Oct 09 2005
Welcome CJR readers! I hope you take the time to explore the site a bit. In addition to my spat with Redstate, you may also want to check out my latest post on Miers here, plus I have accumulated quite a few earlier posts here. I sincerely hope you find the visit worth our while.
I would like to offer my condolences to the folks at Redstate for being guinea pigs in my efforts to prove a point. Redstate is one of many conservative blogs out there pushing for the defeat of Miers. My views on this self absorption are well known: if you want me to join a revolt against Bush you better have rock solid evidence of guaranteed, pending doom.
Not theories. Not ‘what if’ scenarios. Not fanatical suspicions of the possibility of some potential probability that Miers is Justice Stevens in hiding who could emerge under hypothetical conditions. Tangible evidence.
Key folks at Redstate have been pushing for a civil war in the republican party, and the broader conservative movement, over the Miers nomination. So on many threads, but this one in particular, I decided to test their mettle. I wanted to know if, beyond their flimsy claims, they had what it took to make this fight real.
They don’t. I was banned because I called the anti-Miers crowd ‘extremists’ and ‘fanatics’. Compared to the innuendo thrown at Miers this is not very tough rhetoric. Especially since there is a real case to be made that people willing to throw Bush overboard for the remainder of his term, over this issue, are being ideological fanatics.
No one has been able proved Miers is John Paul Stevens incarnate. They just have their fears and stubborn ideology pushing them.
I was testing the envelope (and their buttons – especially Leon H) to see if they could handle the intensity of infighting they were calling for. All I can say folks is: do not run to oust Miers if you expect folks like those at Redstate to back you. They had no good responses, and in the end hid behind silencing the voices they could not deal with.
After being pilloried myself, the heat became too much for them and I was banned. Honestly, I feel for them. They missed my continued hints that I was simply bringing on the internal battle they had been calling for. I was stunned to hear Leon H’s concern was based on ‘signals’ Bush was sending to young law students like himself – not on ANYTHING else having to do with Miers experience. But that is what they had. And when pressed they tried to turn off the bad news coming at them.
Miers knows the war on terror, the patriot act and the private sector. Expertise solely lacking in the US SC. Miers is not Hillary. We have no need for this civil war right now. Abortion is still a tough issue to make progress on with or without her.
I made a bet with some that I could find a critical problem with the idea of banning abortions, except in the case of the health (not mental health) of the mother. A position I have supported as something to strive for over the next 5-10 years. Through this debate I found this is to be flawed, and I expect most pro-life people would back my position without any hesitation. And since it is flawed, those backing it without question are flawed in their positions.
This came from broadening out the debate to folks who are a small minority in the population and deal with issues most people, thankfully, never face. Something some of us see as a positive in Miers. My bet still stands. Since this well acclaimed position is apparently critically flawed, how is it some can conclude they know all they need to on this subject? Is it possible to still be wrong at this stage even on this?
Yes it is. So the arrogance of the anti-Miers crowd has drawn me to only one conclusion: they seriously want to have this internal war. So be it. I would very much prefer not to. But as Redstate proved, honest debate is not important when zealots have their one and only issue at stake. They want to purge those of us who disagree with them, even if it is Bush himself and they have no proof of any disagreement. That is where we are.
BTW, anyone from Redstate is welcomed here and welcomed to voice their opinions. We do not ban because we disagree with a view.
BTW, notice how they keep responding to my posts even though I cannot reply in turn?? Very strange behavior indeed. Oh well, that is the sad part of an intra-party war.
Also, check out this post from the guy who banned me for ‘personal attacks’, Thomas
Oh, I get it. You’re an idiot.
[ I never called anyone an idiot. I called them extremists and zealots for wanting this civil war - but I never did this]
Insult your opponents and we’ll treat you like the moron you are.
Nah. Stupidity irritates me for its own sake.
Or because your ability to read is proof that God grants miracles every day.
Well, you’re first. We’re not actually intent on harming the Dear Leader. We know that would hurt you much worse than anything we could do to you.
By the way, this is the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt on the “fanatic” thing. Understood?
Ah, what a perfect example of hypocrisy. Folks, if this is where you are getting advise on legal and judicial matters, I strongly suggest you reconsider. This person was trying to explain why I was about to be banned for personal attacks. Got it? LOL!