Conservabloggers On The Meirs Nomination
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Blogging, General Politics, Supreme CourtHeh.
Well, he’s finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.
And here’s The Anchoress on the right’s troubling elitism over the Meirs nod.
And I don’t know if I fully fault Bush for “splitting� this group. Some of this split has an element of (I am sorry to say it) elitist dismissiveness to it. Those of us who are dissenting and do not have Hugh Hewitt’s White House and Law School pedigree are being swatted away like annoying flies who really have no business opining at all - which means that any deepening of this rupture is the fault of the very creatures who are blaming it on Bush, as they seem blithely unaware of the damage done by their own overt lack of respect for “red state commoners� who disagree.We commoners expect insulting condescension from folks on the left who, in their “tolerant� sophistication, openly disdain the hicks. It has been an unpleasant surprise to see that same disdain from some on the right.
Ahhh…so you’ve finally found the elitists in your party, eh?
Welcome to my world Anchoress.
And Novak weighs in on the Meirs spin.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers’ intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the President’s father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no President ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers’ qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
Politely dull, eh?
Is that code for “not very bright?”
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 9th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging, General Politics, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 9th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Be careful with that “elitists” sword, my Democratic friend. It cuts both ways.
October 9th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Politely dull
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d take that as code for politely dull. Claiming someone is using words to mean something other than what they mean is an inept way of making an argument. And the more it’s done, the more difficult it becomes to have a conversation because you don’t have a clue what anyone is really saying. Words have meaning, it’s best to stick to them, unless you have proof they were meant some other way.
October 9th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
Cal, that’s exactly my point and that’s why I said “Welcome to my world.” Perhaps I’m missing your point.
And Tommy, you’re right, words do have meaning. That’s why I wondered aloud about politely dull. Cal can appreciate this. Dull is the opposite of sharp. And as defined in the OED, it means “Intellectually weak or obtuse; stupid.” And politely means “well mannered”. She could it be said she’s well mannered but stupid?
However, dull is also used to suggest somebody is boring. I don’t think questioning what this means is inept, especially since I’ve never seen those two words used together before.
Please, give a blogger a break.
October 9th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
“Welcome to my world” was interpreted on this end as “welcome to my world, where the elitists in your (GOP) party are obvious.” My bad.
October 9th, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Rereading it, I can understand how you could read into that. No worries.
October 10th, 2005 at 9:10 am
I just read it in a way that sounded like you were trying to say people said she wasn’t very bright, when in fact what they said was she was politely dull, which isn’t necessarily the same thing.