Sadie Hawkins day on cable

Well, it was an interesting day on cable Sunday. On Reliable Sources, we saw the right going after the right over Harriet Miers and we saw the left going after the paper of the left on Judy Miller. Echo chamber? What echo chamber? Echo chamber? What echo chamber?

I apparently pissed off a few of my liberal goombas when I said that the Democrats have some answering to do for their cynical acceptance of Miers and here’s what I said in response to them on their blogs:

We all know that Miers is not qualified and for Democrats to say we’ll take her anyway is essentially a cynical and even irresponsible act. If he nominated Madonna, would you say, well, OK, it could be worse? Or should we demand better of Bush. I hope we still stand for quality. And I don’t care whom that irritates.

The real issue here is that Bush put up a crony and a fool and tried to make fools of all of us and we ignore that stand at our own peril.

Meanwhile, Hinderaker was going after the right for going after the right’s leader and his candidate. We should have just sat back and watched them eat their young.

  • Angelos

    Assmissile and the rest of the gang have never met a “fact” they couldn’t make up out of thin air. Blog of the Year baby!!!!! C’mon, wingers are too stupid to know when they’re being lied to. How do you think Rush and Bill have made so much money? It’s an act! It’s easy to rouse the winger rabble, because they just don’t know any better.

    Oh, and by the way: “The CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of documents on African uranium that started the investigation, according to NAT0 intelligence sources.”

    Is this the liberal media’s fault too?

    Look, the Republicans control the WH and Congress. They’ve tried exactly ONE decent thing in 5 years, and they failed at that (Afghanistan).

    Everything wrong with the country is THEIR FAULT and THEIR DOING. And they still try to pull the victim routine. Enough. Meirs is a joke. Yes, it’s fun to watch the right implode on itself. But that doesn’t mean Democrats should support an incompetent fool just because the winger don’t like her. Doesn’t anyone thing that the person appointed to the Supreme Court should be, um, I don’t know, a JUDGE? That can pay her bills on time?

    They’ve already turned on Bush:
    That was fast. Last month, George W. Bush was the leader of the conservative movement. This month, he’s a traitor. “I don’t think that Bush was ever one of us,” says Bruce Bartlett, the conservative columnist and former Reagan and Bush 41 official. “And conservatives knew that. He was the anointed one. You can tell if someone is really part of your movement or not or whether he’s someone from the outside. He’s never said or written anything that would lead one to believe he has any clue what movement conservatism is all about. You were stuck with what you had, and I think conservatives made the best of it.”

    Bartlett, who is writing a book about Bush’s betrayal of conservatives, was a critic before it became cool. Now, of course, his bandwagon is getting very crowded. “Bush was not the second coming of Ronald Reagan,” says former Bush speechwriter David Frum, whose memoir about serving the president is called The Right Man but who is now one of the rebel leaders of the anti-Harriet Miers campaign. “He was a new thing. Every conservative knew he was a blend and was going to reach out to new constituencies. What the old coalition was going to get was a tax cut and judges. … But the tax cut has turned out not to be a very valuable thing. Because of the deficits, this tax cut is not going to be permanent. Now here [with Miers] is the other most important thing he was going to do for conservatives, and he didn’t do it.”

    He’s now officially “not one of them.” Excellent. Well, at 39% and dropping, you figured the base had to drop out too.

    Bury them. For good.

  • I feel vindicated, except that not many on the left understand this even now: the Miers flap brightlines the fact that Bush is a fairly liberal conservative, and has been from day one. The loud braying from the left that this is the most right-wing extremist administration of all time is just utter nonsense.

    Bush truly administered as a man who wanted to unite and not divide (again, to the contrary of partisan braying). From his initial campaigning as a “compassionate conservative” (in other words, a conservative with liberal tendencies) to trying to include liberals in initiatives to his protection and support of the Clintons was simply balanced by a stronger drive (than his father) to support the right where he agreed with them: taxes, etc.

    This was no secret on the right, but Bush never dodged left on an issue that was so important to the right until now. He seems to be guilty of “misunderestimating” himself, for once.

    This is also why for *years* the charge from the left that Bush supporters are some kind of Kool-Aid drinkers has also been utter nonsense. A more liberal conservative like me is pleased with most of Bush’s policies (and gets the honor of being called “extremist wingnut” by truly extreme over-the-cliff leftists) while the more *truly* rightwing end of the party is not quite so hate-filled and resistant to smatterings of liberalism as fringe leftists believe. A more right-wing politician like Newt Gingrich doesn’t even believe in *destroying* welfare so much as reforming it and making it a more sensible deal. The cabal, on the other hand, would like nothing better than to utterly destroy everything conservatives and roughly 50% of the country believes in.

    When the right vehemently defended Bush, it tended to be on those very issues that were important to them. In other words, it was never Bush per se being defended, but the shared pursuit of those particular visions. He’s not going to be thrown overboard by the right, but it is right and proper that they make their unhappiness known on this one issue that they have worked so hard and long for. And it is of course a big reason for the extreme low polling numbers; it is the very “Kool-Aid drinkers” that the left imagines supporting Bush at every turn who are mad right now — and they are just plain nuts if they think that this will somehow morph into support for a *more* left-wing politician.

    The “most extreme right-wing government” at least in modern US history remains the Reagan administration.

  • BTW, a far more extremist right-wing figure than soft-right Bush is Pat Buchanan, who is an isolationist and has long hated the squishy Bush family. The dovetailing between him and the fringe left proves that the political spectrum doesn’t just run from one end to the other, but makes a complete circle; at some point, right and left wing paranoia and hate meet and become relatively indistinguishable from one another. This is why the left sometimes mistake hatemonger liberals like Fred Phelps for right-wingers; when it comes to hate and paranoia, the needle drops straight down.

    This is also why there are so many “wingnuts” commenting on Democratic/centrist Jeff Jarvis’ blog. Many of the right wingers here are actually far closer to the political center than some of the extreme leftists who scream at Jeff Jarvis for being a traitor. This makes Jeff Jarvis something of a rare beast for them; someone on the left who can actually defend liberal ideas in a relatively sensible and thoughtful manner, instead of merely ranting obscenities and evading logic and reason like the 13-year olds Atrios and Kos.

    I don’t think the “wingnuts” agree with Jeff Jarvis on Judith Miller; but he makes a more interesting, and ultimately a more potentially persuasive argument than most of the addled celebrities the Democratic party tends to rely on these days.

  • **Right wing extremist** is rather a ‘liberal’ interpretation of criticism of the present adminisration. Criticism is rather more directed toward the robber baron philosophy, welfare for corporate friends, cronyism, suppression of policies (instituted from the depression on) that ameliorate conditions for poor, elderly, disabled, and deprived children, and the general tone of disservice to the public that characterizes this administration.

    That even the right wing is now rejecting the ‘character’ of this administration is a promising indication, and that facts may win out yet over propaganda/sales pitch spin. Truly wonderful that goodness and regard for our fellow man may be the ‘uniting’ element. I look forward to it with hope renewed.

  • David

    > for Democrats to say we’ll take her anyway is essentially a cynical and
    >even irresponsible act.

    Jarvis goes on a talkshow pretending to be the voice for liberals and winds up attacking the Democrats, how original.

    Please gives us some links to Democratic Senators who have said they’ll be voting for Miers. Why do I know you WON’T FIND ANY except the ones made up in your head.

    What I want to know is why do you LIE to the CNN and MSNBC audience? You go on these talkshows pretending to be a liberal/lefty democrat when you have said over and over again on this blog that you are a moderate/centrist. So why don’t you tell Kurtz et. all that you can’t go on there and pretend to be someone that you are not and instead let them ask one of the real liberal bloggers take your place instead of lying to their audience over and over again.

  • Mork

    As far as I can tell, Jeff, what pissed of liberal bloggers is you claiming to be one of them before putting the boot in.

    And I think they have a point. To describe the incoherent and largely self-serving political impulses you exhibit on this blog as “liberalism” is to deprive the term of any sensible meaning.

    With friends like you …

  • Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has expressed defense for Meiers from criticism on the right. From KESQ, :

    During an interview yesterday on C-N-N Feinstein said the criticism of Miers by conservatives was “sexist.”

  • David

    When did Feinstein say she’d be voting for her? Where? You won’t find one democratic senator saying they’ll be voting for her and when/if a vote is taken none will vote for her.

  • I don’t see where Jarvis said Democrats declared they would vote for Meiers.

  • Shelby


    I don’t know whether Harry Reid ever said he’d vote for her (like all the other Senators he wanted to keep his options open), but he did tell Bush before Miers was nominated that she was the sort of person he’d like to see offered the job. No doubt Bush is therefore feeling rather betrayed that the Democratic senators didn’t go to bat for her. So at least you can take solace in that.