The Fallacy Of Powerline’s Political Wisdom On Harriet Miers
I'll spare the hyperbole here. I wanted to take a look at any substantive claims in the back and forth between (yes, my friend) Mark Levin and Powerline. Rather than write an even longer post, I'll address any other confusions as I find them. While expressing his views, Paul Mirengoff's initial post ends with a slander that would set any conservative off. Yes, we are clearly all dumber than the author of American Taliban, Markos Moulitsas, simply because we happen to disagree with Paul. That about right?
Unfortunately, some leading conservative activists don't see it this way. It's disconcerting to realize that many of our activists aren't even as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas.
Mark responded to Paul's post. Paul then seized upon a later update to attack back.
*UPDATE* I am told Powerline defended the Harriet Meyers nomination and the NRSC support for Specter over Toomey before Specter jumped ship. This better explains Mirengoff's support for Castle and trashing O'Donnell.
Paul insists he was pro-Toomey and that he didn't really support Harriet Miers, calling it a half truth. He also points out Mark heard wrong on Toomey.
In the same paragraph, Levin says we supported the nomination of Harriet Miers. I did at first, but changed my position after facts about her past positions came to light. So we can give Levin credit for a half truth on this one.
Mark corrected the record, but Mirengoff continues to mislead on Harriet Miers. His half-truth claim doesn't really merit a pass. And something of a pattern with Powerline begins to emerge. Perhaps they know better than any one? Heh!
Mirengoff cites to a post some years back where he supported Toomey over Spector, so on that point he is right to object. I was wrong.
Bush nominated Miers on Oct. 3. Powerline not only supported her as the fight against her raged on for weeks, but pointed out how foolish other prominent conservatives were for opposing her.
On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
By Oct. 23, it fell to John, who also jumped in to pile on Mark, at Powerline to point out how clueless and useless was another conservative stalwart, George Will, by linking to Big Lizards.
TWILIGHT OF THE BOW-TIES
Far be it from me to slight George Will's contributions to the conservative movement, but it's time to recognize, I think, that the torch has passed to a new generation. Tonight, somewhat ironically, it's Dafydd ab Hugh's Big Lizards that commits Will's latest polemic to the trash heap of history. … The topic of the debate is George Bush, Harriet Miers, and the Supreme Court. Judge for yourself who is arguing, and who is too tired to do anything but sneer. I wrote our weekly Weekly Standard column on the subject of Ms. Miers and her critics' discontents–or something like that–with emphasis on, what is to be done? My conclusion is quite different from Mr. Will's. We will link when the piece is up on the Standard's site.
Here's what Big Lizards had to say at the approving link from Powerline.
Those of us who support the nomination of Harriet Miers (even reluctantly) were warned repeatedly that we would be devastated, blown away, and inundated by the Noahide deluge of Hurricane Gamma, George Will's unanswerable final whirlwind of rhetorical devastation of Harriet Miers. Instead, all we got was a spritz of seltzer down our pants.
By the 31st, after her withdrawal, John was still complaining that by then the Right had "scuttled" Miers. Paul kept up his strong support for Miers until October 26 when he suddenly reversed himself. He towed the establishment line for almost a month of bitter feuding.
Miers should withdraw. If she doesn't then, absent convincing evidence that her positions today are completely different from the liberal ones contained in the 1993 speech, the Senate should not confirm her.
But, really, the die had already been cast. She withdrew the very next day- and not because of Powerline, I'd wager. The fight was fought by others, not Powerline. And all Paul did was reverse himself at the very last minute for cover, after everyone knew she was toast. Does that genuinely qualify as a half-truth?
I. Don't. Think. So.
From what I've seen, Paul is no more interested in fighting the Tea Party fight for a return to a more Constitutional America, than he was interested in fighting against Harriet Miers. He's happy to take the establishment Republican line, which really is all Mark Levin has been saying all along. Is that a half-truth? Based on his claims surrounding Miers, I suspect one would be better advised to monitor Paul Mirengoff and not Mark Levin when it comes to truth telling.
On October 27, 2005, the White House announced that Harriet Miers had asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination, citing fears that the nomination would create a "burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country.