Redstate

I'm with you. I stayed out of that whole deal. This here Internet has a serious structural deficiency in that it facilitates the creation of instant mobs.

That woman is probably just some up-and-coming civil service lawyer-type who had no clue that she was about to get turned into a National Hate Object by people who didn't even know her.

When she came back from her honeymoon, she must have been in tears. "They hate me. They really hate me." And she hadn't even gotten the job yet. That whole episode was just disgusting.

It's clear enough why this happened. Malkin wants to 'own' the immigration issue. It's her baby, she's the one who jumped out first and got the arrows in her back, so now she thinks she can dictate policy. Malkin isn't going to be happy until the Border Patrol agents have all been replaced by velociraptors, backed up by T-Rex's in case they encounter a jeep or a van out there in the desert. She wants a Balrog appointed to this spot, and I guess Ms. Myers doesn't fit the bill. But it's still a disgrace.

There are people are there who are so stupid...

... how stupid are they?

They are so stupid that I have seen Free Republic threads where a mob has formed to torch some guy based on an article from Scrappleface. This has happened more than once. It's frightening to watch.

I don't know what to do about this.

Remember when an e-mail of Michael Brown's surfaced, where he said that he's not surprised that good people might be induced to shy away from government service by watching this feeding frenzy?  Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO linked it to the Corner, with a link that said "Oh good grief!"

I think that Brown had a point.

K-Lo, who appointed you and Michelle and your Corner colleagues as official Inquisitors?  What's YOUR experience in crisis management?  

I'm waiting for Malkin and K-Lo to open their own blog:  "The Scapegoat Sisters"

I understand where you're coming from on this, and Nick certainly makes a good point on the mob mentality of the web at times.

I think Ms. Myers has gotten something of a raw deal, but it's a natural confluence of Bush's lowering popularity, the perceived disaster that was Mike Brown, horrible immigration policy really pissing off a good chunk of the base, and governing fatigue.

I think the biggest problem with her nomination is that she is not obviously qualified to do such an important job.  It's a high profile, large budget, huge staff position that demands a certain level of experience and qualification that Ms. Myers does not currently meet.

She should never have been nominated for this position outright.  They could have made her the acting and let her get her sea legs first, but to put her up without the requisite qualifications was guaranteed to cause a firestorm.

The problem now is that the Administration hates to admit that they are ever wrong, so they'll probably fight back hard to try to get this woman in the position, which will only exaccerbate the problems.

While her reputation has been unfairly tarnished, she should think twice about whether she wants this job and ask the WH to withdraw her name.

It's unfortunate, it sucks, and it shows why so many good people don't want to work in this accursed little town.

Do you think Ms. Myers received a fair shake?  Shouldn't she have had the chance to confront her accusers and speak up for herself?  I think it's fair to say that, once her honeymoon cruise ship docked back at home port, her reputation had already been tried, convicted, executed and buried.  

I can't speak for the WaPo, except to point out that it appears a total lack of class to launch this strike on Ms. Myers at the time in her life when she'd perhaps be the least unable to respond.

But, the conservative blogosphere, lead IMO by Michelle Malkin, whipped up the cries for her head into a fever pitch.  

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Ask yourself: would you want the conservative blogosphere to treat you the way Julie Myers was treated.  Would you want to see your daughter (or your niece) pilloried, called a hack and a crony in print and on the Web, while she was on her honeymoon?  Wouldn't that strike you as very unfair, unprofessional, spiteful and mean? Especially if she hadn't been given a proper chance to defend herself?

It strikes me that way.  I'm sad to say, it doesn't seem to strike some of the more vocal members of the conservative blogosphere the same way.  Seems some feel that, once you sign up for public office, you volunteer to be treated like trash.

Don't fool yourself.  The blood-seeking bloggers didn't treat Julie Myers this way because she deserved it. (No one forced Michelle Malkin to launch the blogswarm in the midst of Julie Myers' honeymoon.) They treated her this way because they could.

Is this really the way the conservative blogosphere wants to do business?

The mob is always right!

There are more of them!

What is more democratic than the mob?

Defy the mob at your peril!

;)

Maybe Julie Myers wasn't a great choice for this position.  I'll admit I don't know.

But, if the Bush administration does withdraw her nomination, that runs the risk of creating a bad impression:   The White House can be intimidated by a blogswarm.  That makes those who can start/fan such blogswarms folks to be reckoned with.

That's not good.  Any perception of weakness simply invites more attempts at intimidation.  Think of the shark analogy: once they taste blood, they keep coming back for more.

It might be a good idea for the Bush administration to stand by Myers, simply to show it cannot be pushed around.  

If the President had any credibility with regards to border security, I'd give his nominee in this case the benefit of the doubt.

He doesn't, though, so this is a battle he deserves to lose.

Without a chance to explain or defend herself?  Without any apparent interest in being fair?

Ummm...due process?

The way this was handled doesn't seem cricket to me.  If you were Julie Myers, would you want to be treated this way?  Is this how the conservative blogosphere should treat people?

This is how the MSM does things.  I thought we were better than that.

Right?

If questioning her credentials counts as "burning" her, then yes, I think anyone up for a position this important should be "burned."

This isn't exactly Clarence Thomas hearings here.

If the President had any credibility with regards to border security, I'd give his nominee in this case the benefit of the doubt.

Who do you think is going to nominate the next one, Teddy Roosevelt? Is the strategy for improving border security, "Bush keeps puttin' 'em up, we keep shootin' 'em down" leaving the agency without any director at all until at least 2009?

Were you in a position to take interviews on your honeymoon?

In a criminal trial, even the most vile of defendants gets a chance to speak up for themselves.  IMO, Myers didn't get that chance from the conservative blogosphere, because the witchhunters chose NOT to give it to her.

Disgusting

Are you saying the President is incapable of nominating with visible qualifications?

I think he can pick 'em when he wants to.  Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. prove that.

He just has to think the job is important.  I think it's time we tried to explain it to that ICE isn't something you can shove just anyone into, like he did with FEMA.

What's disgusting is that the President is a filthy liar about immigration, violated his oath of office when he let the BCRA through, and is one of the most fiscally irresponsible Presidents in our history.

Whew.. that felt good, even if the orangeshirts are probably going to weave it into their fairy tales.

Anyway, I voted for the guy for security.  He ran on security.  He and his people are supposed to be good on security.  And since this is an important security position, in the new department with security in the name, I think he and his office are perfectly capable of defending this nominee.  This position should be a priority, after all, given the campaign this President ran just last year.

If you think the White House is incompetent to do that, such that it's a "disgusting" mismatch between the American people and the administration when discussing the nominee, then I'm not sure what you're criticizing: the White House, or free speech.

Keyboard commandos like you and Michelle Malkin are the least qualified people to determine whether or not Julie L. Myers is qualified for her job.

I haven't found any voices coming out to support her (beyond asking for patience). Googling Myers seems to indicate near consensus among people who care enough to voice their opinion (correct me if I'm wrong).

So why are you here then?

Isn't that what we do here all the time?  Express our views on how the government should be run, and particularly why our guys are better than their guys at it?

If we're not qualified to talk about ICE, how on EARTH are we qualified to say President Bush is better than Senator Kerry?

I sure hope Malkin is proud of herself for her hatchet job as Ms. Myers was getting ready for her wedding.

This is one person I think reasonable consevratives should just ignore.

Michelle Malkin does NOT speak for me, and she will leave the conservative movement with many black eyes.  She's becoming the Maureen Dowd of the right.

I could travel the federal and state  bureaucracies and find a 1,000 persons more qualified than Julie Myers.

If Immigration, Customs, and the Border Patrol are demoralized, they aren't not going to try to do their jobs.  I have seen agencies

sit on their hands before when they thought that there so-called bosses were no political hacks.

This nomination shows that educated persons can be stupid.

At least half the Internet will oppose her from the get-go, because they're Democrats (or worse) who oppose anything this administration does.

Of the rest, a bunch are people like me who may like the President overall, but are biased against him on this particular issue.

Opposition creates louder voices than support, and that amplifies both groups People don't get motivated to say "Everything's Fine!"

The leading support should be coming from the White House or DHS, not from the peanut gallery.

on qualifications in a nation governed by the consent of the governed.

Elitists decide whose qualified in universities, the msm, hollywood and socialist nations.

Well, the market has some say at least ultimately in the msm and hollywood and evn eventually in the universities.

As for Europe, Cuba and China...

I'm inclined to trust Chertoff on this.  All I'm goping to say is that hatcheting the woman while she is on her honeymoon and is unable to defend herself speaks volumes about the class that her critics have.

ivy league ph. d.'s can think them up! And the most sheepskinned group in America are the most liberal. Case closed.

you are a christian

that's a compliment, and if you aren't take it as you are a good man charlie brown

How is it "hatcheting" her to say she's underqualified for the position, and that her selection is a sign of cronyism and/or a lack of interest in immigration enforcement?

If I were nominated tomorrow, I don't think it'd be an attack on me for people to say I'm totally unqualified for the job.

There are attacks on nominations, and there are attacks on nominees.  I see many people attacking this nomination.  Who's attacking the nominee?

than one who will deliberately undermine the efforts of the agents in the field to enforce law that the administration finds distasteful.

This sort of cheap shot just leaves me disgusted at the folks who are holding the hatchet - it certainly does not leave me more likely to agree with their views.

Blindsiding a woman with a hit job while she is on her honeymoon?  I'm sorry, only jerks and creeps would do that sort of thing.

Malkin cites her employment record, makes some irritable remarks, quotes some poor border patrolman  whose uneviable job is undermined by political leadership at every turn, links to some other skeptical analyses of her qualifications -- and this is a horrible hatchet-job? Come on.

Unable to respond to your (or Malkin's) criticism?

Sorry, that's hatcheting in my book.  It's the type of stunt pulled by some punk mugging an old woman in a back alley.

Why do you hate free speech so much?

I'm done in this diary I think.

You might understand why some of us think it is a hatchet-job.  The way this was done wasn't hoenst debate - it was a political mugging, plain and simple.

Real courageous to attack a woman who's on her honeymoon... /sarcasm

. . . and Malkin's multiple posts, but I was most persuaded by Streiff's post, which simply demonstrates for all her lack of qualification.

Is your desire to flee a reflection of your hatred of our free speech? can you imagine any speech freely uttered that you would find morarally repugnant enough to warrant hatred?

That anything can be said w/o fear of imprisonment, does not mean every imagineable thing should be said at anytime.

you may go now

but we will find you!

be cool bro

enjoy your passion and yes, the logic

eeek

In case you can't tell by the, well, heightened passion in my replies, this is getting me worked up.

It's getting me worked up in a way that I'm not particularly enjoying, either.

That's why I'm done in this diary.  I come here to have fun, and I'm not enjoying this discussion, unfortunately.

If you noted... they all came while she was on her honeymoon.

The woman has been politically mugged.

Before the rest of you start howling too loudly, I will concede that Michelle Malkin does invaluable, aggressive investigative work.  For example, Air Americascam wouldn't be nearly as well developed in the public eye without the efforts of her and Brian Maloney.  I concede that.

And, her advocacy on the issue of illegal immigration is important.

I'll also concede that Ms. Malkin has taken much more than her share of vitriol from the loonies and lowlifes on the blogosphere.

But there is such a thing as fair play.  IMO, Ms. Malkin is too eager to find witches and burn them.  Too quick to scapegoat.  Too willing to trash people.

It may be great for blogging business, but it's not good for fair and reasoned discourse.

All I'm asking is that, before her professional reputation is trashed:

1. The woman be allowed to finish her honeymoon.
   
   
2. She be given a reasonable opportunity to be interviewed, and speak in her defense.

Why is that too much to ask?

trashed as buffoons by the chattering classes: Lincoln, Reagan and Dubya come to mind.

And most all competent people are someone's "crony."

The mafia would testify for RFK and the whole nation for Washington's Hamilton, young west indian aide!

the head gets big

she is young too

maybe she needs a little paring down to size for humility

Myers, if she's qualified for the job, should be expected to demonstrate that.

As a human, though, she deserves a little fair play.  Something that, IMO, Malkin, K-Lo and the rest of the scapegoat crew at NRO are unwilling to give.

The manner in which the conservative blogosphere criticizes people DOES carry import.  It's important to be fair.  It's important to care about developing a reputation of being fair, and decent, and humane.

Or, it should be.

Where did it come out that Malkin or others waited until Ms. Myer's honeymoon to express their opposition?  It may be an incredibly unfortunate confluence of events, but I don't think that the folks at the National Review, Powerline, 9/11 Families for a Secure America or Ms. Malkin were plotting to wait until this woman went away.  It seems to me that the concern comes from her confirmation hearing and the realization that Ms. Myers does not meet the statutory requirements for the job.  No one set out to go after her while she was on her honeymoon, they went after her once the nomination reached a public threshhold.

I've been a bureaucrat, I've been a hill staffer, I know that some people on paper don't look as good as they are.  But I also know that when the law calls for someone with 5 years of experience in the field, there's usually a pretty good reason.

The Presidential Personnel office is not a rough and tumble managerial position.  It's a political patronage spot, pure and simple.  You have to balance the egos of the cabinet secretaries, their loyalists, and the available positions with the campaign staffers, volunteers, friends of friends, cousins of friends, nieces of friends of the Administration.  But it is not part of the same atmosphere of management and law enforcement that the statute requires.

And the inadequate response by the Bush Admin is part of the problem.  They've gotten lazy or arrogant, I don't care which.  But we have the right, the duty even, to challenge any and all nominations that require Senate confirmation.  This ain't beanbag, it's the operation of the executive branch of the government.  I don't want cronies and patsies in sensitive jobs, I want people that can meet the requirements, handle the pressure, and do a good job.  If the Bush Admin can't quickly respond to the qualifications of one of their nominees to a particular job, why the heck was she nominated in the first place?  I could understand if this was a deputy assistant to the undersecretary for lightbulbs, but this is a nomination for a massive component of an agency with billions in annual funding and 20 thousand staff.  This is the major leagues.

Ms. Myers shouldn't have to defend herself, nominees are usually prevented by protocol from saying anything, but the WH or the Sec of DHS should be pushing this hard if they think she passes muster.  But they can't just say 'trust us' that dog don't hunt.

are too easily built and populated.  People who wish to be seen as part of the "smart set" and "in the know" nod and agree with each other, and objectivity gets left behind as scrap.

I'm neither implicating anyone in particular nor necessarily exempting myself; rather, I'm just saying.

The WaPo story, printed on a Tuesday, said she'd gotten married the previous Saturday.  It then said that she'd been unavailable on the Monday after the wedding to comment on the WaPo's impending story, because she was on her honeymoon.

I will stipulate that I used as a baseline assumption in my diary, that a typical American adult would expect that, three days after their wedding, a typical American couple would NOT BE FINISHED WITH THEIR HONEYMOON!

Where did I say that Malkin and NRO and others in the conservative blogosphere were laying in wait, until Ms. Meyers honeymoon cruise ship sailed beyond the horizon, before opening fire? I didn't.

What I DID say was that, even though IT WAS OBVIOUS SHE WAS STILL ON HER HONEYMOON, they unloaded anyway!  Why then?  Why not wait until she returned?  Why not have the decency to let her enjoy what's supposed to be one of the most special moments in a person's life?  

Why couldn't Michelle Malkin have waited until she returned to interview her, or ask her for comment.  And, if she didn't have good answers, THEN fire away!

dplcleary, I said before that perhaps Ms. Myers' credentials weren't up to this job.  But, a sense of fair play mandates that we ask her side of the story before firing away.  And, a sense of decency mandates that we not trash a person's reputation at a time when WE ALL KNOW that they are unable to respond.

Is it Michelle Malkin and K-Lo's positions that Myers should have canceled her honeymoon the minute the WaPo story came out.

I think the WaPo did a slimy thing.  But,I expect that from them.

More importantly, I think the "Hang-Em-High" crowd in the conservative blogosphere did a WORSE thing, by pouncing when it did.

IMO, burning witches is what Michelle Malkin and K-Lo are good at.  I don't get the impression they're as concerned as they should be with determining whether the person tied to the stake indeed be a witch.

And I consider it an obvious fact that neither Malkin nor NRO cared one bit about whether Myers enjoyed her honeymoon.  Apparently those who displease Malkin and NRO do not deserve marital bliss.

You are, of course, entitled to your own sense of outrage at this.  But let's put a few things in persepctive.

Her confirmation hearing was held recently, and then she got married and went on her honeymoon.  The Washington Post, Malkin, NR, others questioned her qualifications AFTER the hearing, her wedding and honeymoon are irrelevant.

When someone is announced as a nominee to a Senate confirmed position, it is like they are muzzled.  They do not speak publicly about anything.  The White House and the relevant cabinet agency do all the talking, all the explaining, all the defending.  The nominee does not speak publicly for fear of saying the wrong thing, for fear of offending the senate, or for fear of mucking it all up and making the WH look even more incompetent.

As to whether folsk should wait until someone has returned from their honeymoon, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.  When folks have an objection to a nominee, they don't wait patiently on the sidelines until it is convenient for that person to respond to their complaints, criticisms, or concerns.  You have a concern, you voice it.

The administration, NOT MS. MYERS, is the entity charged with defending her nomination.  If she is so eminently qualified, why hasn't Chertoff come forward with a statement defending her qualifications explicitly?  Or, if he's too busy with Rita, where is his Deputy?  Where's the WH office of Presidential Personnel who make all of these decisions?  They should have been prepared from day One to defend her nomination.  Politics ain't beanbag, it's a contact sport and you have to be prepared for it, or you shouldn't be on the field.

I don't know if Ms. Myers is qualified or not, I tend to think that she is not and so I would encourage the WH to either aggressively defend her or withdraw her name.

There is an objective standard, established in law, as to what the nominee to the position must hold.  Objectively Ms. Myers does not meet that qualification.  Emotional appeals to the facts of her honeymoon or concerns about her marital bliss aren't an adequate response to the plain facts that one must have 5 years of management and law enforcement experience.

Bush could name Mickey Mouse to the  job, and some sycophants would rush to this thread to defend his choice.  These are the same  folks that love Hannity, and his ilk.

Conservative Republicans need to be rational and show objectivity to be winners.

As to whether folks should wait until someone has returned from their honeymoon, I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way

Says who? In this case, why couldn't it?  Did Obi-Wan Kenobi use the force on Malkin and K-Lo and the NRO chattering class and force them to tee off on Myers this week?

Is it your position that nominees to Federal positions do not deserve to enjoy their honeymoons?  If so, why?  

her wedding and honeymoon are irrelevant.

Why?  Says who?  Why couldn't Malkin wait one week to launch the blogswarm?  So what if someone else got out in front on the Julie Myers witchhunt?  There will be other witches to burn.

Emotional appeals to the facts of her honeymoon or concerns about her marital bliss aren't an adequate response to the plain facts that one must have 5 years of management and law enforcement experience.

That's a bit arrogant, don't you think?  And, it ignores my main point.  The decent thing would have been to wait until the woman returned from her honeymoon, give her a chance to respond, and then launch the blogswarm.

Of course, if you're indifferent to doing the decent thing, then the Myers affair turned out just fine.

Do you have kids?

This issue is not about whether or not Ms. Myers' husband happened to bring the sunscreen or not on their honeymoon.

Please read my previous posts and try to understand that it is not up to Ms. Myers to defend herself in this situation.

It is the Administration's job to defend their nominees.

It doesn't matter if Ms. Myers is on her honeymoon, on a vacation, or at her grandmother's deathbed.

She was nominated for a position of public trust.   She was nominated to a relatively important position that entails management of several billion in taxpayer funding each year and is responsible for the oversight of some 20,000 full-time employees.  This is not a fluff position that just anyone can do.  There is a statutory requirement that any and all nominees must meet.  It's a black and white criteria.  You must have 5 years in management and law enforcement experience.  Not you must have 'decent' or 'acceptable' or 'relevant' experience.  But you must have 5 years.  Period.

She had her confirmation hearing in front of the relevant Senate Committee.  The public, whether it be the media, the blogs, or Joe Smith on the street, has the right and the responsibility to question our political overlords.

That this has arisen at the time of her honeymoon is unfortunate for her, but not for the Administration.  THEY are the ones who should be defending her in her absence.  THEY are the ones who should be responding to the relevant concerns.  THEY are the ones who share a tremendous amount of the blame in this situation.

The fact that they don't have a decent response to the legitimate question of her experience indicates that they had no business nominating her at this time.

And, in all blunt honesty, I don't really care that she's on her honeymoon.  I've had to cancel expensive vacations because of the congressional calendar when I was on the hill.  When your bill, your issue, your portfolio is active, your schedule is not your own.  I've even had to come home early from a vacation when my bills suddenly were going to be moved on the floor.  I have also had friends schedule their weddings and honeymoons around the congressional calendar.  If you work in politics in this town, you know and learn the congressional recess schedule intimately.  It's part of the trade off.  Does it suck?  Sure.  But you get to influence the nation, help change the world for the better, and make some pretty awesome connections for your lafe, and career.

It's not arrogance on my part, Malkin's, NR's, or others to question her qualifications, regardless of where she personally happens to be at the time.  She didn't nominate herself to the job, the Administration did.  If they can't cogently or coherently describe why they think she's the best person for the job and why they feel that she meets the statutory requirements for the job, it's not even remotely relevant what Ms. Myers would say in her own defense.

As to whether or not I have kids, I completely fail to see how that's relevant.

The young lady may be the best thing to come into Government service in this lifetime.

But I doubt it.  And she has no more experience or credentials to run ICE than I have to take over as a 4 Star General next week.

I'm sorry as I can be that we can't be so tolerant and flexible right now, but this it too important of a job, and it's too sensitive of a position.

We got Alberto Gonzales in Justice, and he's wanting to take resources to pursue adult porn convictions.  Among other idiocies.

No more old buddies.  If they aren't qualified, I'm not down with them.  That includes her.

If GWB is trying his best to drive some of us out of the Republican Party, he couldn't do much better than some of his appointments have done to convince me that I'm worried about why I stick with it.

Yaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!

on HER honeymoon?  I can't believe you would.  And, I can't believe you'd have much respect for any commentator that launched a blogswarm on your daughter on her honeymoon.  IMO, you shouldn't.

dpcleary, I respect your passion.  I totally disagree that the fact Ms. Myers was on her honeymoon isn't relevant.  In my fuddy-duddy view of the world, it should have been.

And, I don't care if many in the MSM don't see it as relevant.  We should.  We should take the time to be decent.  Not pushovers, but decent.

It's not arrogance on my part, Malkin's, NR's, or others to question her qualifications, regardless of where she personally happens to be at the time.

Strawman alert! Anyone who read my original diary knows that I never said you couldn't question her credentials.  You should simply do it at a more fair time, and in a manner where she could defend herself.

Please read my previous posts and try to understand that it is not up to Ms. Myers to defend herself in this situation. It is the Administration's job to defend their nominees.

Ummm... cough cough cough!  How would Ms Myers enjoy her honeymoon while all this was going on?  And yes, dp, smagar the old fuddy-duddy believes that people on their honeymoon deserve a break.

As for saying it's the Administration's job to defend her, I don't see that as giving a commentator license to label someone a "crony" and a "hack" without them being around to defend themselves.  If I were to call you a "crony" and a "hack", wouldn't you expect the right to stick up for yourself?  Is it OK for me to strike at your reputation when you're incommunicado, and justify it by saying "well, your boss should have stuck up for you!"  Pretty weak, IMO.

From what I saw on the various conservative blogposts, Michelle Malkin was a, if not the, leading force in starting this blogswarm.  The decent thing would have been to wait a week, interview her, and then release the swarm.  And, there's nothing--except, perhaps, wanting the glory of being THE one to "take down" Julie Myers--that would have prevented them from waiting a few more days.

And, in all blunt honesty, I don't really care that she's on her honeymoon.  I've had to cancel expensive vacations because of the congressional calendar when I was on the hill.  When your bill, your issue, your portfolio is active, your schedule is not your own.  I've even had to come home early from a vacation when my bills suddenly were going to be moved on the floor.  I have also had friends schedule their weddings and honeymoons around the congressional calendar.  If you work in politics in this town, you know and learn the congressional recess schedule intimately.  It's part of the trade off.  Does it suck?  Sure.  But you get to influence the nation, help change the world for the better, and make some pretty awesome connections for your lafe, and career.

Who designated you to speak for Julie Myers?  Do you have a note from her parents?  Are you willing to look her parents in the eye and defend this blogswarm's timing as being right and proper?  Just because the political climate in Washington stinks doesn't mean that we have to stink along with it.

I'm afraid you and I will have to disagree on this, dpcleary.  You probably think I'm wishy-washy.  And, frankly, I think the views you've stated here are the views of a jerk.  You, yourself, might be a great guy.  But you wouldn't know it--again, IMO--from the opinions you've written here.

I'm sorry as I can be that we can't be so tolerant and flexible right now, but this it too important of a job, and it's too sensitive of a position.

So, you support following the WaPo off the cliff of class and decency by piling on the woman on her honeymoon?  Why couldn't we have waited a week?  Were you concerned she would jump off the cruise ship as it docked, sprint to her office, and start writing visas for terrorists?

Please stay on message.  Don't change the subject to "Was Julie Myers qualified?"  That wasn't the subject of my diary.  If you want to write on Myers' qualifications, please write your own diary.  If you want to comment on the one I wrote, and you wander off the thesis of my diary, you should expect me to point that out.

where I said that opinions such as the ones he was expressing were, IMO, those of a "jerk".  That language was too rude; I retract that particular adjective.

I still think his position on the issue is rather unfeeling, though.

Okay, I'll probably not respond to the personal attack, but then again I might.

First, walk through the vagaries of the nomination process.  Person gets nominated for a Presidentially appointed position that requires senate confirmation.  Person goes through and clears the FBI background check (this can take months or even over a year).  Person gets prepared by the appropriate agency and WH Office of Personnel for Senate confirmation hearings.  Person meets with staff of Senators on relevant committee, maybe even the Senators themselves (it depends on the import of the position, an Assistant Secretary may or may not get face time with the Senators).  Relevant Senate Committee schedules confirmation hearing which may, or may not, require live testimony by the nominee.

Once that Senate Committee is done, and they approve of the nomination, it goes to the Senate floor.  With the exception of Cabinet level positions, Supreme Court and some few appellate court seats, an ambassador or two, the Senate floor can move with lightning fast speed and clear the nominee quite quickly (of course, it can also move slower than molasses in January in a New Hampshire blizzard).

From the moment that Ms. Myers' confirmation hearing was over, it could have been less than a week and she would have been confirmed.

That she happened to get married and take her honeymoon shortly after her hearing is an unfortunate confluence of events.  But it is entirely rational, entirely reasonable, and entirely necessary for those who might oppose her nomination from moving forward to raise their objections as soon as they possibly can to prevent the Senate from moving forward on what would have otherwise been a routine nomination.

As I said before, the Senate moves nominations in a bizarre fashion that not even experienced Senate staff fully understand.  Individual Senators can place holds on nominees for totally unrelated matters, deals and trades happen all the time to get this batch of nominees moved forward in exchange for that bill being held or moved on a different track.  A senator may feel slighted by the WH or a Cabinet Secretary and will subsequently hold all nominations for that agency, or the WH may decide that one particular nomination is more important than 10 others and beg the Senate to move forward.

So when folks had legitimate objections and concerns about a nomination, they have no choice but to raise them as soon as they are aware of them or as soon as they think the process on that nomination has even the slightest chance of moving forward.

I am bothered by the level of vitriol being spewed in Ms. Myers' direction.  I think streiff and NR folks have handled themselves quite appropriately.  Malkin has gone over the top, I think.  The legitimate question is whether she meets the statutory requirements, not who she's related to, who her friends are, or whether she's got highlights (humor alert).

But it doesn't matter in the slightest where the nominee is at that point in time.  Whether she's on her honeymoon, whether she's at her office, whether she's helping clear debris from the latest hurricane.

I don't particularly care if you think I sound like a jerk for saying it, but this is life in Washington.  When  one comes to Washington DC to take a position of public trust, one recognizes that there are trade offs.  Sometimes your personal life is interfered with, sometimes it isn't.  If you don't like the trade offs, you find another line of work or another city to work in.

But I would defend the timing to Ms. Myers til I was blue in the face.  And I'd hope that she'd agree that the timing issue (and only the timing issue) is irrelevant.  If not, she doesn't understand how D.C. operates.  Again, I've had friends who had to plan their nuptials around the congressional calendar.  I've had to cancel vacations because of the scheduling of bills.  I've worked around the clock more times than I care to remember for different bills, and I've had weekends ruined by the need to finish negotiations and get legislation ready for the floor.

Maybe it's unfair, maybe it's not, but it is the reality of how Washington works, and indeed many other professional situations if my wife's experiences are common.  Is it unfortunate that the timing of this all happened as it did?  Yes, absolutely.  But to suggest that folks should sit idly by and wait patiently until she returned is just farcical.  Outside of a fortunate few that don't have to work for others or are dependent on other people's timelines, most people have to respond to outside pressures and deadlines.  You take time off and have either skilled colleagues or subordinates to pick up the slack or hope that things don't blow up in your absence.  If they blow up while you are gone, on your return you pick up the pieces, assess the damage, and try to right the ship.  But complaining that it's bad timing is just not relevant.  It may make one feel good, blow off some steam, but the reality of the situation is still there.

Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's a regional thing, who knows.  But I will stand by my original position that the timing is irrelevant and that the ultimate responsibility to defend Ms. Myers' nomination is the Administration that nominated her in the first place.

As a closing example: how many interviews, how many statements, how many press availabilities did John Bolton give to respond to the specific complaints when he was being attacked personally when he was nominated for the UN Ambassadorship?  

I haven't found any where John Bolton himself spoke.  The Administration defended him tooth and nail, but he was not allowed to speak for himself.

Just a thought to ponder.

See the end of this thread.

Thanks, but it wasn't really necessary.  I've been called many, many worse things than a jerk.  And that's just by the wife...