Macho Nachos

"Physically Painful to Read"

That's a good friend's assessment (he may feel free to take the credit, if he reads this story and so desires) of the most recent writing sample from Harriet Miers. It's hard to disagree.

Some folks will fault her for her sentence construction. Some will doubtless point out that her sentencess seem to be deliberately constructed to thwart any attempt at discerning substantive meaning from them. Myself, I have no room to complain about these things, given the structural quality of my own writing.

However, I know intellectual vapidity when I see it. Additionally, I've sat through more of my share of worthless "diversity training," in which empty platitudes are repeated ad nauseam in a fruitless attempt to control thought through the sheer volume of empty syllables. The Miers writings released today are a horrid combination of the two:

 

More and more, intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems.

We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism.

When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.

"An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

"There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law." Any yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."

Ye gads.

Really, folks. At this point I'm looking for a reason to lay down my sword and at least tolerate this nomination. Instead, every day I find a new reason to return to stage 2. Someone help.

The Argument Not Answered

Robert Bork gets it. He is one of the few, apparently, who do.

Bork was on Hannity's radio program this afternoon, and when Hannity asked him why he opposed the nomination of Harriet Miers, Bork immediately hit on the reason that I have been advocating since day one - and which I have yet to hear any pro-nomination folks answer.

Much of the discussion thus far has centered around Harriet Miers as a person: whether she is qualified, whether she is an originalist, whether she will vote to overturn Roe, whether she is pro-affirmative action, and (for some bizarre reason) whether she is a dedicated Christian. Alternately, the debate has centered for some around George W. Bush, since his endorsement has been the most substantive defense of her nomination: whether Bush a true conservative, whether his record of nominating conservative judges is enough, whether Bush is personally motivated by social conservative causes. In the third place, the argument has centered around the political wisdom of the nomination: whether this was the right move for the Republican party, whether any other judge could have been confirmed, whether opposition to Miers is harmful to the Republican party's electoral chances, whether a "fight" in the Senate over judicial philosophy would have been appropriate, and whether the resultant push for Miers has been effective.

To some extent, all of these are legitimate areas of concern and fertile ground for argument in this nomination battle. However, they also ignore the larger fact that this nomination is about more than Harriet Miers, or George W. Bush, or even short-term electoral jockeying. What is at stake here is the future shape of the federal judiciary, perhaps for an entire generation.

This nomination has done much to harm the shape of that future, and so must be rejected.

 

As many of you know, I am a law student. I have been fortunate enough to be able to attend one of the top 20 schools in the country. I am actually the second person in my family to go through law school - my older sister graduated around nine years ago from a smaller school in a much more conservative area of the country and used to regale me with stories about her moonbat professors and their flagrant disregard for all things not embodied in common law. Thus I was fully prepared for a three year immersion in liberal orthodoxy, surrounded by ideological hostility from students and teachers alike. What I have found is that in a few short years, even the culture in which young lawyers are trained has changed tremendously.

One of the things that I'm sure all former law students remember with fondness are student activity luncheons. These are great for a starving law student because for the first six or seven weeks of the year, you never have to buy lunch - some organization or the other will provide it for you if you will come and listen to their sales pitch during lunch. I've been to probably 15 or so of these luncheons, and was delighted to discover that the Federalist Society meetings have by far been the most well-attended of all. One of my professors testified on behalf of John Roberts recently. I feel that if I am in an ideological minority at all, it is only a minority by a very small margin.

I would imagine that if you took a trip to most any law school in the country, you would see conversions like this taking place. Young conservatives, motivated by the desire to change what we perceive as an out-of-control judiciary, have decided to enter the system and see what we can make of it ourselves. Many of us were inspired by the writings of people like Antonin Scalia, whose brilliance and vision of textualism and judicial restraint struck resonant chords with us about how the judiciary ought to work.

Scalia and Rehnquist were also important to those of us who paid attention to politics in the 80s. They showed us that judges who had a bold vision of judicial restraint, and were vocal about that vision, could someday aspire to the highest court in the land, where real change might be possible. It gave us hope that if we wanted to enter the system, one day we might become a significant part of fixing it.

Since the confirmation of Scalia and the elevation of Rehnquist, that hope has been gradually fading. With the nomination of Harriet Miers, following closely on the heels of John Roberts, the final nail has been pounded into the coffin of that hope.

Of far more important consequence than the dashing of the hopes of various law school students, this nomination has done significant harm to conservatism in the federal judiciary, by sending a chilling message to federal judges who are currently sitting on the bench. That clear message is, "Keep your head down. Don't do anything controversial. If you have a controversial opinion, keep it to yourself, and for Heaven's sake, don't vote conservative on a controversial case." Such a standard does not apply to liberals - only to conservatives. Liberals are free to be as vocally liberal from the bench (and anywhere else) as they might desire. Favor the legalization of prostitution? No problem. Favor the abolition of Mother's Day and Father's Day in favor of Unisex Parent's Day? No problem. On the record numerous times in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade? Step right up, your SCOTUS seats await.

But if you're a conservative in the judiciary, you'd better do everything within your power to hide it; because if you don't, someday a Republican President will inevitably disqualify you from consideration, even if his party is in the majority in the Senate. This is an unacceptable policy amounting to discrimination on ideological grounds, and it must end. The repercussions of allowing this policy whereby those with strong conservative positions are consistently passed over for promotions in favor of blank slates and liberals will have a devastating effect on the lower federal judiciary if it is left unchecked.

The Supreme Court grants cert. to around 100 cases a year. It denies cert. to around 7,000 or 8,000 cases a year, which means that the overwhelming number of cases are decided by the lower judiciary, state or federal. This does not even count the cases for which a writ of certiorari is never even petitioned.

Is it worth the potential effect this nomination might have on all those thousands of cases in order to place one vote on the court which might potentially turn out to be a reliable conservative vote? More to the point, is it worth that potential effect to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court?

I maintain that it is not. I have not yet seen any Miers defender maintain that it is, either. I believe that this is because not many folks are able to embrace the level of myopia such a position would require.

Assume the Position

Columnist extraordinaire Jack Kelly has a post up today in which he analyzes some of the reaction to the Miers nomination. Among other things, his post extensively quotes a Freeper with "inside information," who is one of the very few people I've seen to switch from being anti-Miers to pro-Miers (the number switching the other way seems to be growing.)

To basically summarize, the Freeper in question makes three points, based upon inside information that he believes to be trustworthy. First, he claims, Harriet Miers is literally the only candidate on the President's list who could have gotten through the Senate. Second, he says, Specter was ready and raring to Bork another judicial candidate. Third, this is all the Senate's fault, and if we want the problem fixed, we need to work harder to get even more Republicans elected.

Now, this Freeper (Pukin Dog), is very well-stated, and his position sounds very reasonable. "We wanted to do better, but political realities are what they are. WHy don't you get out there and beat the paths in 2006, and maybe next time it will turn out better?"

Sounds reasonable right? I'll tell you what, Mr. Anonymous Inside White House Source, you send a decent candidate down to the Senate first, and if they reject him/her, then you come to me with this madness-dressed-in-sanity crap. Don't explain to me why you pre-emptively surrendered with, "You folks need to get out there and work harder."

Let's get this straight. Some blame is gonna go around if this judicial nomination bombs. If the President wanted to insulate himself from that blame, he owed it to his own administration to give it a shot and place the onus squarely on the Senate to oppose a qualified candidate on purely ideological grounds. Make them do it in front of the whole nation - Democrat and RINO alike - and if the chips fall that way, then let em fall, and then you can give us this, "I have to send my staff attorney in there now, she's the best person who can get through."

I'll tell you why this is important, Mr. Source. Whenever we hear stuff like this as an explanation for why something cannot be done before it is even tried, it lends a little more credibility to what the moonbats have been saying for years - that the party really doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that you're using it to string us all along and get easy votes.

Personally, I'm done being your cash (vote) cow. You can prove to me that you mean to be a pro-life party in more than name, or I'm going to start giving serious credence to the belief that you really are duping me, and I really hate being duped. You can successfully accomplish this by withdrawing this miserable nomination and at least trying to send up a worthy nominee. If that nominee fails because of Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee, then you can come back and talk to me about working to increase your majority even further.

Until then, I'm tired of being told, "I'll respect you in the morning."

Coalition of the Illin' Logo

Thanks to Doug at Bogus Gold and the Freedom Dogs for whipping up a logo for the Coalition for the Illin' (prominently displayed in your screen's top right-hand corner). Now Patrick Ruffini can no longer taunt me for my lack of cool logo. :-)

Seriously, Patrick is great, even if he is dead wrong from time to time (like right now), but the Freedom Dogs say it's actually the Coalition of the Shillin' that he's heading. Ouch.

By the way, the folks at What Now have joined the coalition, and congratulations on the Corner link.

In the Event of Defeat

There's been a lot of rumbling and unease among the conservative punditry lately about what might happen if the Miers nomination is defeated/withdrawn. Even a lot of folks who just as miffed by this ordeal as I am seem to be nervous that if the Miers nomination is stared down, that will somehow spell doom for the Republican party. Well, what about this worry?

I suppose that, historically speaking, it is legitimate to be concerned, at the very least, about 2006. The best historical indicator we have to go on, of course, is the 1992 election, which immediately followed two consecutive Bush 41 disasters: the violation of "read my lips" and the nomination of David Souter. In response to this outright betrayal, many conservatives stayed home/voted Perot, and thusly we got eight years of Bill Clinton. Not such a great outcome, I know. However, the aftermath was actually what revived the Republican party.

You see, after 1992, a bunch of smart political guys like Haley Barbour and Newt Gingrich decided that appeasing liberals wasn't such a hot way to go, electorally speaking, and that for one election cycle, they ought to just be unapologetically conservative. Stand straight up for less spending and smaller government. Sell the conservative message hard and direct to the people, and see if they buy it. The result, as I'm sure you will remember, was the revolution of 1994, and the re-awakening of the Republican party.

Now, at this juncture, we stand with even less to lose, politically speaking. Let us suppose that the defeat of this nomination necessarily would entail electoral losses in 2006 (a debatable proposition at best). We would still be better off now than we were in 1992, in that we would not be opening the door for a Democrat to take control of the Presidency for 8 years - and I would view the Presidency as being the more significant prize, electorally speaking (especially given the current GWOT). Also, we would be looking at a Souter-style revolt without the added indigestion of having a justice like David Souter actually put on the bench for at least 15 years. In other words, it's perfectly possible to send a message to the party apparatus that they're forgetting their principles and ticking all of us off without losing nearly as much as we did in 1992. And, ironically, it may be the same man pulling the party out of the fire in 2008 that pulled us out in 1994 (Haley Barbour).

I know there are some that disagree with me, but I just can't shake the feeling that since 1994, the party has lost its conservative way. They've become bloated and short-sighted in their approach, attempting to bribe the people with their own money, as it were. In other words, they've almost become the very Democrats they supplanted (with the exception of foreign policy, which is again controlled in the largest part by the President, not the Congress).

We've tried sending emails and phone calls. We've tried getting the message through in blogs. The current furor over Miers is the most sustained message I've ever seen from a base to its elected officials. If this doesn't work, I don't really know of an effective way to get their attention short of hitting them where it hurts - the ballot box. And if that can bring back Republicans again, I don't think it will be such an awful price to pay.

To be clear - I don't think the rejection of Harriet Miers will necessarily produce an electoral disaster in 2006. In fact, I would posit that her confirmation poses an exactly equal risk of electoral disaster, especially if she turns out to be anything short of fantastic, given the open hostility that has erupted over the past week, and seems to be growing. But even supposing that it does, I have reason to hope that the party will be able to right the ship in time for 2008, and that the climate will be right for another conservative revolution then.

Coalition of the Illin', Old School Style

The Pile-On continues. The number of big-name conservative and old-school thinkers opposing the Miers nomination grows longer every hour:

Robert Bork: "I think it’s a disaster on every level."

Charles Krauthammer: "If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."

George Will: "If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."

Bruce Fein: "Cronyism is the signature of the Bush administration. Harriet Miers' nomination to the United States Supreme Court is the high-water mark. The Senate should reject the nomination to honor the original meaning of the Constitution."

Bill Kristol: "President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?"

What I am waiting for, at this point, is a single old-school conservative thinker to come out in support of this nomination. Interestingly, the only candidate thus far is Leonard Leo, whose Federalist Society Harriet Miers has dissed. The pile-on just keeps getting larger.

On Judicial Philosophy and "Legislating from the Bench"

Here we are, almost a whole week after the announcement of Harriet Miers as the President's nominee to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. A lot of things have been said and feelings have been hurt, and I've seen folks at each other's throats that I never in a million years expected to see on the opposite side of any argument.

Putting aside for a moment the unhelpful accusations of elitism and true believer syndrome, I'd like to look for just a moment at why Bush's constant assurance that Miers will not legislate from the bench is accurate in distinguishing, say, a Scalia from a Stevens, but not a Stevens from a Kennedy.

Jurisprudence, like most disciplines, is not easily reduced to one-sentence platitudes - and like most other disciplines, it is also difficult to predict performance on the part of one who has never before performed.

Textualism, as a philosophy of jurisprudence, is not a simple flat rule that you can throw onto any case and arrive at an easy answer. It is quite simply not enough for someone to approach the judiciary with the commitment to not to outright make law from the bench. There are several reasons for this.

In the first place, there is a legitimate place for judge-made law, or common law. Certain statutes are deliberately ambiguous or vague as they are passed by the legislatures. Legislatures will often do this out of a desire of delegating to the courts the power to make the specific applications of law, and to flesh out the specifics of the general purpose they want accomplished on a case-by-case basis. Take, for instance, the Sherman Anti-Trust act, which in effect declared that the Legislature wanted the courts to keep monopolies and trusts from forming - and left the specifics entirely up to them. More recently, the IDEA and other statutes have done the same.

So, despite the confident assurance of Bush that Miers will not "legislate from the bench," what do we know about how Harriet Miers will rule on anti-trust cases, or cases involving education for those with disabilities - or in general about her view about how the common law ought to be properly formulated in such a situation? At this point, diddly squat. These may not be important issues to you, but by far the larger number of cases that the Supreme Court hears are not cases where there is a clearly defined statutory provision, where the answer is as simple as, "Do I apply this law, or invent my own?" The court of last resort is specifically intended to deal with the questions for which there is no easy answer, and the truth lies somewhere in the gaps of the existing common and statutory law.

Another reason that a commitment to refrain from "legislating from the bench" is an inadequate approach to jurisprudence is that some statutes are inherently vague - due in no small part to the limitations of language itself (among other factors). Consider, for instance, H.L.A. Hart's famous "No Vehicles May be Taken Into the Park," hypothetical - which posits that in a certain hypothetical park, someone had posted a sign, in accordance with a city ordinace, that said, "No Vehicles May be Taken Into the Park." This seems, prima facie, to be a remarkably easy statute to interpret, but its application becomes stickier when put to some interesting tests. For instance, does the law apply to:

• A war memorial which includes a military jeep placed on a pedestal
• A riding lawnmower
• A motorized wheelchair
• A nonmotorized wheelchair
• A bicycle
• A baby stroller
• A child's wagon

Clearly, a mere commitment to "not legislate from the bench," does not answer the broader question of how one approaches ambiguity in statutes in general, for there is where much judicial decision-making is found. It also ignores the broader questions about how one deals with legislative intent and purpose, or even if one deems those to be relevant - or even discernible.

For instance, many judges feel that they are doing right by the legislature when they consult legislative history - committee reports, floor speeches and the like - when the meaning, intent or purpose of a statute is unclear. They are not legislating from the bench, after all - in fact, they reason, they are trying to do their due diligence in determining exactly what the legislature wanted them to do. Without getting into a lengthy discussion, this is perhaps the greatest battleground of statutory interpretation today, and "I won't legislate from the bench," is simply not an answer. Is it appropriate to consult the legislative history? Why or why not? Is there a way to determine what Harriet Miers will do once she is on the court, given the information we have available now? I submit that it is not possible whatsoever to know - and further that this is one of the primary differences that separates a Scalia from a Kennedy.

Also unanswered by "She won't legislate from the bench," is the extent to which textualism will be applied, even when the plain meaning of the statute produces "absurd" results. For instance, in the infamous McBoyle v. United States (283 U.S. 25), the court examined a statute which prohibited the transportation of a stolen motor vehicle across state lines. The statute read, in part:

The term "motor vehicle" shall include an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails."

The court held (unanimously) that an airplane was not a motor vehicle as designated under the statute in question. To what extent would Harriet Miers be willing to avoid the temptation to apply a little elasticity to avoid what would seem to be an absurd result? Or what about another infamous case, Wadsworth v. Siek (254 N.E.2d 738), in which a man, John Siek, beat his wife to death. He was indicted for first degree murder but pled guilty to the lesser offense of manslaughter - and was convicted and sentenced to prison. The court examined whether he should be allowed to inherit a portion of his wife's estate. The Ohio statute to which the court turned read in part as follows:

No person finally adjudged guilty * * * of murder in the first or second degree, shall inherit or take any part of the real or personal estate of the person killed. * * * With respect to inheritance from or particiaption under the will of the person killed, such person shall be considered as though he had preceded in death the person killed

Hmm. Well, Mr. Siek was not "adjudged" guilty of anything, and certainly not of murder in the first or second degree. Yet, it seems clear that the intent of the statute is to prevent people from benefiting from a death that they have caused. Do you go ahead and disallow Mr. Siek from inheriting, adhering to the apparent intent of the statute's creators, or follow the letter of the statute itself? I submit that these are the kinds of questions that you do not know how you will decide until they come before you in court. One kind of judge will allow the inheritance, and another will not, and neither will think in their mind, "I have just created law from the bench." We knew how John Roberts would decide in such a case, as we read his opinion that dripped with scorn for the statute which led to the imprisonment of an adolescent girl for eating a french fry on the Metro - but he applied the law anyway. About Harriet Miers, we know no such thing.

Other questions remain absolutely unanswered by "She won't legislate from the bench." Supposing that she is a textualist, to what extent is her textualism founded on Public Choice Theory (which often makes a tremendous difference in outcome)? Does she apply a linguistic canon like expressio unius (the expression of a thing is the exclusion of another)? Some other? How rigidly? To what extent are more substantive canons applied? To what extent will she be influenced by the potential consequences of her decisions, or the morality of them? How willing is she to apply the rule of lenity?

Now, I am not one of the yammering fools in the media who have bought into belief that Bush is dumb, and therefore incapable of even understanding these questions. But I am reasonably sure that they are not questions that he has to deal with on a daily basis. Bush, after all, has spent his entire life in politics in the executive branch, making administrative kinds of decisions. Legal decisions are of an entirely different sort, and require an entirely different set of presupposed questions. This is not a bad thing - I don't want Bush to approach things like he would if he were a Supreme Court judge. But it also means that when the President says, "she shares my judicial philosophy," which he explains as, "she won't legislate from the bench," I don't exactly assume that the above questions I have raised (and they are but a very few of the many appropriate questions) simply have had occasion to occur to him - and if they have, he's given me no indication what he thinks about them, so that I can have any idea what the heck he means when he says, "She shares my judicial philosophy."

Now, these are questions that are answerable for anyone who has sat on the bench for any length of time, and issued opinions in difficult cases. Similarly, even for some lawyers and clerks who have slogged their way through the constitutional muck, leaving a trail of memos and briefs along the way, a general tenor of the nominee's jurisprudential philosophy may be gleaned. For Harriet Miers, we might as well disembowel a goat and spread the entrails on the ground and try to divine the answers in that manner.

And I know that there are a lot of folks out there who still have a lot of trust in Bush where judges are concerned, and that's fine. Constantly, we are reminded of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor. But Bush has nominated literally hundreds of judges to the federal judiciary system over the last five years - and if I wanted to, I'll bet I could dig through and find three that turned out to be pretty crappy, too. None of this is intended as an indictment on the President, except to alert you to the fact that there are questions that a judge must consider that a President doesn't, and that Bush may well be assuming that he has all the knowledge he needs about Harriet Miers when in fact, he does not.

A commitment to "not legislate from the bench," is only a jurisprudential philosophy to someone who is not a judge - it is merely a platitude when one gets into the open areas of the law. And unless that platitude rests upon a solidly constructed foundation of broader legal principle, we may well be discussing the difference between whether we get a Scalia, or a Kennedy, or an O'Connor.

It's still a risk I'm not willing to take.

In Which I Go Completely Insane

This is enough to make me want to pluck out my eyes and pour hydrochloric acid in the sockets:

In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.

AHHHH!!!!

In the first place, nobody calles Supreme Court justices by their first name. I think she meant Earl Warren! In which case, she's either ignorant or evil. But even if she meant Warren Burger, she's praising the most incompetent chief in history! Who, coincidentally, also voted for Roe!

I don't know how much more of this I can take.

No, Hugh, It Wasn't Because She Turned in my Papers Late

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.

Your Causes are Worthless, Too.

Cross Posted: RedState

We've had some great debate on this site over the Harriet Miers nomination, and I want to say thanks to everyone who's participated. Even those who have made just want to scream have, for the most part, put forth your arguments in a reasonable and civil fashion. Here I offer my apologies for any I've offended in a fit of emotionalism. And I also might offer a pre-emptive apology for any I might do it to in the near future. This stuff is important to me.

Which is kind of the whole point of this diary. If people want to disagree with me, that's fine. Even if they want to do it in a way that displays no class or ability to reason, that is also fine. What is not fine with me is worthless garbage like this that denigrates the sincerity and conviction of others:

What does irritate me is those conservatives who basically want to take their marbles and go home since they're disappointed in Bush's nomination. Fine, stay home next election. I hope your sanctimonious conservative purity is warm comfort through the years of Hillary's presidency. Remember that our choice is rarely between the perfect candidate and some other person. Mostly, we have to deal with two imperfect candidates and figure out which one would be less bad for the country. If you're lucky, there might even be a candidate you can like. My experience is that such politicians are rare.

I don't know who the heck Betsy is, I've never read her page before, and I only got there because Hugh Hewitt (who slides down the scale of my estimation on an hourly basis) linked the aforementioned trash favorably. So, I have no idea why Betsy votes Republican, and don't really care to know. Those kinds of things are often personal, and I'm happy to have everyone in the big tent.

But let's hypothesize that Betsy is a small government conservative, who's primary objective is to see federal spending slashed. I'm behind that agenda, too, but it's not at the front of my burner. Nonetheless, I would never have been so belittling and insulting, in the wake of Medicare "reform," to berate upset FisCons like children and tell them to quit threatening to "take their marbles and go home." It would be insulting, and I'd be frankly ashamed to whisper such a thing to a friend, much less publish it on the Internet for thousands of people to see a day.

This may come as a news flash to Betsy and Hugh, and a lot of other people I've been reading and emailing with, but some of us have what we like to call principles. And we involve ourselves in this incredible mess called politics because we like to see those principles advanced. And when it becomes plainly obvious that after a protracted period of time, our principles are simply not going to be advanced - well, then, we have families and jobs and churches and whatnot that would be grateful for the extra time.

So, if you don't agree with my principles, or just don't hold them as strongly as I do, that's just fine with me. They're my principles after all. But if you go start calling me a kid because I try to live by the strength of those principles, you're just going to expose yourself as a second-rate party hack who views winning elections as an end rather than a means. May I be eternally saved from such a pitiful political existence.

So go ahead and sell out your own soul and use your hours and money to try and get the least crooked crook in office. If that's a profitable use of your time, more power to you. But by trying to look down your nose at folks who work in politics because they actually believe in something, you only make yourself seem even smaller than you actually are.