Tuesday, October 11


Scott Johnson of "Power Line" respectfully points to the divergence of opinion over the Miers' nomination among him and his two Powerline colleagues, John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff, and writes the following:

As an observer and advocate of conservative causes, however, for me the question of whether Miers should be confirmed is less of interest than the question whether her nomination is a blunder. I think it is a blunder of major proportions.

I have been struck by the poor quality of the arguments on her behalf emanating from the White House and its spokesmen on the nomination. The whole "elitist" theme that has been used to attack her critics strikes me as an ad hominem response of the digging-yourself-more-deeply-into-a-hole variety. The problem for the White House is that, on the merits -- the merits that matter to conservatives like me -- President Bush is more or less left with the "trust me" non-argument. For me, it isn't good enough.

For me neither and I have similarly commented on the lamentable use of ad hominem attacks, as has the well-respected "Patterico,"albeit he failed in this post to decry the cheap shots his blogging mentor and sponsor has been engaging in in his tenacious support of Bush's nominee.

Credit Scott Johnson and the well-regarded "Power Line" triumvirate with demonstrating that conservatives can disagree in a respectful manner without resorting to name-calling and pejorative assaults on those who articulate contrary opinions.