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 he