

1 : DONKEY; especially : a male donkey

2 : a stupid person : FOOL

jackass includes all of the donkey.

As part of the Richmond-Columbia-Atlanta-Nawlins axis, we are happy to translate "dixi-isms" admittedly with a little help from Merriam-Webster, one of whichis rumored to have been a .......connecticut yankee?

Some reporter asked Buckley what he would do in the unlikely event he actually won the NYC mayoral election, and Buckley replied he would demand a recount.

On the prior point, it's just snarkiness with no intelligent point to back it up, to suggest the National Review writers who never won an election were in no position to criticise election winner Bush's decision to nominate Miers. If that dismissal of NRO's arguments had any coherent logic (which of course it doesn't), it means that nobody who supported a candidate is fit to criticize that candidate's decisions after he wins election, unless the critic has also run for office and won.

This is just another variation of the ad hominem tactic of the left, e.g. nobody who hasn't served in the military is fit to argue in favor of going to war. There will always be a few people on all sides of an argument who resort to ad hominem dismissals of opposing arguments rather than debating the substance; but when you see one side of an argument relying heavily on such ad hominems, it's a pretty good sign that they're having a hard time finding any good substantive points on their side.

I think Blanton was overly harsh characterizing Hewitt as pimping for Bush, but he did raise substantive criticisms of Hewitt's argument: Hewit is wrong to claim that Miers' support for racial discrimination is limited to private employers, so is irrelevant to her view on the constitutionality of racial discrimination by government. Blanton refutes Hewitt by noting that Miers' also supported racial discrimination in the University of Michigan affirmative action case.

There's a difference between saying "Hewitt is a pimp because his argument is obviously refuted by Miers' support for policy X" (rude but still substantive) and saying "Hewitt is a pimp, so it doens't matter whether his argument is logical or not" (rude and also brainless).

Jefferson's passion is not lost on me.  I'm with you in spirit, but let's be practical.  To whom would we go?  To sit out the next elections would only weaken our position further.  

Instead, let's make sure we more thoroughly analyze the candidates before we put our weight behind them.  Bush was thought to be Evangelical Christian and a lock on life when we elected him the first time.  Trouble was, no one could seem to pin him down.  There was even a book entitled "The Complicated Faith of George W. Bush" that was bandied about in Evangelical circles prior to the election.  A better title might be "The Alleged Faith of President George W. Bush."  Faith without works is dead.

So, instead of standing on the sidelines, let's do our homework before endorsing candidates.  When we're absolutely convinced there's a strong conservative in the race, let's work to put him over the top, just as Values Voters did in 04.

Now we might be getting somewhere...

The conservative movement is overdue for transformation.

Blanton's comments are correct, but I think that this should have been a diary.  Being an editor does not mean that you write "stories" instead of "diaries."  For instance, Leon writes some of my favorite diaries, and he doesn't make it a front page story every time he wants to say something.  IMHO, pointing out the flaws in some other Republican's column and in another Republican's position is much better as a diary, which anyway would have become recommended quickly.  I think most of the back and forth in the comments would be avoided with this as a diary too.  Remember that as soon as this nightmare is over, we are all going to be on the same side again, or at least we will have to be to survive.  The 11th commandment has a purpose, and in the big picture, Hewitt is an ally.

Basically, I would prefer to see personal attacks on other Republicans using this level of language confined to diaries.  The language in this story does constitute a harsh personal attack on Hewitt.  And by language, I don't mean profanity, but the exaggerated over the top rhetoric like invoking Incitatus.  This site is very refreshing most of the time because of the high standards and the quality of the stories, and that is primarily due to the efforts of the editors.  This didn't attain the normal level of a front page story.

Must also have a bullying streak in them.

Message received.  The so-called "thinkers" among conservatives are, I think becoming as big an obstacle to solving problems as the loony left is.

I like and greatly respect Hugh Hewitt and I know he does not need anyone defending him. But when I read someone calling him a shill -- which connotes an unthinking and unprincipled compliance to an organization --  I have to say it is incredibly silly and insulting no matter how much 'evidence' Blanton can point to.  BTW, Hugh is always respectful to his opponents and is able to articulate his arguments well. He also has a good sense of humor. And Hugh's insights so often provide a rational counterpoint to the herd mentality. I think Blanton's name calling is over the top and displays an arrogance many readers find insulting.

at one point in favor of affirmative action by private organizations

If that was all there was to it, Miers' support for racial discrimination and gender discrimination by private business would just give me a queezy feeling about what kind of person she is, but Hewitt would still have a plausible argument that those positions aren't directly related to whether she thinks racial discrimination (under the guise of affirmative action) by government violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

Unfortunately that isn't all there is to it. Miers pushed the split-the-difference approach in favor of racial discrimination by government in the University of Michigan affirmative action case (like the O'Connor position that prevailed). Blanton pointed that out in his refutation of Hewitt, but apparently you like Hewitt chose to ignore that inconvenient fact.

I give Redstate editors leave to give Blanton my e-mail address.  He's free to contact me, where I'll be glad to repeat, to him, what I said in response to his article today.  If he contacts me, I'll even offer him my cell phone number.

I've avoided using my real name because the Internet is full of kooks.   But, after today's back-and-forth, I want to make it clear I'm ready to stand behind what I say.

Any Redstate editor who wishes to contact me--simply e-mail me.  If the Redstate editors wish me to change my screen name to "Donald Smith", or "Don Smith", tell me. Otherwise, I prefer to remain smagar.

Sluts do it for free.

Thank you Blanton for writing this critical piece on Hugh Hewitt.

Unfortunately, Bush has nominated a total unknown for the highest court in the land (a lifetime appointment no less) while pundits like Hugh Hewitt are madly spinning away in hopes of quelling growing conservative ire.

We should not stand for this!

While certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, and far be it from me to silence anyone for their views, commentators who engage in a kind of intellectual bankrupticy that puts the power of the parties above the principles of the people should be held accountable for their nonesense.

Hugh Hewitt the respectful has adamantly dismissed his intellectual opponents by saying that they represent nothing more than the Bosh-Wash Axis of Elitism...which includes people like me hailing from Tulsa (oh, the elitism of Tulsa).

I resent that kind of dismissal as well as many others.

definitions with all you lawyers. :-)

or glad about. When most of the posts are a discussion of what degree of a jerk the author is as opposed to the points presented, the value of any story is lost.

how Hewitt's post qualifies as "intellectual bankruptcy"?  Can one support Miers (or at least support the President's choice or not actively oppose the President's nominee) without engaging in said "intellectual bankruptcy"?

Are you expecting Bush to nominate someone who disagrees with him?  Good luck with that.  

I am not very fond of Hewitt's work, frankly. But I agree with the general consensus this is not a front page-worthy piece. Hugh IS a Republican, if not a particularly conservative one, and he has done many positive things.

I think supporting Miers is totally incorrect. I don't think it makes Hugh a 'pimp.'

But the kind of posturing that H. Hewitt engages (i.e. saying Miers' private affirmative action beliefs won't matter once she's confirmed while her private pro-life beliefs will make all the difference) does not serve as a good example.

Regardless, it is my opinion that conservatives deserve better than a stealth candidate whose views are both known and unabashedly defended.  Any attempt to quell our frustration will only exacerbate conservative's relationship with the GOP in the long run.

I didn't take The B Word as a slander on you.  Why did you think it was pointed at you?  

It was pointed at vocal pundits who, yes, I hate to point out, do live in a certain Geographical Area Which Shall Go Unnamed.  These pundits are the ones who've been leading the charge against Miers.  Hugh supports the President on Miers, so naturally he'd take out after the critics.  Especially if Hugh's concerned that the President's agenda is threatened by a blogswarm of conservative pundits that apparently don't care much about legislative accomplishments.

I sense a keen willingness, on this issue, to be offended here on Redstate.  Politics is the contact sport of the mind.  Toughen up, crew. Excessive touchiness to being "slighted" or "slandered" is a hallmark of the PC crowd.  

I'll concede that I haven't read everything Hugh Hewitt has written on this subject.  Please include a link to any of his posts you deem offensive or insulting, and I'll be glad to read them.

. . .over his shoulder*

Armando, stop giggling.

When you're annoyed enough to start borrowing Harleyisms, it might be time to take a deep breath.

Two cents from a friendly face.  :-)

Is Hewitt above having his agenda questioned? When one is obviously blindly supportive of an elected official then his motives cannot and should not be taken seriously.

That's all the article posted is saying basically. Take hewitt with a grain of salt.

If bush nominated Michael Moore for the supreme court, hewitt would still back bush's choice. He seems to believe that it would hurt the conservative agenda for anyone to question this administration about anything.

He'll call it some kind of demaocrat conspiracy and still say he and bush were right about miers, but because of blah blah blah we will now support bush's next choice no matter who that is either.

"Harriet Miers: clearly believes that the Constitution should be read literally"

Some of us literally believe she should read it too.

Yes. easy question, easy answer.

Hewitt "concedes" miers wasn't his first pick.

Just a question. Can you name anyone's list  besides gwb's who miers WAS the first pick?

Your comments to the person that posted that bush should get off the friends and family plan are ludicrous.

Bush loves to give jobs to cronies. This nomination is no different.

Can you really say that bush does not do this and keep a straight face?

24 hours after his article, I'm sorry to say that it seems the Redstate editors do.  Perhaps they feel that Hugh is now such an apostate to the conservative movement that he deserves the Jerry Springer treatment.

What has angered many of us here on Redstate (scroll down; you see what I mean) is the gratuitous rudeness of Blanton's post.  What has really angered me is that Blanton is now apparently welcome to spout off like this from the porches of Redstate.  

Everyone who follows my postings know I like to bring up old cliches, to add color to what I write.  Here's another:  Silence on an issue, often means consent.  The Redstate editors, from what I've seen so far, have been silent on the tone of Blanton's piece.  Can I therefore infer consent?

I've seen no comments from the Editors of Redstate, on why they felt it appropriate to host such an insulting piece on their site.  BTW, according to Redhot, Blanton seems to be enjoying his new popularity!

Chris, I can't believe you actually believe the following:

• That Hugh is above having his agenda questioned.
  
• That he's blindly supportive of the President
  
• That Hewitt would support an appointment of Michael Moore to...well, anything.

Pardon me for being direct, but I think what's angered the Redstate brain trust is that Hewitt is willing to point out an uncomfortable fact:  Nominating a Conservative Favorite for SCOTUS is not a sure thing, regardless of what the Redstate faithful may wish/hope/fervently believe in their reddest heart of hearts.  And, a SCOTUS failure carries perils with it.

Perils for the administration.  Not for the chattering classes, who simply will chatter about something else.

But, Chris, hey, you've now placed yourself on record.

Hello.  This is my first redstate.org post.

I've listened to Hugh's show for about a year and a half now.  My first impression on listening to his thoughts was that, indeed, he was a Republican water carrier.  But after listening to him and lots of other conservative/right-wing talk show hosts, I've observed that he and others like him cannot be accurately pegged as 'shills' or unapologetic cheerleaders of any particular administration's policies.  If you listen long enough, you will hear him and others disagree substantively with many Bush administration policies.  So what's really going on here?

Hewitt is a competitor, first and foremost.  He was a practicing lawyer, remember, and just listen to all the college sports references he puts in his shows; he understands winning and losing and he likes to be on the winning side.  I believe that his calculation in the case of Meiers and any other position he appears to be a 'shill' on is a hard-nosed analysis of what is possible legally and politically.  

Hugh is a principled conservative.  I do not believe he would take a position merely because he saw greater advantage in leaning left (or far right).  However, I think his interest in winning this nomination battle is clouding his perspective on the details of why this particular nominee is not the right one.  In my opinion, if you have to write as many words as Hugh has in defense of someone who so many good conservative commentators do not support, then your judgement is being obscured by something, and I think it's his desire to win.

"[T]hose that don't ought not to be confusing ConLaw with the private decisions of private firms while arguing that this policy makes Miers suspect on Bollinger."

If a private company implements racial quotas, the company is not subject to the Constitution, but it could be violating federal statutory law, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which draws upon the Constitution for inspiration.

Something tells me that Henri Philippe Petai-uh, I mean Hugh Hewitt-is not exactly wounded by these critiques.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/flags/fr-marpe.gif

Is a real gutsy move from Blanton... who is little more than a hired gun for politicians.

A shark was jumped, all right.  But I seriously doubt it was Hugh Hewitt.

Option 1: A True Red Conservative Favorite SCOTUS nominee who can't get confirmed.

Option 2: A stealthier one, who can.

Option 2 offers the chance to do the conservative cause some good on the bench.  Option 1 can look forward to a future as Robert Bork's fill-in on the Sean Hannity show, and a much-lessened impact on society and the law as an opinion-writer.

I agree with your points--if not your screenname.  It's quite likely that the Conservative Movement hasn't seated enough True Red conservative Senators to get a Conservative Favorite confirmed to the SCOTUS.  Bush and Hewitt are simply acknowledging what, IMO, many in the conservative chattering class have chosen to ignore or wish away.

Being rude to Hugh Hewitt doesn't change that.

We are a 52-48% GOP nation, not a two-thirds GOP nation.  Our Senate isn't two-thirds hard-core GOP either.  And the Dems know it.

And, for those who want to respond to this post by saying "Well, look at the trouble Miers is in now," I'll concede that point.  She's currently navigating rough waters, and it seems certain that the White House didn't handle her vetting or sell her nomination well at all.

But, many of you didn't wait to see how Miers would perform.  You backed away from her out of hand.  On Day One of the nomination.  Because she wasn't a Conservative Favorite.

In so doing, you ignored, or rationalized away (e.g., "The Deal will hold!") the real stumbling blocks a Favorite would face getting confirmed.  Sorry, but the WH can't ignore that.

Some of you are now openly saying (after prompting by myself and others to go on record) that, hey, you really don't care about more legislation!  You simply want more good Justices!

Okay.  You're entitled to your view.  I invite you, though, to post here the words the President would use in a Rose Garden speech, where he'd explain to the people--ALL the people--who elected him that he's putting everything but Conservative Justices on the backburner.

Then...wait, I'm not done!  List the names of the 2006 GOP candidates who will stand next to him, in front of the cameras, as he gives your speech.

What is the point of your response? How does it relate to my post?

But, hey, that's your opinion.

was not to handicap the Meiers nomination, only to give reasons why I feel Hewitt is incorrectly viewed as a shill.

How about tenth pick?  how about 100th pick?  how about 100th most qualified, conservative, woman?  Seriously, what quality does Miers have that makes her worthy of a SC nomination?

Many of you like Hugh Hewitt and are defending his recent statements on Miers. Thats understandable and admirable. But it also makes you look rather silly. Here's why...

Hugh Hewitt is on record (from his radio show) as stating that the White House should pick judges with experienced records on the federal bench. Hugh stated this opinion as recently as the day before John Roberts was confirmed. Hewitt went on to explain all the reasons why it was important that Bush choose an experienced judge rather than a paperless trail stealth candidate. (I happened to agree with Hugh.)

When Miers was chosen, Hugh completely changed his tune and no longer was concerned about chosing an experienced judge. Those of us who actually take judicial appointments seriously recognized that Hugh Hewitt had lost all his credibility at that point. And all the Hewitt spin doctors in the world cannot change the fact that conservatives exposed Hewitt's hypocrisy.

One more thing. Hugh Hewitt is NOT a politician. He is a radio talk show host who works for a media conglomerate that supports the republican party. It might be interesting for Hugh Hewitt's supporters to find out if Hugh gets "talking points" from corporate headquarters.

"It might be interesting for Hugh Hewitt's supporters to find out if Hugh gets 'talking points' from corporate headquarters."

Do you have any evidence that he does?

Why don't you give Hugh a call on his radio program so he can confirm or deny it. Thats the only way to know for sure.

then I remembered another story of yours, whose title implied that the Miers nomination was tantamount to the ultimate betrayal.

I can't imagine you'd feel me justified in comparing you to Judas Iscariot in future threads.

If I have to live by the Golden Rule on Redstate, then shouldn't we all?

You need to read that story a little more carefully. A lot of folks seized on "Thirty Pieces of Silver" as an implication that Bush had sold out the conservatives for 30 pieces of Silver, whereas what Thomas was actually saying was that he had sold out a great many things himself to get the One Thing he wanted.

In other words, he compared HIMSELF Judas Iscariot. So I don't really know that he'd mind you doing it all that much.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into your well-thought article.

I tend to be on your 'side' of the Miers argument and wrote a diary in support of the President and, to a lesser extent, Miers.

Thomas recommended that diary, though I knew, after reading his article, that he disagreed.

If that isn't following the Golden Rule, I'm not sure what is.

I realize there has been a lot of flak flying from both sides of this nomination.  What makes it difficult, at least from my own perspective, is that its friendly-fire, for the most part.  With an issue as important as this, given the great sacrifices that have been made, and with the understanding of what is at stake, it doesn't take much for tempers to flare.  I guess what I'm trying to say is, the issue can divide us all, or it can serve to make the cause of conservatism stronger; and pot-shots aside, I still believe it will.

Keep up the great work.

justified you going postal the way you did on Sunday? I'll bet "a lot of folks" thought my reference to The Eastern Seaboard Between Northern Virginia and Massachusetts as a bit sarcastic, and not a slur.  

So, after your comment above, may I now point out that maybe YOU didn't read MY comment as carefully as you should, or think through what I was/wasn't trying to say before exploding?

I suppose you'd have to count me as one of those "lot of folks" who sensed a comparison of Bush to Judas in Thomas' post.  Seems like a bunch of us missed the nuance in his piece.  Perhaps because, "a lot of folks" might have been insulted by having a President many of us still respect compared to history's worst betrayer.  Seemeed a tad gratuitous and over the top to me.  Especially since references to religion have inflamed sensitivities throughout the world over time. And I suspect Thomas knew this.

All I'm asking is that everyone on Redstate play by the same rules.  If someone is willing to take offense, then IMO they should be especially careful to avoid giving offense.

And, as for your Southernness, howdy neighbor!  I was born in Maryland, raised in Virginia from the age of 6, and attended the University of Virginia.  Where I spent four years listening to out-of-state students from The Eastern Seaboard Between Northern Virginia and Massachusetts referring to the Old Dominion, my home state and their host, as some sort of colony which was graced by their presence.

I found it ineffective to walk around with a Dixie chip on my shoulder.  Instead, anytime they made mocking Deliverance banjo music sounds, I learned to respond with jokes based on B-movie Mob stereotypes.  The kinds you now see in "The Sopranos."  For example, I'd ask them to help me spell "consigliere", and point out the best places to get flashy gold chains.  Or, I'd yell "ADRIANNE-E-E", wait for them to point out that was Philly, and then pointed out that they all sounded the same to me.

I've watched the language that you and Thomas used yesterday on the Vetting post.  From my standpoint, it appeared that you two were almost bear-baiting Harold Hutchinson, a poster whom I've found to be polite and friendly.  So, it's clear you guys are more than prepared to dish it out.  

And, again, you're free to.  It's your house. I do NOTHING to keep this site up; I only visit when it's convenient. And, if I visit a friend's house whose parents are acting unfairly IMO...well, that's beside the point, isn't it.  They maintain the house, they set the rules.  My choice is to visit and not challenge their interpretation of events/issues, or stay home.  For now, I choose to stay here, until y'all show me the door.

But, if you dish it out...

I am curious if you have any desire to confirm or deny your own question.

I suppose you'd have to count me as one of those "lot of folks" who sensed a comparison of Bush to Judas in Thomas' post. Seems like a bunch of us missed the nuance in his piece.  Perhaps because, "a lot of folks" might have been insulted by having a President many of us still respect compared to history's worst betrayer.  Seemeed a tad gratuitous and over the top to me.  Especially since references to religion have inflamed sensitivities throughout the world over time. And I suspect Thomas knew this.

Like I told you when you remarked on this before, I was comparing me to Iscariot -- I sold out some basic principles for one thing alone. Iscariot didn't sell out for the silver, he sold out because he was an Iscarii, and he was a tad irked that Christ wasn't about to unleash blood and fire. He ended up regretting his betrayal. I was suggesting I'd reached the same point.

I've watched the language that you and Thomas used yesterday on the Vetting post.  From my standpoint, it appeared that you two were almost bear-baiting Harold Hutchinson, a poster whom I've found to be polite and friendly.  So, it's clear you guys are more than prepared to dish it out.

Yes, because if there's anything we've learned about the Miers debate, it's that you, and he, and similar commenters take backhanded slaps at your opponents while decrying incivility.

Grow up.

"Counterbattery" goes back to my artillery days.  Cannons are routinely grouped into sections of 4-6, and that group is called a "battery." If you fire back at a battery that has fired back on YOU, that's "counterbattery fire."  I don't hesitate to respond where I think it's warranted.

I'd like to think I step back when I've gotten too close to the brink on posts.  I'll concede, for example, that some of the language I used on Blanton's first article went over the top.  I've said I was sorry, where I thought it appropriate.

But, when you see someone standing on the front porch of the house next door, who proceeds to pee on a neighbor whom many of us respect---well, stuff like that can make you angry. Seemed to me, and many others, that Blanton, who was touted as one of Redstate's newest opinion leaders, was peeing off the Redstate porch this past Sunday.

That can lead you to ask the neighbors who actually own the house:

• If they condone what their new tenant is doing
  
• If that's why they put his name on the lease in the first place.  To pee off the front porch.

Politics is the contact sport of the mind.  These are indeed tense times.

But, the Republican Party is a big tent. Many different viewpoints should be able to coexist inside it.  The conservative movement is simply that--a movement.  It is not an organized political party (except in some states) with the mechanisms necessary to get someone nominated and elected.  Conservatives by and large have chosen the Republican Party as their mechansim to implement the changes they want in our democracy.

But, the Republican party is not a pure conservative party, nor is it omnipotent.  Maybe the RINO Senators come from Northeastern states because those states prefer RINOs.  Conservatives should either forge electoral majorities in those states, or learn to deal with who those states elect.

And, as for conservative omnipotence--okay, explain why Rick Santorum, a leading conservative light, is set to be pummeled by Bob Casey Jr.  For those who want to respond that Santorum (or Pete Coors, or Doug Forrester) were "empty suits" or flawed candidates, forgive me for pointing out that Redstate doesn't hold binding primaries.  States do.  So, we'd better get used to dealing with the candidates those states nominate, no matter how full we think their suits are.  We don't get to make that choice.

Debra Saunders, in her most recent article, reminds all of us that President Bush won reelection by less than 3 percentage points.  That's not a mandate for conservatives to sack Rome. That counsels caution.  In legislation.  And, in the selection of SCOTUS nominees.

We should be careful not sit to behind our keyboards and hector President Bush for not sacking Rome, when Bush's Senate majority often looks less like Roman legions, and more like the Apple Dumpling Gang.

as I learned it in Sunday school, Judas sold out Jesus.  I'll bet that's how many of us remember it.  And, I'll concede that most of us here on Redstate don't have the same level of Biblical knowledge you apparently do.

IMO, it's a bit much to expect that all of us would read your post, reread it, rereread it, consult the Bible, and then form our conclusions.  Do you read, reread and rerereread every story in the newspaper, every day?

No, and there's no expectation for you to.  All writers should expect that people will form their impression based on one read.  Based on what Leon H just said, apparently other got much the same impression about your 30 Pieces of Silver article.  At the very least, I'm not the only one who didn't appreciate its nuance.

But, as an apparently well-studied person, shouldn't you comprehend that references to the Bible, when mixed with politics, carries the potential to inflame?  And, if you inflame people, IMO it's a bit much to expect them to sit there and digest the nuances of what you were really trying to say.

because if there's anything we've learned about the Miers debate, it's that you, and he, and similar commenters take backhanded slaps at your opponents while decrying incivility.

Grow up

I'll let the tone of this response speak for itself. My point is that, to me it seems a bit hypocritical to use pointed language in your posts AND THEN cite the Golden Rule.

And, what's "backhanded" about my slaps?  Because they sting?  Well, that might mean they're hitting their target.

As I remember the story of Judas Iscariot as I learned it in Sunday school, Judas sold out Jesus.  I'll bet that's how many of us remember it.  And, I'll concede that most of us here on Redstate don't have the same level of Biblical knowledge you apparently do.

We're not talking about esoterica here.

IMO, it's a bit much to expect that all of us would read your post, reread it, rereread it, consult the Bible, and then form our conclusions.  Do you read, reread and rerereread every story in the newspaper, every day?

Only if I don't understand it on the first pass.

All writers should expect that people will form their impression based on one read.  Based on what Leon H just said, apparently other got much the same impression about your 30 Pieces of Silver article.  At the very least, I'm not the only one who didn't appreciate its nuance.

A lot of people thought War of the Worlds was for real. Your point?

But, as an apparently well-studied person, shouldn't you comprehend that references to the Bible, when mixed with politics, carries the potential to inflame?  And, if you inflame people, IMO it's a bit much to expect them to sit there and digest the nuances of what you were really trying to say.

It's neither my fault nor my concern that some of my readers are incapable of appreciating fairly obvious nuance:

And at some point, the RSC notwithstanding, we stopped caring.

And I can accept that. That's one of the legs down, but I can accept that.

Oh, not happily. But I can accept it because I thought I understood what I was getting in trade: The end of Roe. For that, I would trade a lot -- I have traded a lot. I've made peace with the fact that Republican politicians like to get re-elected as much as Democrats do, which means that the budget goes Up Up Up! I've accepted the fact that no one has the spine to push even Bush's half-hearted Social Security proposals. I've accepted the fact that this White House sees money as power to be applied, not something to value for its own, or for prudence's sake, and the Congresscritters agree. I can accept that, as long as it means that the power is being used to achieve other ends.

I've eaten my own bile, and made peace with the fact that Arlen Specter is part of the caucus, for the same reason.

I didn't think I was discussing thermodynamics there.

I'll let the tone of this response speak for itself. My point is that, to me it seems a bit hypocritical to use pointed language in your posts AND THEN cite the Golden Rule.

I'll advise my confessor appropriately.

And, what's "backhanded" about my slaps?  Because they sting?  Well, that might mean they're hitting their target.

No, because you conflate your tirades with wisdom, decry incivility from your opponents, and obliquely let into them in so doing. (This is the definition of the term "backhanded.")

Buckaroo, I hate to share this with you, but the next time your words sting me will be the first. I generally don't get wounded by people who can't take elementary reading lessons, even when offered freely, twice.

Look, you guys are all on the same side here.  Conservatives that want to see the agenda moved forward.  

The way I see it, you are willing to alienate each other over one SCOTUS nominee.  Is it really worth it?

For the record, all of you need to grow up, or at least take a time out.

Harriett Miers will be confirmed, or she won't.  But, she is not the be all, end all, for the conservative agenda.  And my guess is, she is not the be all, end all, for Roe v. Wade either.  She is not worth all this dissension, posturing and name calling.

It is no fun to be at Redstate right now.  The dialogue here reminds me of what I hear coming out of the mouths of my three children after a long, tiring  day.  Just a bit more nuanced.

OK Leon: explain to me how my B-W-NY comment

justified you going postal the way you did on Sunday? I'll bet "a lot of folks" thought my reference to The Eastern Seaboard Between Northern Virginia and Massachusetts as a bit sarcastic, and not a slur.

I think you just need to let this whole discussion go. I don't know where you got the idea that this was the comment that was the problem (from the site's perspective) - it wasn't. I'd go over it again, except that Thomas has already done so ad nauseam - profanity, personal attacks.

Now, from a personal standpoint, yes it cheesed me off a bit. But only because I'm fair (or at least I like to think I am) and I think that people who resort to easy regional bias are copping out on their responsibility to think before engaging in discourse. In case I wasn't clear, you won't get banned for referring to the BosWasNY axis of elitism. But you will get a lot of snarky comments about me in return.

I think Thomas has already dealt with the rest of your post, and class starts in three minutes, so I'll just leave it there.

But seriously, you're taking this discussion to heart way too much.

you said "Chris, I can't believe you actually believe the following:"

"That Hugh is above having his agenda questioned."

No I don't believe hewitt is above having his agenda questioned.

"That he's blindly supportive of the President"

Yes I do believe he is blindly supportive of this administration, not just the president.

"That Hewitt would support an appointment of Michael Moore to...well, anything."

No, it was an exaggerated example obviously, but not that far off, IMHO.

I've read hewitt's book, "BLOG" and his "the liberals are the devil" mentality is evident.

Personally I think both parties are guilty of not looking after OUR best interests and are only looking to line their own pockets.

It's definitely time for a change from the two party system we have now IMHO. How to get there from here is the problem.

to support the idea that bush's picture is next to the word "cronyism" in the dictionary?

And I appreciate the artillery reference.  I'm former Navy, myself.

I absolutely agree with your statements about the Republican Party and its relationship to the conservative movement.  (FYI, I use the term 'movement' in spite of my disdain for the word).  I think we agree that we are, for the most part, concerned with conservatism, and consider the Rep. party as a means to that end.

The original point I intended to make in the first post was that these discussions, heated (and often ad hominem) as they are, serve a purpose of determining the future direction of the 'movement' and, to a lesser extent, the Party;  and in that vein, lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As I said above, I was formerly in the Navy.  Often, while at sea, we would participate in underway replenishment, which is when 2 or more very large ships pull along side each other, connect lines to one another, and transfer goods, fuel, bombs and bullets, back and forth.  And this all while underway, hence the term.  Having served in the engineroom of one of these ships, I can tell you that there are specific operational and emergency requirements to follow during replenishment.  For example, strict speed is maintained and changing equipment configuration is not allowed.  In an emergency, lets say an SSTG (turbine generator) blows up, the rules say you cannot shut that piece of equipment down.  For to do so, would inevitablly mean harm to both the crew of your ship, but to the others to which you are attached.  So the proper course of action is to mainain configuration until the lines are freed and distance gathered.

I relate the hub-bub over the Miers nomination the same way.  The course, purpose, and mission of the 'movement' must be maintained.  Sure, there is transfer back and forth:  its part of the mission.  But in the end, honest debate over this nomination is proper, knee-capping one another is not.  One must keep in mind that though transfer does occur, and once completed the seperate entities may go seperate ways, the mission of the battlegroup remains the same.

I only wrote what I did to you because you mentioned Thomas and I caught an insinuation of hypocrisy in your comment.  I just wanted you to know that it takes a magnanamous individual to promote an opinion that differs from one's own.  

As to your 'empty suit' reference, I wish I had an answer.  I will only say that adherence to a strict ideology also serves a purpose, for without those who are adamantly passionate about their cause, sense of direction would be lost.

Again, keep up the counterbattery fire.  But it would do both 'sides' to remember that it is friend, not foe, on the other side.

Re: your admonition to we Three Stooges of the Miers debate, from Blanton's infamous initial story on Redstate.

Now, it's on to the Alito nomination.

And, BTW, the Aspens are in full golden glory in the Huachuca Mountains, at the opposite end of Arizona, on the Mexican border SE of Tucson.

Will think of you as The World's Cutest English Springer Spaniel and I hear the wind rustle through their leaves tomorrow.

Thanks for the heartfelt but firm tap on the back of the head.

:)