Yesterday, in response to a devastating criticism of miers by David Frum (based on personal knowledge), the ever-increasingly hackish Hugh Hewitt responded by musing aloud with a bunch of baseless speculation. Gee, I can't really respond to anything my opponent has said, guess I'll just insinuate that he's evil:
The ordianrily persuasive and careful Frum doubles down (triples down?) on his first blast at Miers, and does so in such a fashion as to raise the question of whether there is some personal ax being ground fine here.
I don't suppose there's any possibilty in the world that Frum was, you know, accurately reporting on events as he saw them, is there, Hugh? No, because that wouldn't fit with your preconceived notion of Miers as a "B+" candidate for the SCOTUS, now would it? Therefore, Frum must be hiding something.
Unfortunately for Hugh - and this is happening a lot nowadays - he's outclassed in this particular fight. Frum responded this morning in cool fashion, and took the invitation to clarify exactly what he meant:
Hugh Hewitt asks whether there isn't some personal animus or motive behind my comments on the Miers nomination. A number of readers have raised the same concern. I suppose it's a natural question. So let me answer for the record that my relations with Miers were always professional and correct when we worked together. I always thought she was a fine and decent person, and I have no personal animus or motive of any kind in this matter.
And though this is probably unnecessary let me add here also: I have been and remain a supporter of this administration and this president. For the past three years, I have been speaking and writing in defense of this administration's goals and this president's character, not just in this country but around the world, most recently in for example The Financial Times. This summer I even proposed to do a documentary about decision-making inside the Bush administration, in hope of refuting once and for all the unfair stereotypes about the way in which it does its work.
The rest of the article is absolutely devastating to Miers supporters, and I would suggest that you read it all. Then I would suggest to Hugh that he drop this argument and move on to something else - he's losing.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that if Miers is a "B+" in Hugh Hewitt's estimation, I've chosen the wrong law school.