Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysToday I was diagnosed with a bulging disc. L4 left side, not herniated, not too severe. Obviously, cycling has played a part. A weak core and poor flexability have contributed also. But what is now obvious after my first prescribed physical therapy session is that my computer wokstation is ergo-tastically confunkulated. No wonder I've been avoiding reading blogs and posting... It's been contorting me. (I'm standing as I type, holding the keyboard with one hand, to avoid the worse position that the chair would force. Can't see the screen too well at this angle.)
Three weeks ago I was sent into spasms that had me on my back for almost a week, in a wheelchair, then a walker, then a cane. Woot! I was eating Vicodin like candy, but am off it now.
Eh, not much to report. I got home late. Wife and son managed the first wave of candy hunters. At some point, my toddler son answered the door with an exasperated "What now?" I only had to contend with a few groups of pre-teens. Not as many as last year, I would judge. We have candy left over. Maybe if we had been home around 5:00... but that's too horrible to contemplate.
I have seen the future of the Internet. And it is Tiki Bar TV. Four or five minutes of silliness, a gorgeous brunette, and a cocktail recipe, too. Watch everything, but especially episodes 6-9.
But I wonder. Can this enterprise endure into the winter months? I'm sipping on scotch, on account of the chill (temps here have dipped into the mid-60s). My rum supply is perilously low, my limes are overripe, and my mint is dead or dying. As an ex-monkey liked to say, for every drink, there is a season.. We're in brown liquor season now. Dark rum, I suppose, would suffice. As long as it is the proper dark rum. But, truth is, that's a stretch. It's whiskey season! Tiki that!
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women... of course! That's why we want a warrior. (Via No Left Turns)
Hey, we're putting the band back together.
A conservative who criticizes the right is guaranteed space in the New York Times.
Hugh, I love you. But you're just plain wrong.
I know you are no longer a Catholic, but the president is not the pope. He erred with the Miers nomination. Presidents make mistakes now and again. He has an opportunity to fix it with a nominee "in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." And I hope by now he understands just what in the hell that means.
We do not have the luxury to play these preposterous games.
What's worse than a bitter fight for a conservative nominee? GOP Senators having to grill a nominee to determine if she's conservative (and qualified). Now that's avoided.
What does Hugh think? Well, his website is down for the moment (either a lot of people wondered what he thought, or it's some sort of manifestation of his frustration), but he made it clear yesterday that he thought it would be politically devastating for the Republicans. I don't agree, but there's a lot of things falling apart.
Has it become impossible for a President to have a successful second term?
Update: Hugh says "She and the president deserved much better from his allies." Didn't his allies (and Miers) deserve much better from the President?
Is it just me or does it seem inapppropriate to have the gorgeous St. Cloud State Dance Team Babes dance to "Cherry Pie" by Warrant and "Centerfold" by J. Geils Band?
If the NCAA is going to piss and moan about teams with Injun names, shouldn't they also get their panties in a wad over sexist names like The Beavers? Especially the Lady Beavers?
Saw a t-shirt at the Mall of America the other day: "Minnesota Hookers, Work'em, don't Jerk'em". Would that explain why the Minnesota Vikings needed to import their skanks?
The best looking girls are at hockey games in Minnesota. Period.
Fraters boy Atomizer is coming up on one year of marriage. Since paper is the anniversary gift for one year, I told him to write his wife a check. He said a card would be appropriate. Both wrong?
What Would Wellstone! Do?
It is now nearly 24 hours since I heard the Northern Alliance guys singing the Wellstone! School Song, and I still cannot get it out of my head. I hate those guys, I really, really do.
My school is Wellstone
I go to Wellstone
I learn at Wellstone
I grow at Wellstone
My school is Wellstone
I go to Wellstone
And Wellstone is the school for me.
Now you can hate them too.
Great. The Vikings won. Yeah, that'll help. Whoopie.
Heard someone refer to the Twin Cities as the "Twitties." It amused me.
Song Lyrics, Anyone:
Cherry Pie (Warrant)
Cause she wanted me to feed her
So I mixed up the batter
And she licked the beater
I scream, you scream
We all scream for her
Don't even try
Cause you can't ignore her
She's my cherry pie
Cool drink of water
Such a sweet suprise
Tastes so good
Make a grown man cry
Sweet cherry pie
Oh yeah
She's my cherry pie
CENTERFOLD (J. Geils Band)
Does she walk? Does she talk?
Does she come complete?
My homeroom homeroom angel
Always pulled me from my seat
She was pure like snowflakes
No one could ever stain
The memory of my angel
Could never cause me pain
Years go by I\'m lookin\' through a girly magazine
And there\'s my homeroom angel on the pages in-between
CHORUS:
My blood runs cold
My memory has just been sold
My angel is the centerfold
Angel is the centerfold
(Repeat)
Slipped me notes under the desk
While I was thinkin\' about her dress
I was shy I turned away
Before she caught my eye
I was shakin\' in my shoes
Whenever she flashed those baby-blues
Something had a hold on me
When angel passed close by
Those soft and fuzzy sweaters
Too magical to touch
Too see her in that negligee
Is really just too much
CHORUS
It\'s okay I understand
This ain\'t no never-never land
I hope that when this issue\'s gone
I\'ll see you when your clothes are on
Take you car, Yes we will
We\'ll take your car and drive it
We\'ll take it to a motel room
And take \'em off in private
A part of me has just been ripped
The pages from my mind are stripped
Oh no, I can\'t deny it
Oh yea, I guess I gotta buy it!
Hurricane season 2005 is God's vengeance for "Revenge of the Sith." Discuss.
You are not All That. Nor are you a Bag of Chips. Discuss.
If you're going to stick a shiv in a man, the honorable way is to look straight in his eyes when you do it. Discuss.
Hip-hop is indefensible. I have no link. The thought occurred to me after enduring nearly four hours of the stuff at a party last night. Indefensible! More indefensible than 12-tone composition! More indefensible than free jazz! More indefensible than Yanni!
Comment all you like. You'll still be wrong. Unless, of course, you agree with me.
Undoubtedly the most enjoyable and rewarding event of my short vacation was attending trivia night at Keegan's in Minneapolis at the invitation of the gang from Fraters Libertas.
Unfortunately, The Elder, St. Paul and Atomizer, knowing what a drag I would be on their team, banned me from playing with them. Instead, in a remarkable exhibition of familial disloyalty, Atomizer stuck his Dad with me as a teammate. Yes, Atomizer really is a ruthless bastard.
Fortunately, like a couple of stray cats, we were graciously taken in by the kindly Mitch Berg, a true gentleman, if not a musical genius. Can you believe that D.J. extraordinaire Mitch Berg did not know the lyrics to Donovan's "Mellow Yellow"? Good lord. We could've won!!*
And in keeping with the true spirit of Minnesota, my team - no thanks to me - came in second. Sadly, the giggly frat guys came in first. Again. Poor Mitch Berg. Much as he dislikes the Vikings, he is becoming the Minnesota Vikings of trivia. Perpetually coming in second. Sorry Mitch, but you have only yourself to blame. That you, of a ll people, would not know the lyrics to
Also met Doug from Bogus Gold and Leo from Psycmeistr's Ice Palace. Didn't get a chance to ask about that blog name.
And finally, of course, there was Jo, formerly of Jo's Attic, who turned me on to the best breakfast place in the world, Hell's Kitchen in downtown Minneapolis. She claims to make the best Bloody Mary in the world (something about pickle juice!). Hopefully, I will get her recipe. And Jordan, you need to try the porridge and the sausage bread. I'm tired of asking you about it. (And you need to start blogging again).
Anyway, thanks to everyone for being so nice - even the giggly frat boys who wanted nothing to do with me during the trivia contest. And Keegan's is highly recommended. Terry Keegan runs a good pub, staffed with good people.
*Failed By Mitch Berg
One of the questions asked us to name the next line in a song:
I'm just mad about Saffron,
Saffron's mad about me
Yes, we all recongnize "Mellow Yellow" by Donovan. One would think that a professional radio guy would know this! But, nooooooo! What a disappointment, Mitch.
Unfortunately for our team, Atomizer's Dad did know the correct answer. Not the answer the "quiz master" said was correct, but the correct answer. And we did not listen. Well, not we. Me. Damn, I suck.
What is the next line you ask? It's a repeat of the previous two lines. It is not
They call me mellow yellow
Even without taking into account the repeated line, the next line would be
They call me mellow yellow Quite rightly
We was robbed!!!!!!! Robbed I tells ya!!
Today I made my annual pilgrimage to the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, in Eveleth, Minnesota. (Yes, that's a real town, I don't type with a lisp.)
Closed.
Again.
For the second year in a row.
Last year, the day after a two page write up in the Pioneer Press, they closed for no reason.
This year, during the "off season" they are now only open Friday - Sunday.
What is the "off season" for the Hockey Hall of Fame?
Why, it's Hockey season, of course.
Go figure.
"Watchmen" is the greatest graphic novel of all time. Discuss.
Coldplay is the most overrated band ever. More overrated than Radiohead and Nirvana even. Discuss.
John McCain is the next President of the United States. Discuss.
So the big news while I am vacationing in Minnesota is the Minnesota Viking Sex Cruise.
These folks need to get out more. Hell, this was nothing more than a Tuesday night at Dennis Rodman's house when he was with the Lakers. And lets not get started with Kobe.
The chattering classes here are up in arms over the scandal. However, my unscientific survey of one waitress at Keys Cafe tells me that the people really don't care.
They are millionaire professional atheletes in the 20's and 30's.
Sex? Hookers? Umm, yes.
Your point?
But the highlight of the whole "scandal" is Chad the Elder from Fraters Libertas on Northern Alliance Radio saying
"The local skanks aren't good enough."
Classic.
An open letter to the guy sitting behind me tonight at the Minnesota Wild game:
SHUT THE F**K UP!
Dude. If you have an opinion about every rule, every rule change, the changes to the game, etc., for three solid hours, they are probably all wrong. Every damn one of them.
And your political opinions are even less informed. Putz.
1) "All Wood and Stones," by John Batdorf and James Lee Stanley
2) "Cream: Live at Royal Albert Hall," by Cream
3) "Guitar Noir," by the Aqua Velvets
4) "Positively 12 Stiff Dylans!" by Nob Dylan and His Nobsoletes
5) "Hefty Fine," by The Bloodhound Gang
6) "Suspicious Activity?" by The Bad Plus
1) I Predict a Riot by Kaiser Chiefs
2) Beautiful by Clem Snide
3) Revolution Blues by The Waco Brothers
4) Black Is Beautiful by Roy Budd
5) Apple Tree by Wolfmother
6) First Wave Intact by The Secret Machines
7) I'm Against It by The Ramones
8) Nesbitt's Lime Soda Song by Negativland
9) F.U.N. Song by Spongebob Squarepants
10) The Cool People Know Who the Cool People Are by The Clint Boon Experience
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Billboard.
(Any political implications in this list -- e.g., metaphors for the Miers nomination -- are purely coincidental.)
Or, perhaps not.
Maybe it's just because I'm married to a Swede, but when I read a headline that says, "Allegations of Vikings sexual misconduct aboard boats," I'm assuming it's a re-print from 1100 years ago.
UPDATE: More Viking misconduct
Ahhhh, the original. Don't tell Jimmy Page or his lawyers.
Listen to this. And bear in mind, Lileks is trashed, and I am trashed, and you are trashed when you hear it. Listen to Berlioz, you brutes, and despair.
Hey, Hugh? You are totally wrong about Harriet Miers. Don't be such a hack.
Went to the bookstore tonight with the Little Monkey. He wanted a muffin from the coffee shop, but they didn't have muffins on display (they were in the back), so he got a chocolate chip cookie instead. He was reasonably happy with the choice. Little Monkey likes the bookstore, I think. He likes the kids' section, even though I think much of the selection is dreck. But, at least he's interested in reading.
Read me a story, he said. And I did. It was a commercial tale about a chicken that is little. I think a movie is coming out. He asked me to read it again. Of course I did. What else would I do?
Read me another story, he said. And I did. It had something to do with dinosaurs, I think. What do dinosaurs eat? Depending on the dinosaur, the answer is a) plants or b) other dinosaurs. But I think the answer in this book was c) filet mignon with a bearnaise sauce, oven roasted new potatoes, and baby asparagus, washed down with a nice pinot noir. Or maybe cabernet savignon. I don't remember. Anyway, he asked me to read it again. Which I did.
Read me another story, he said. And I did. But I confess, I was getting a bit impatient. Sure, I can read just fine. And sure, he can barely read a word. But why should I do all the reading? So I finished reading this dopey adaptation of the newest Lilo and Stitch movie ("Stitch has a Glitch" -- it's called a franchise that has outlived its usefulness), and I said:
"Read me a story."
"But I don't know how," Little Monkey replied. Well, I wouldn't expect that he would. He's barely three, and apart from his A-B-C's, cannot read a word.
"OK," I said. "Don't read to me. Tell me a story." I pointed to the book. "Tell me this story."
And so, I pointed to the pages. And little by little, he told me what was happening. Some of it had to do with the story, some of it was simply his own imagination.
I find fatherhood to be excruciatingly difficult. First, it demands patience. I have little. Second, it demands wisdom. I have some, but barely enough. Third, it requires temperance and fortitude. I can fake that much, some of the time. The boy is fiercely independent, like his mother. He wants to do everything on his own. He's fearless. Good for him. It forces me to reassess my limits. He is not me, and thank God for that. He's willful. It drives me crazy some days. But then I imagine what he'll be like when he's 20, and I think he will be cunning and resourceful and probably make out pretty well.
I think he will have a lot of good stories to tell his old man some day. Can't wait.
University of Texas Law Professor Lino Graglia on the Hewitt show Monday:
I think Constitutional law is nothing but an expression of the judge's preferences, and [Miers] can do that absolutely as well as anyone else. Now whether she's a Scalia and a Thomas in the sense of being restrained is uncertain. We don't know much about her, but we don't know much, really, about anything.
Nope, nothing at all. That, friends, is about the nicest summation of right-wing nihilism you will ever find. Read it a couple of times to get the full flavor. Graglia is refreshing that way. Totally, utterly, dangerously wrong, but refreshing all the same. By all means, read the whole thing. Incidentally, Hugh put Graglia on the air to make the case for Miers.
...is like a day without sunshine. What in the world would Cheney do?
I hope the link to the Wall Street Journal story still works in the next day or so. I don't know who is responsible for it, but the story almost reads like a Rove plant. Really. "Mr. Rove is the administration's indispensable man, the connective tissue between the policies and constituencies needed to win elections and govern." There is no such thing as an indispensible man. Let no one question Karl Rove's talent, and his particular genius. But if Rove were hit by a bus tomorrow, the Republic would survive. Hell, even the Bush presidency would endure. Given some of Rove's questionable advice, the administration might even prosper.
Ah, who am I kidding? If Rove goes, we're as good as dead.
Ever the loyalist, Hugh Hewitt today mounts a vigorous defense of Supreme Court nominee Miers. For me, it fails on a few points.
First, Hugh's support of Miers is lacking on the substantive issues of concern to conservatives. Why? Simple. He does not know her views. Except of course, for her apparent life-long support of affirmative action, from her days on the Dallas City Council, to her apparently convincing the White House to support it before the Supreme Court in Gutter. Her activism and leadership of the Texas Bar Ass'n, and her apparent disdain for the Federalist Society. Other than that . . . ?
Second, Hugh's anti-elitist defense of the so-called "not smart enough" argument really misses the point. Nobody knows how smart she is. That's the problem. She has no record to speak of. And after years of hearing from Hugh how important it was to go to the right law schools and have the right credentials, suddenly we are now told that none of that matters? I tend to agree with this sentiment, but then other than a simple "trust me" how are we to judge.
But on the "smart enough" issue, AnonyMonkey posts a link to her writings. John Podhoretz at NRO is really not impressed.
Maybe most importantly, assuming she is a reliable "vote" on the Court (and shouldn't we want more?), is she strong enough to resist the pressure to "grow" in office? Is she a strong leader with firm convictions? Don't know.
Finally, Hugh argues that Miers' religious faith is reason to support her. He then casually dismisses the concern that supporting a nominee because of her faith after condemning quite forcefully the opposition to other nominees (Pryor?) based on their faith smacks of hypocrisy as an "embarrassment to grade schoolers everywhere."
Not sure I get that. Maybe someone smarter than me can explain it. Is there a religious test? If we actively support a nominee because of his or her faith, does that mean the Left cannot oppose that nominee on the same grounds? Like I said, I don't get it.
The other day, I said we should take a breather from the Miers debate. "We need to read what she's written. We need her speeches." Thanks to Southern Methodist University and University of Michigan Law School (via Beldar), we have some Miers to read.
I haven't read everything yet. The Texas Bar Association stuff is cliched and not-too-insightful, which is about what one would expect from an institutional newsletter. I haven't dug into the briefs yet. Ugh.
I sure hope her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is better than what little of her previous writings I've seen so far. But don't take this anonymous ape's word for it. Please, click on the links and read -- and enjoy! -- for yourself.
Also, here is a useful summary of the arguments for and against the Miers nomination so far.
The 2008 presidential election is more than three years away, but it's never too early to start handicapping the race. I was a Ronnie James Dio man in '04, and I had hoped he would build on the success of his last campaign in '08. Evidently not.
With Dio out, I am looking seriously at Christopher Walken. His "more cowbell" platform appeals to me. But I could easily see myself voting for Zod.
Hmmm. Perhaps this offers some sort of elliptical explanation of the Meirs nomination.
(i.e. the guy's nuttier than Oral Roberts)
Dennis Prager mentioned today on his show that he has a pretty tight buttocks.
Dennis Prager?
Tight buttocks?
I really didn't need to hear that.
I think all that can be said about Harriett Miers right now has been said. Now, we need to hear from the nominee. We need to read what she's written. We need her speeches. We need to listen closely to her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And then we judge. Maybe she acquits herself. Maybe conservatives immolate themselves. Who knows? But until I see something new from the nominee herself, I'm done with the Miers debate.
In my professional life, I've had the soles of my feet pummelled by cruel Asian gentlemen in an effort to purge my copy -- and my mind -- of cliched thinking.
Truth be told, it hasn't worked.
But I have acquired a visceral loathing for certain buzzwords and hackneyed phrases. One of them comes up every election year, and it's come up again with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Maybe it bothers you, too: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
On Betsy's Page today (via Hugh Hewitt):
One of my favorite expressions is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Bush isn't perfect, but, for a conservative such as myself, he sure is a helluva lot better than his opponents in 2000 and 2004. Just envision the type of person that a President Kerry would have nominated after Rehnquist's passing. When you're done shuddering, suddenly Harriet Miers doesn't seem so terrible.
By that standard, Betsy, any Bush pick would demand conservative approval, right? After all, President Kerry's pick would be much, much worse. Julie Myers to head ICE? Check. Thomas Quinn and his idiotic dress codes at the Federal Air Marshals? Check. "Brownie"? Check and mate.
And in the venerable Chicago Tribune on Tuesday:
in his second nomination to the Supreme Court, Bush showed a rare pragmatic side. The calculus seemed to be that Miers would prove conservative enough to keep his base quiescent, if not happy, and yet not so conservative, at least in any readily discernible way, to warrant a full-scale war with the Democrats. This was Bush as Americans have rarely seen him, in effect saying, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." For a number of prominent conservatives, "good" was not sufficient.
Right, not good enough. I've been reading as much of the debate in conservative circles as I can. I think I can sum up the general disappointment this way: Miers is an opportunity wasted.
Let's assume for a moment that everything the pro-Miers side says is true: she's a smart lawyer, a virtuous woman, "a nominee who understands real people", a born-again Christian conservative, and a public official with "a record of achievement in the law, as well as experience as an elected member of the Dallas City Council" who has "served at high levels of both state and federal government."
With certain caveats (i.e., the Dallas City Council thing), couldn't that be said of many government functionaries of either sex?
A Supreme Court nominee doesn't come along very often. Every American understands that the Supreme Court is something special. A lifetime appointment! Bush has been given two chances to transform the culture of the judiciary for a generation, to elevate someone to the High Court who truly understands the promise and the limits of the Constitution. He may not get another chance.
Worse -- worse? Well, maybe worse -- the President insults our intelligence: "I picked the best person I could find." Where? In the Oval Office waiting room? In the West Wing?
The Democrats understand very well what they're arguing against. Do Republican loyalists understand what they're arguing for?
I don't know. But I do know this: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is not an argument. It's an excuse.
The Supreme Court is not the United States Senate, and supporting Harriet Miers simply because she will be a reliable vote on the Court is not enough. I would hope that a Supreme Court Justice would have a powerful intellect. One which can lead and persuade. Who can convince people with the force of his or her opinion that the decision is right and just.
(Wow. 5-3 Angels.)
David Frum (National Review Online) gets close to explaining this, albeit a little too harshly:
And she will remain not good enough even if she votes the right way on the court, or anyway starts out voting the right way. A Supreme Court justice is more than just a vote. A justice is also a voice.
The most important thing for the Miers supporters (Hugh?) to remember is that this is not really about Miers at all. It is about who else was available on the bench to be called up. There is a strong conservative judicial bench to choose from. Yes, Frum says she is not good enough. (Hopefully he turns out to be wrong.) But the real argument is that Bush could've chosen a constitutional scholar (Luttig? McConnell?) from among the known rather than the unknown. He didn't.
The strongest argument I've heard (I can't remember where right now.) for Ms. Miers is that she has been at Bush's side during the War on Terror, and she won't side with the ACLU-types to turn terrorists back out onto the street. I hope for the best from Ms. Miers. As I'm sure most of us do. But I just cannot help but feel that we are "settling" for second best.
(Cool. Hockey's back. Except for that punk thug Bertuzzi.)
I'd like to dissent with my fellow monkeys. I'd like to, because I enjoy it, but in this case I cannot. I've come to the conclusion that Miers is a terrible, terrible choice. If she fails to be confirmed, she sets a devastating precedent. And if she is confirmed, she sets a devastating precedent. We need to get away from "Borking," and stop forcing nominees to have virtually no record of brilliant legal thought.
I particularly liked Randy Barnett's take in OpinionJournal.com, that Alexander Hamilton would hate this nomination. It is a perversion of the whole process in many ways, and while the President may not be to blame for what the process has become, he certainly is to blame for giving in to it.
I'm a bit amused by the commentators on the left who say that this nomination shows Bush is weak politically, because had he nominated a very conservative justice, they would have claimed that that showed weakness because he needed to shore up his base and throw red meat to the conservatives. But they are right this time: this nominiation was a sign of weakness: weakness of politics, weakness of judgment and weakness of leadership. It's a terrible time to have a weak President, and I expected better.
Hugh Hewitt is a good man. One of the best I've ever known. His greatest virtue is also his greatest weakness: Loyalty. That's something he has in common with President George W. Bush. Loyalty is a great thing. But it isn't the only thing. And there is a fine line between loyalty and gullibility.
I'm pessimistically optimistic about Harriet Miers. That is to say, I don't know enough about her to condemn her or endorse her. And that's coming from a fellow who goes by a nom de plume of "Anonymonkey." So take this for what it's worth, right?
Not knowing enough is an odd thing to say on this end of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, low as we may be on the food chain. Remember when Bush the Elder nominated Clarence Thomas? He was a known quantity within certain circles. And so, those who knew could feel confident that Thomas would be a fine Justice. Indeed he has been. And will continue to be.
It's different now, isn't it? With the blogosphere and all that? I found it interesting that within two hours of the Miers announcement, I had received two e-mails from the GOP defending the nominee against vague "myths." Yet I hadn't seen a word -- not one word -- from the usual suspects. (They've since caught up.) Isn't that odd? Miers's name was in the news last week. Why weren't the interest groups ready?
That's what bothers me about this whole thing. We -- and by "we" I mean the people who actually follow this stuff, Left and Right -- tend to "misunderestimate" President Bush. (Sorry, Ken: Guilt by association don't cut no ice with us.) But who the hell is Harriet Miers? Is she supposed to be the evangelical justice? Is that any more appropriate than the woman justice? Or the Hispanic justice? I don't think so. I don't buy any of the diversity nonsense. Truth is, I don't buy most of the excuses for Miers.
This is serious business. Too serious for risk taking. So I think it's a weak pick. And I think that Bush made a mistake picking her. Because if a real opposition takes hold -- hey, why not? -- and Miers is voted down, then his presidency is exposed as impotent. That is not good for a president in the middle of a war.
I'm a big fan of Hugh Hewitt. Listen every day when I can, and I generally agree with his philosophy that you must win elections first. Which means that as unhappy as some of us might be about Harriet Miers, nobody can say with a straight face that Ralph Neas picking judges for John Kerry would have been better. And that was the only alternative to voting for "W."
But damn, is Hugh in the tank for Harriet or what? Jesus, how much water can he carry? Look, he's right about winning elections. He's right that staying at home or casting protest vote guarantees only defeat. That's not a strategy. (Jesus. 4-0 Yankees already? Bastards.)
But at some point, a conservative has to scratch his head and wonder WTF? Spending is through the roof. Campaigh finance "reform"? And notwithstanding the fact that a substantial majority of Americans want tougher border enforcement, he proposes what amounts to an amnesty.
And now a stealth nominee? Great way to keep conservatives enthusiastic. Professor Bainbridge said it best. She's an establishment lawyer and a devotee of the very liberal American Bar Association. That's not stealth. That's a slap in the face.
Finally, listening to Hugh criticize National Review Online as being a bunch of elitists for questioning Miers' credentials should make everyone raise an eye-brow or two (or a unabrow if you're a conservative troglodyte like me). Anyone who has listened to Hugh has to know that if nothing else he has always been all about credentials. I remember him criticizing a Clinton appointee for going to a "second tier" law school and working for the government!!!
Now, we get someone who went to such a school nominated to the Supremes, and suddenly for NRO to notice her credentials is elitist? Come on, Hugh. You can do better than that. If you want to change the rules, at least admit you're doing so.
Harriet Miers? Who saw that coming?
With all the flack over Bush's appointment of "Brownie" to FEMA (and Julie Myers nomination to ICE), you'd think he or the "Genius" Karl Rove would realize that the nomination of a Bush crony might not be the best idea now. One would also expect that the "Genius" Karl Rove would recognize that the conservative base is getting a little antsy right now as well. And that this base is, at least for now, what is left of Bush's support.
So in return for their support, what do conservatives get? A stealth nominee?
Ever the Bush loyalist, Hugh Hewitt thinks she is a fine pick. Maybe. But why nominate someone we have to take on faith? Bush needed to fire the base up. Instead he pissed it off. For now this nomination looks like a wet blanket on conservative hopes.
Good move, "Genius."
J.B. wants examples of rock songs "that are even 10% as right on in terms of a worldview as" some country song he likes. Now, in the first place, if correct lyrics are all that matters, you could just listen to Gregorian chants all day, like ex-Monkey Ben does. But there are plenty of examples of rock songs with true lyrics. For example, Oingo Boingo's Capitalism (unfortunately Elfman took the lyrics to heart, and ended the band to focus on lucrative movie scores). And, yes, plenty of U2 songs (OK, the religious ones, not the political ones). And I'm sure ex-Monkey Ben could take a break from the chants to mention some Rush songs...