Tuesday, October 4


Well, if this just doesn't take all. Hugh Hewitt doesn't just go up the baseball bat in elevating the pejorative descriptions being applied by some on the right side of the blogosphere to conservative Republican counterparts, like myself, who are disappointed, sorely disappointed, incensed, or thoroughly mystified over the president's selection of Harriet Miers as his nominee to replace Sanda Day O'Conner's seat on the United States Supreme Court. No, Hugh Hewitt grabs the baseball bat and beats us over the head with it telling us that we're guilty of a DailyKos-like refusal to confront arguments in favor of the nomination.

I have a high regard for Mr. Hewitt. I read him avidly, his site is in my blogroll, I periodically link to him, I've read his book, "Blog," and I even wrote (and he published at his site) a favorable review of his well-regarded opus. And I've recommended his radio program to friends and family in southern California. More often than not, I'm in agreement with his points of view. But this characterization is below the belt and unwarranted; and given his reigning influence in the center-right pantheon of big-readership blogs, it is this sort of nasty hyperbole that could set off an internecine battle among conservatives that is entirely misplaced and could do harm. This is one member of the Hewitt-described "tail of the blogosphere" who isn't going to sit idly by and take that kind of insult on the chin.

DailyKos-like refusal -- he might just as well have called me and others a Kennedy-like cabal of Bush-haters. Bad enough we're being told we're caught up in the grip of mass hysteria simply because we're astonished that President Bush would not draw a name from a list of highly-regarded conservative jurists with stellar legal minds well-known to us. And so what if they would be anathema to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and the New York Times?

Ironic, isn't it, that the same bloggers who see virtue in the president avoiding a pitched battle with progressive-secularists in the United States Senate show no compunction about taking it to members of their own fraternity when they think they command the intellectual high ground and the rest of us are just emotions-driven nitwits in need of a good dose of patronizing acerbity.

Hugh Hewitt would do well to re-read his own counsel:

The center-right blogosphere is best served if it stays far away from that cliff where mockery substitutes for argument.

The president in selecting Harriet Miers wants to march to the beat of his own drum, as if his slowly unraveling base wasn't there for him in the nip-and-tuck election of 2000 and the thriller-in-Ohio of 2004. And we're just supposed to sit back on our hands and put any judgements and commentary in abeyance until we see how the Harry Reid-blessed nominee turns out down the road.

Well, as General McAuliffe's message read to the Germans when they called for the American Army's surrender at Bastogne: Nuts!

FOLLOW-UP: John Hawkins of "Right Wing News" makes some excellent points in this post in response to Hugh Hewitt's defense of the Harriet Miers nomination.

FOLLOW-UP II: How ironic to find another reference (read through the entire post) to the Battle of Bastogne in the context of a reaction to the Miers' nomination. This is a well-thought post.

FOLLOW-UP III: Professor Bainbridge takes issue with Hugh Hewitt's defense of President Bush's selection in this post (H/T Michelle Malkin).